Honestly, I doubt that our civilization will make it that far.

In the extremely unlikely scenario that we do, our planet will have a dominant government and so, at least for the early stages, will be united in the exploration and colonization of other planets or asteroids.

DON'T INSULT MY PEOPLE, MAAAN!



For missions of exploration and research into space, of course.

However, setting up a functional space colony that can support a human population over a long period of time is a huge step from mere observation and study. It'd take massive amounts of money, time, and ability and we likely wouldn't see any return on the investment for a very long time, which is why its not likely to happen any time soon.

This is why NASA has been ordered to help private business to get into space.

grate the U.S is selling out.

i do not see what that last message had to do with this dicussion. and to the guy talking about anti-matter, we already have that. make very small non-dangerous amounts in labs and send them to hospitals for use in the CAT scan machines.Google it.

Well, with 2/3 of the budget going to the Iraqi war and to various military and defense related spending, there's not a whole lot left over to spend on even highly necessary things like, say, fixing the health care system or helping education, much less to fund a space program.

Private companies devoted solely to the mission of getting us into space with no other concerns (like running a country of several hundred million people) would be the best way to go.

Its still a longshot with our current technology, and its not going to be easy even when we do master cold fusion and plunk mass drivers all over Earth's surface.



Holy GOD that is so cool! Antimatter scanner

They were talking about how expensive it would be to get into space and tax payers didn't want to pay. The federal government already figured that out and made NASA set up a program or two to help private induster to get there.

2/3 of the budget is not going to the Iraq war. It is going to social spending.

I sincerely hope you do not live in the USA. Else I feel sad for you for being such an ignorant person.

As danielost said, 2/3 (quite possible even more) of the budget is going to social spending.



You think?

Having money hungry capitalist companies in charge of the lives of several hundred million people?

You heard of how greedy companies in charge of Hospitals have denied life-dependant operations because the patients could not pay?

And this is a bad thing...? If they can't pay, they die. It's as simple as that. Money is a way of recompense for your productivity. If you don't have enough money to pay for your medical bills, then you obviously weren't productive enough, and as such are a waste of resources which ought to be terminated.




Yes, the "c" does stand for the speed of light: the equation explains how if one kilogram of matter is converted entirely into pure energy you will wind up with approx. 30000000000 J of energy.



Thank you for clarification. "We" is not me and my pet gerbil, but me and the top scientists at Princeton, Cambridge, etc., as I believe I stated before.

Our entire concept of science is based around the laws of Cause and Effect; if they were not so, our entire universe would unravel! By this law we require a Cause for our universe, which would, necessarily, be outside our universe. Now, that cause will also need a cause, and so on, ad infinitum. Which is impossible. We are therefore in need of an "Unmoved Mover" or "Uncaused Cause" as Plato and his student Aristotle put it quite aptly. Any being possessed of this characteristic (i.e., being an "Unmoved Mover") would be a god.

I think that this answers your objection that my arguments have nothing to do with intelligent design as well as your objection of an unsupported premise.

Entropy is, of course, inexorable and unavoidable. Everything moves from order to disorder. No exceptions, and certainly no reverses. Right now, my desk is extremely messy, but I could, of course, clean it up. But this would contradict our notion that everything is constantly moving from order to disorder. Our only answer is that the process of cleaning up adds sufficient entropy to the universe to counterbalance what it's getting rid of. The only thing that I am doing in this exercise is expending energy. In this way, we can conclude that expending energy in some way contributes to disorder and entropy. Since entropy is irreversible, the energy is irrevocably lost to our use.

I must say that I am enjoying this argument, and I look forward to your refutation with anticipation.

My riposte:

Budget Spending Graph for 2007
and

Costs of the Iraq War

Additionally, the hospital dilemma is mainly a result of our health care system, which is in dire need of an overhaul, and, honestly, just because one company creates an unfair and possibly exploitative position for its customers, does that mean every single company is going to do the same thing?

Besides, if an organization is receiving federal aid and grant money, wouldn't it make sense to be sure that they were using that aid and spending that money wisely? Subject them to the Government Performance and Results Act and keep a federal staff member on board the project team and we'd be able to keep things going smoothly.

Forty billions years is a laughably short timescale for the end of the universe. You'll have stars burning for hundreds of billions of years. If you want death by entropy, you're going to have to wait for ten or so more orders of magnitude. I am not aware of any scientists claiming otherwise, but I'm not exactly involved in the peer review process for astronomy. The non-evil scientific community has exiled me to my fortified island lair.


The causes could go on ad infinitum, or the process could be perfectly cyclical.


Calling the forces of nature "God" doesn't really solve the problem with your argument. No where in here do I see support for intelligent design. You need to convince me that your "Unmoved Mover" is intelligent, and that it has a death ray. I refuse to acknowledge the existence of any god without a death ray.


Good for you.

-Dr. B

let me guess your rich?

look i am all for decreasing the population one way or another but this is not the answer for population or for the economy.

ok let look at it this way a 18 year old girl just lost her family, she is poor because the government took all the money to pay off bills and expenses here parents did not pay or where for the funeral. She is barely living from paycheck to paycheck, a few weeks past and she gets raped and gets pregnant. Nine months pass the baby is due. she goes to the hospital, the doctors tell her that every thing will be fine but she has to deliver the baby in a special way that only the doctors could perform or she and the baby will die. The doctor looks over here finical part and the doctor sees that she could not pay for it. So the doctor kick here out, and she goes home with nowhere to go. The next day she is dead, and for what, a problem that was not even here flat.
And do not tell me that this could never happen because some where some place on this crap shit place we call Earth is happening or happened and you know what this probably taking place in the grate U.S.A.

we are humans we have evolved past the laws of nature but yet thanks to that we have crated a new law. in steed of the strong live and grow while the weak die, in are own world we have made that the Rich live while the poor die and grow.

Nothing is black and white. So it is not as simple as that. Money is not a way to recompense your productivity, it is a medium for trade.

It is a bad thing because of social values and culture.

There are living examples of how investing to pay another person's medical bill have resulted in said person living a very productive life. Therefore the investment was returned tenfold.

People are also resources, do not be stupid and throw them away without thinking it over.



Yes.

If all the others companies want to remain competitive, they will have to do the same or be very creative to find another solution.



You ever heard of Red Tape? Or Bureaucracy? Expanding it is never the best idea.

So basically your vision of corporations is that of a faceless, heartless machine that exists only to squeeze the money out of people and not to, like, provide a legitimate service or product and expect a fair amount of payment back? EVERY SINGLE Corporation exists only to further its own agenda and is headed by men who have no principles or morals whatsoever? Is that the claim you're trying to make here?



So how does "requiring a company to submit to certain working standards and making sure they are using their government-allocated resources wisely" translate to bureaucracy and red tape?