I prefer to find a single reason for doing things rather than a thousand reasons why you cant. That sort of mentality would have seen the Apollo missions still on the ground waiting for the nod to go.
There are no such things as problems, only solutions
Colonising Space
Colonising Space
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire."
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
-
Clodhopper
- Posts: 5115
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm
Colonising Space
Is Mars lacking in mineral resources? Mineral resources plus nuclear power equals the ability to create anything physical that is required. Not saying it would be easy.
The Moon is a bit short of the heavier elements, but my impression is that NASA is already talking of a permanent Moon Station and that certainly wouldn't be possible without the ability to be self sufficient in basics. (Oxygen, water, food, iron, perhaps silicon, these days)
Don't know a huge amount about it. Maybe I'm completely wrong. But if we wait until success is guaranteed then we'll never go.
The Moon is a bit short of the heavier elements, but my impression is that NASA is already talking of a permanent Moon Station and that certainly wouldn't be possible without the ability to be self sufficient in basics. (Oxygen, water, food, iron, perhaps silicon, these days)
Don't know a huge amount about it. Maybe I'm completely wrong. But if we wait until success is guaranteed then we'll never go.
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Colonising Space
spot;1259860 wrote: Then you've defined the resources to mine for - enough to be self-sustaining and to expand at a rate sufficient to keep up with the births. If it's not self-sustaining then it's a waste of time, just as you say.
Provided people don't die during the process by all means "get jiggy wit it!".
*Da dah dah dah da dah da, da da dah dah da da!*
I personally won't give any money to do it before I've given it to people that are starving.
Provided people don't die during the process by all means "get jiggy wit it!".
*Da dah dah dah da dah da, da da dah dah da da!*
I personally won't give any money to do it before I've given it to people that are starving.
Colonising Space
K.Snyder;1259874 wrote: Provided people don't die during the process by all means "get jiggy wit it!".
*Da dah dah dah da dah da, da da dah dah da da!*
I personally won't give any money to do it before I've given it to people that are starving.
Everybody dies. I don't care in the slightest how many people die making it happen. If it doesn't happen, all of civilization and history dies. Saving that is a far greater investment than anything I'm proposing.
*Da dah dah dah da dah da, da da dah dah da da!*
I personally won't give any money to do it before I've given it to people that are starving.
Everybody dies. I don't care in the slightest how many people die making it happen. If it doesn't happen, all of civilization and history dies. Saving that is a far greater investment than anything I'm proposing.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
Clodhopper
- Posts: 5115
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm
Colonising Space
K.Snyder;1259874 wrote: Provided people don't die during the process by all means "get jiggy wit it!"
People will die. That's a certainty. Look at the early history of the colonisation of America.
I personally won't give any money to do it before I've given it to people that are starving
Futile. Given the circumstances that gave rise to spot's original comment, the number of starving in the next 100 years is going to increase by billions. Briefly. And unless we can colonise other planets or moons or anywhere other than this fair, green Earth, we'll all join them. You'd save few people for a while at the price of killing the species.
People will die. That's a certainty. Look at the early history of the colonisation of America.
I personally won't give any money to do it before I've given it to people that are starving
Futile. Given the circumstances that gave rise to spot's original comment, the number of starving in the next 100 years is going to increase by billions. Briefly. And unless we can colonise other planets or moons or anywhere other than this fair, green Earth, we'll all join them. You'd save few people for a while at the price of killing the species.
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Colonising Space
spot;1259886 wrote: Everybody dies. I don't care in the slightest how many people die making it happen. If it doesn't happen, all of civilization and history dies. Saving that is a far greater investment than anything I'm proposing.
No one would be against that spot given that there is an inhabitable planet. This argument could see a conclusion if such were the case but it's not. Therefore, you can't expect to spend money on something not known to exist just because you want it to.
What is the argument is speeding up the chances of discovering an inhabitable planet all the while said explorers are sufficiently keeping their expenditures self endowed by virtue of pleasing the investors. When those investors are forced to pay for those projects the context of "pleasing" in this sense is what remains debatable.
I'd proposed to allow space exploration to be entirely commercially owned. I couldn't think of a more fruitful solution to your dream.
No one would be against that spot given that there is an inhabitable planet. This argument could see a conclusion if such were the case but it's not. Therefore, you can't expect to spend money on something not known to exist just because you want it to.
