Are you sure "fortunate" is the term you want to use? 

Yes... actually, that is an important admission. 

Before this continues, is this something related to the topic at hand (the space question, that is)?

Okay... we should really try and get the league thing set up... it looks like there's a few new people in the forum which weren't showing up a month ago when it was first proposed. 

Okay, maybe I should be more specific.  Successful cloning may be much more difficult, as was found by animal testing.  That being said, genetic modification has been occurring for years, though it's currently limited to animals and plants due to ethical concerns.  In theory, if lack of genetic diversity triggers the genetic defects that would stymie population sustainability, manipulating the genes (like we can do with animals and plants) could, in theory, remove some of the monotony among genetic descendants.

Actually, though, I can retract that whole comment.  There's a much simpler and less speculative way to maintain genetic diversity: keep sperm/egg samples in any lifeboat.

Did The_Yell just go libertarian on us? 

Flash is currently a little... tied up... right now...

Perhaps you'd rather talk to Flint?

> V.Kemp wrote:

> Justinian I
"I meant to say that of the set of all political organizations with any relevance in Washington that receive public funding, at least 95% of them are corrupt."

I didn't realized Planned Parenthood was primarily a political organization.

You haven't given any examples of other organizations which are escaping prosecution, you just repeatedly insist they exist and this is 100% political. I don't misunderstand your reasoning; you choose not to respond to mine.

He has actually very clearly said that his stance is purely a matter of faith. 

"Additionally, I implied that at least 95% of the members of government are corrupt, and they nurture a culture of corruption. I also acknowledged that I am accepting this on faith. Faith doesn't require examples. But, for good reason, you are welcome to dismiss my argument on this fact alone."

Simon says he isn't here!

Bulmer, come forth!

> ~Wornstrum~ wrote:

> > Zarf BeebleBrix wrote:

> "I'll have a bigger post later, but I just want to put this out here:"

I knew the economic aspect would appeal to you

"Economics would not necessarily be the only reason for colonization.  The most important social justification is for the purpose of having a Noah's Ark.  Essentially, if a war, mass disease, asteroid, or some other planet-wide disaster occurred on Earth, a colony in space would allow biological samples to remain intact, possibly for a future repopulation.

That being said, if we can agree that this is a good goal even if there is no economic reason for space colonization, the economic question should become "how much are we willing to subsidize a colony for the purpose of having a lifeboat?""

Well, would space be the perfect place for that? I mean, asteroid strikes Earth, all life is dead, where do we repopulate the species and how do we supply the colony anymore (so in this case has to be self-sufficient anyway )? I think that the only possible example would be disease, but then again, I think the same thing can be achieved on Earth at a fraction of the cost. This also comes down to a NEED, and I do not agree that this endeavour would really spark the need for a colony in space (don't they have people frozen in liquid nitrogen for that? )

Well... how much dependence would the colony have on Earth?

It may be possible to grow food in space (I believe the MIR space station was experimenting with hydroponic farms).  Oxygen can be recycled, either mechanically or via a hydroponic farm system.  Energy can be gathered via solar power.  If we use a location which has natural resources like minerals, mining operations may allow the colony to make repairs on itself.  So... aside from rare metals (which can be stored in bulk during the initial operation), is there a continual need for supplies?

But anyway, assuming the colony is self-sustaining, the lifeboat function would be pretty simple: if an asteroid killed all life on earth, the lifeboat population would remain in space until the environmental conditions on Earth settled down (I believe it took 1-2 years for the cloud creation from the K-T asteroid to finally go away).  Once the environmental conditions adjust, the lifeboat population could then return to earth on a hospitable yet near-vacant planet (ideally including some animal and plant biological specimens, if possible).

As for the possible earth-based alternatives, I do note one important problem with those.  Let's take a theoretical example: the US builds a bunker to sustain its population for two years.  WARNING: This may seem silly. 

Now... pretend you're the Russian government.  You hear that the United States is unilaterally constructing a way its population can survive any global catastrophe, including a nuclear war, then repopulate the planet with Americans, putting picket fences and families of 2.2 kids in every country.  Know what that means?  The US just found a way to get around "mutually assured destruction," because even if the Russians destroy every US city and contaminate the planet with radiation, the domestic lifeboat would still be available.  So it's actually in the interests of the Russians to prepare for, then attempt, a nuclear first strike against the United States before the lifeboat can be constructed, because the alternative is that the US can first strike the Russians and, even if every American city is turned into a crater, the Americans would still "win" the nuclear war.

Why does that not apply to a space colony?  There's a couple reasons.  First, a space colony is likely to be more vulnerable to a nuclear response.  If the Russians and Americans ever did get into a nuclear confrontation, the Russians could easily nuke a colony.  Second, a space colony can be made as an international effort, whereas a domestic colony will always carry political bias behind it, if for no other reason than because a colony is restricted to a geographic region.

"This also comes down to a NEED, and I do not agree that this endeavour would really spark the need for a colony in space (don't they have people frozen in liquid nitrogen for that? )"

Now you're not debating a question of "is a colony good."  You're debating a question of "will it happen."  Considering that "will it happen" is a function of "is a colony good," it's disingenuous to assume it won't happen until after we've gone through the good/bad debate.

"EDIT: Actually, though, if we assume a colony would achieve all the ends the current space program achieves, we could consider at least NASA and the ESA budgets as baselines for how much a society is willing to spend, and a cost which would be spent anyway in space, so there wouldn't be THAT big a tradeoff."

What does NASA hope to acheive through its space exploration program? It was based off the Cold War, and sending man to the moon was a political stunt not one for science (as far as I understand). Also, another budget to consider is the Chinese (and North Korea if you believe them ), but again, how much of that budget is set aside for actual manned missions (and are you willing to cut all other scientific research programs to provide funds for the colonisation program?)

Well, there's always an inherent purpose in adventurism (to do something just to show that it can be done).  But then again, that particular period in time did have another non-scientific purpose in that we see the 60's/70's had a huge jump in the number of students entering math/science majors... tech boom!

But anyway... I was just noting here that NASA could be replaced with the space colony program.  So if you think NASA is useless, that only adds to the justification to redirect their funding toward a lifeboat. 

I'll have a bigger post later, but I just want to put this out here:

Economics would not necessarily be the only reason for colonization.  The most important social justification is for the purpose of having a Noah's Ark.  Essentially, if a war, mass disease, asteroid, or some other planet-wide disaster occurred on Earth, a colony in space would allow biological samples to remain intact, possibly for a future repopulation.

That being said, if we can agree that this is a good goal even if there is no economic reason for space colonization, the economic question should become "how much are we willing to subsidize a colony for the purpose of having a lifeboat?"

EDIT: Actually, though, if we assume a colony would achieve all the ends the current space program achieves, we could consider at least NASA and the ESA budgets as baselines for how much a society is willing to spend, and a cost which would be spent anyway in space, so there wouldn't be THAT big a tradeoff.

Lies!

Bulmer again?