What is the argument is speeding up the chances of discovering an inhabitable planet all the while said explorers are sufficiently keeping their expenditures self endowed by virtue of pleasing the investors. When those investors are forced to pay for those projects the context of "pleasing" in this sense is what remains debatable.
I'd proposed to allow space exploration to be entirely commercially owned. I couldn't think of a more fruitful solution to your dream.
Colonising Space
Lobby against funding NASA then, that's an ideal solution. We're discussing a planet-wide venture here, not a gung-ho American Space Academy.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Colonising Space
Clodhopper;1259889 wrote: People will die. That's a certainty. Look at the early history of the colonisation of America.
Futile. Given the circumstances that gave rise to spot's original comment, the number of starving in the next 100 years is going to increase by billions. Briefly. And unless we can colonise other planets or moons or anywhere other than this fair, green Earth, we'll all join them. You'd save few people for a while at the price of killing the species.
Not if the money spent supersedes the explorers ability to find an inhabitable planet I'm not.
You're both speaking off of the presumption there is one. Certainly easier is it to speak of America in comparison to an inhabitable planet because it exists. Christopher Columbus wouldn't have said the same thing had he not discovered America.
Futile. Given the circumstances that gave rise to spot's original comment, the number of starving in the next 100 years is going to increase by billions. Briefly. And unless we can colonise other planets or moons or anywhere other than this fair, green Earth, we'll all join them. You'd save few people for a while at the price of killing the species.
Not if the money spent supersedes the explorers ability to find an inhabitable planet I'm not.
You're both speaking off of the presumption there is one. Certainly easier is it to speak of America in comparison to an inhabitable planet because it exists. Christopher Columbus wouldn't have said the same thing had he not discovered America.
Colonising Space
spot;1259894 wrote: Lobby against funding NASA then, that's an ideal solution. We're discussing a planet-wide venture here, not a gung-ho American Space Academy.
Where have I been against anything other than space exploration not being at the expense of tax payers?
Where have I been against anything other than space exploration not being at the expense of tax payers?
Colonising Space
K.Snyder;1259898 wrote: [quote=spot]Lobby against funding NASA then, that's an ideal solution. We're discussing a planet-wide venture here, not a gung-ho American Space Academy.Where have I been against anything other than space exploration not being at the expense of tax payers?
When was NASA anything other than an expense on tax payers? if you want to get rid of NASA then by all means lobby to have it shut down. You and I have no point of contact at all in terms of priorities. You want to apply capitalist principles toward making a profit, I want the entire resources of Earth thrown into saving life by getting it established off the Earth as soon as possible, while that can still be achieved. NASA has nothing to do with my objective. America might just as well sit back and continue to do what it does best, consume conspicuously.
When was NASA anything other than an expense on tax payers? if you want to get rid of NASA then by all means lobby to have it shut down. You and I have no point of contact at all in terms of priorities. You want to apply capitalist principles toward making a profit, I want the entire resources of Earth thrown into saving life by getting it established off the Earth as soon as possible, while that can still be achieved. NASA has nothing to do with my objective. America might just as well sit back and continue to do what it does best, consume conspicuously.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Colonising Space
spot;1259372 wrote: The colonies have to be entirely self-sustaining and capable of exponential growth. By all means put several on Mars and even several on the Moon, that might take 200 years to establish them.
During that time the inhabitable planets within a 20 light year radius can be mapped out. Select the best ten candidates from among them and dispatch an ark to each. Travelling at a non-relativistic fiftieth of the speed of light they'd each take up to 1000 years to arrive and a further 1000 years to build up to the stage where they could in turn despatch a further ten equivalent arks each, that being their primary directive after which they're free of obligation. That rate of expansion completely populates the galaxy with Earth life within two million years and puts it into a position of relative safety - I assume it takes a major event to destroy a galaxy.
That's an achievable timescale. There's no significant benefit for the first 200 years, there's a degree of safety once the arks are then despatched, that's improved after 2200 years with departure of the last of the second wave, there's considerable safety as the million year mark is approached.
200 years is an eyeblink as far as species development goes. I think we can invest the planet for that long. It's 40 years since the moon program, we've spent the time since in tentative development. The reason we're about ready is that we now have the processing hardware to build with.
Given that two hundred years is an eyeblink as far as species development is concerned then why do you feel that we cannot take the next hundred years putting the Earth to rights before we start the push for the colonisation of space?
During that time the inhabitable planets within a 20 light year radius can be mapped out. Select the best ten candidates from among them and dispatch an ark to each. Travelling at a non-relativistic fiftieth of the speed of light they'd each take up to 1000 years to arrive and a further 1000 years to build up to the stage where they could in turn despatch a further ten equivalent arks each, that being their primary directive after which they're free of obligation. That rate of expansion completely populates the galaxy with Earth life within two million years and puts it into a position of relative safety - I assume it takes a major event to destroy a galaxy.
That's an achievable timescale. There's no significant benefit for the first 200 years, there's a degree of safety once the arks are then despatched, that's improved after 2200 years with departure of the last of the second wave, there's considerable safety as the million year mark is approached.
200 years is an eyeblink as far as species development goes. I think we can invest the planet for that long. It's 40 years since the moon program, we've spent the time since in tentative development. The reason we're about ready is that we now have the processing hardware to build with.
Given that two hundred years is an eyeblink as far as species development is concerned then why do you feel that we cannot take the next hundred years putting the Earth to rights before we start the push for the colonisation of space?
Colonising Space
mikeinie;1259402 wrote: But think how amazing it would all be,
Like let’s say we populate Mars, and Mars is being governed by the politicians on earth. So the politicians on earth find that the colonization of Mars is expensive, so they introduce a tax on the people living on Mars to fund the colonization.
Then the people on Mars say ‘hey, that’s taxation without representation’ and start a revolution and Mars ends up as an independent planet.
Then earth decides to invade Mars and there is the first of many future planetary wars.
You could make a movie about something like this…..
As many have :wah:
Like let’s say we populate Mars, and Mars is being governed by the politicians on earth. So the politicians on earth find that the colonization of Mars is expensive, so they introduce a tax on the people living on Mars to fund the colonization.
Then the people on Mars say ‘hey, that’s taxation without representation’ and start a revolution and Mars ends up as an independent planet.
Then earth decides to invade Mars and there is the first of many future planetary wars.
You could make a movie about something like this…..
As many have :wah:
Colonising Space
Bryn Mawr;1259907 wrote: Given that two hundred years is an eyeblink as far as species development is concerned then why do you feel that we cannot take the next hundred years putting the Earth to rights before we start the push for the colonisation of space?
Because I think you'll fail, and there's only one shot we can take at it.
Because I think you'll fail, and there's only one shot we can take at it.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Colonising Space
K.Snyder;1259650 wrote: I can't help but be reminded of my childhood when I'd found it desirable to immerse myself with the intricacies, along with the complete and utter "luxury", of choking myself to death on a Pixy Stick.
Mars has no atmosphere and everyone would choke to death. Would be 100,000 years or more before life could be sustained on Mars, in my mind, so come the 1021st century we could begin to get serious about it. Unless "Colonizing Space" is in reference to bringing Mars' atmosphere into fruition via technology and then I'd have to say it'd be a waste of money.
Terraforming Mars would take a thousand years, ten thousand max, but that is not the point. Travel to the nearest Earth-like plant would take as long and colonising Mars would be good practice for the long haul - far better to make your mistakes in your own back yard than half way to infinity.
Mars has no atmosphere and everyone would choke to death. Would be 100,000 years or more before life could be sustained on Mars, in my mind, so come the 1021st century we could begin to get serious about it. Unless "Colonizing Space" is in reference to bringing Mars' atmosphere into fruition via technology and then I'd have to say it'd be a waste of money.
Terraforming Mars would take a thousand years, ten thousand max, but that is not the point. Travel to the nearest Earth-like plant would take as long and colonising Mars would be good practice for the long haul - far better to make your mistakes in your own back yard than half way to infinity.
Colonising Space
K.Snyder;1259856 wrote: You'd have to have enough resources to mine for to keep the operation entirely self sufficient otherwise you're not only negating the reasoning behind the entire project but you'd very definitively serve to waste a 
load of money.
Before you start the project you need to work out the resourcing required to complete it. If you cannot work this out for a Mars colony the how do you ever expect to work it out for a trip to another solar system?
load of money.Before you start the project you need to work out the resourcing required to complete it. If you cannot work this out for a Mars colony the how do you ever expect to work it out for a trip to another solar system?
-
Clodhopper
- Posts: 5115
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm
Colonising Space
K.Snyder;1259896 wrote: Not if the money spent supersedes the explorers ability to find an inhabitable planet I'm not.
You're both speaking off of the presumption there is one. Certainly easier is it to speak of America in comparison to an inhabitable planet because it exists. Christopher Columbus wouldn't have said the same thing had he not discovered America.
I'm not talking about a planet where we can step out of the spaceship and breathe the air. I'm talking about getting a sustainable human gene pool established somewhere other than our quite-possibly-doomed Earth. That means our solar system in the short and medium term. We have the capacity, I think.
You're both speaking off of the presumption there is one. Certainly easier is it to speak of America in comparison to an inhabitable planet because it exists. Christopher Columbus wouldn't have said the same thing had he not discovered America.
I'm not talking about a planet where we can step out of the spaceship and breathe the air. I'm talking about getting a sustainable human gene pool established somewhere other than our quite-possibly-doomed Earth. That means our solar system in the short and medium term. We have the capacity, I think.
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Colonising Space
spot;1259910 wrote: Because I think you'll fail, and there's only one shot we can take at it.
If we fail to stabilize the Earth's environment in the short term then we will not get the time to try for the one shot we can take at space colonisation.
If we fail to stabilize the Earth's environment in the short term then we will not get the time to try for the one shot we can take at space colonisation.
Colonising Space
Bryn Mawr;1259916 wrote: If we fail to stabilize the Earth's environment in the short term then we will not get the time to try for the one shot we can take at space colonisation.
Oddly enough I think we do. Establishing enough of a permanent archive off-planet might take longer than establishing self-sustaining colonies and might cost more to achieve. I'd regard both as essential. We need to get cracking.
Oddly enough I think we do. Establishing enough of a permanent archive off-planet might take longer than establishing self-sustaining colonies and might cost more to achieve. I'd regard both as essential. We need to get cracking.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Colonising Space
spot;1259904 wrote: When was NASA anything other than an expense on tax payers? if you want to get rid of NASA then by all means lobby to have it shut down. You and I have no point of contact at all in terms of priorities. You want to apply capitalist principles toward making a profit, I want the entire resources of Earth thrown into saving life by getting it established off the Earth as soon as possible, while that can still be achieved. NASA has nothing to do with my objective. America might just as well sit back and continue to do what it does best, consume conspicuously.
Other space programs besides NASA are no different when they spend money on the unexplored at the expense of the explored. It's morally corrupt. When those programs use money on space programs that could otherwise go to feed the hungry how is that different?
It's not about ceasing expenditures for space exploration it's about channeling the money to be as productive as possible. Capitalists are going to spend that money anyway that much is blatantly true. No one would deny their own child food to ensure the prolongation of the human species that don't exist yet so how is it logically accurate to do so with someone elses child?
Other space programs besides NASA are no different when they spend money on the unexplored at the expense of the explored. It's morally corrupt. When those programs use money on space programs that could otherwise go to feed the hungry how is that different?
It's not about ceasing expenditures for space exploration it's about channeling the money to be as productive as possible. Capitalists are going to spend that money anyway that much is blatantly true. No one would deny their own child food to ensure the prolongation of the human species that don't exist yet so how is it logically accurate to do so with someone elses child?
-
Clodhopper
- Posts: 5115
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm
Colonising Space
K.Snyder;1259919 wrote: Other space programs besides NASA are no different when they spend money on the unexplored at the expense of the explored. It's morally corrupt. When those programs use money on space programs that could otherwise go to feed the hungry how is that different?
It's not about ceasing expenditures for space exploration it's about channeling the money to be as productive as possible. Capitalists are going to spend that money anyway that much is blatantly true. No one would deny their own child food to ensure the prolongation of the human species that don't exist yet so how is it logically accurate to do so with someone elses child?
At that point it is arguable that any money spend on anything other than necessities is immoral while others are starving. Forget Space - shut down Hollywood, the music industry, pro sport...Where do you want to draw the line?
It's not about ceasing expenditures for space exploration it's about channeling the money to be as productive as possible. Capitalists are going to spend that money anyway that much is blatantly true. No one would deny their own child food to ensure the prolongation of the human species that don't exist yet so how is it logically accurate to do so with someone elses child?
At that point it is arguable that any money spend on anything other than necessities is immoral while others are starving. Forget Space - shut down Hollywood, the music industry, pro sport...Where do you want to draw the line?
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Lone voice: "I'm not."
-
Clodhopper
- Posts: 5115
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm
Colonising Space
spot: I think you are looking too far ahead. While I think your long term goal is a good idea in principle I'd like to see us just get off the planet. I fear your goal of devoting a major part of the World's resources to that end would take a lot longer than 200 years. At which point it's too late.
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Colonising Space
K.Snyder;1259919 wrote: Other space programs besides NASA are no different when they spend money on the unexplored at the expense of the explored. It's morally corrupt. When those programs use money on space programs that could otherwise go to feed the hungry how is that different?
It's not about ceasing expenditures for space exploration it's about channeling the money to be as productive as possible. Capitalists are going to spend that money anyway that much is blatantly true. No one would deny their own child food to ensure the prolongation of the human species that don't exist yet so how is it logically accurate to do so with someone elses child?
Again you're highlighting the gap between our positions. What you regard as "morally corrupt" I regard as a moral obligation. Your argument that "no one would deny their own child food to ensure the prolongation of the human species that don't exist yet" strikes me as both untrue and disgraceful.
It's not about ceasing expenditures for space exploration it's about channeling the money to be as productive as possible. Capitalists are going to spend that money anyway that much is blatantly true. No one would deny their own child food to ensure the prolongation of the human species that don't exist yet so how is it logically accurate to do so with someone elses child?
Again you're highlighting the gap between our positions. What you regard as "morally corrupt" I regard as a moral obligation. Your argument that "no one would deny their own child food to ensure the prolongation of the human species that don't exist yet" strikes me as both untrue and disgraceful.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Colonising Space
Clodhopper;1259922 wrote: At that point it is arguable that any money spend on anything other than necessities is immoral while others are starving. Forget Space - shut down Hollywood, the music industry, pro sport...Where do you want to draw the line?
That would be true if shutting all of those down is what's innately needed but no one could convince me of that.
You don't have to shut down Hollywood, the music industry, pro sports, etc,..etc,.. All of this is supported by the people. The difference is the bias between those that watch sports and those that cannot afford to watch sports(Or choose which I use sports as an example BTW- Geared up for WC South Africa 2010? I'm ecstatic the money those people will receive, eh? Let's hope the economy makes the right choices with it!).
I propose we tax the rich much more than we do now. It's not about shutting anything down it's about the disbursement of the worlds resources so that everyone's children are fed as opposed to the 300 lb 10 year old with two apples(Why's he need so many apples?).
How anyone can sit with millions of dollars/pounds and not feel obligated to give some of it. :yh_tired
That would be true if shutting all of those down is what's innately needed but no one could convince me of that.
You don't have to shut down Hollywood, the music industry, pro sports, etc,..etc,.. All of this is supported by the people. The difference is the bias between those that watch sports and those that cannot afford to watch sports(Or choose which I use sports as an example BTW- Geared up for WC South Africa 2010? I'm ecstatic the money those people will receive, eh? Let's hope the economy makes the right choices with it!).
I propose we tax the rich much more than we do now. It's not about shutting anything down it's about the disbursement of the worlds resources so that everyone's children are fed as opposed to the 300 lb 10 year old with two apples(Why's he need so many apples?).
How anyone can sit with millions of dollars/pounds and not feel obligated to give some of it. :yh_tired
Colonising Space
spot;1259925 wrote: Again you're highlighting the gap between our positions. What you regard as "morally corrupt" I regard as a moral obligation. Your argument that "no one would deny their own child food to ensure the prolongation of the human species that don't exist yet" strikes me as both untrue and disgraceful.
I believe we're descendants of blue-green algae.
That which has not divided knoweth no pain.
I believe we're descendants of blue-green algae.
That which has not divided knoweth no pain.
-
Clodhopper
- Posts: 5115
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm
Colonising Space
spot;1259925 wrote: Again you're highlighting the gap between our positions. What you regard as "morally corrupt" I regard as a moral obligation. Your argument that "no one would deny their own child food to ensure the prolongation of the human species that don't exist yet" strikes me as both untrue and disgraceful.
I think very few people would deny their child food and give the money to the space programme. I could certainly see a case for the billions wasted in eg Hollywood being used for that end instead, though.
I think very few people would deny their child food and give the money to the space programme. I could certainly see a case for the billions wasted in eg Hollywood being used for that end instead, though.
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Colonising Space
Clodhopper;1259928 wrote: I think very few people would deny their child food and give the money to the space programme. I could certainly see a case for the billions wasted in eg Hollywood being used for that end instead, though.
I hate movies. They patronize me as if I don't know what's to be expected. Depictions of history, ironically enough, tells alot more than any fictional movie would as defined as such.
I hate movies. They patronize me as if I don't know what's to be expected. Depictions of history, ironically enough, tells alot more than any fictional movie would as defined as such.