NASA: Mars Colonization - One-way Trips [29th of October]

[Arseface]

I could quite easily turn it around and say many people's view is a naive view on humanity.

You could, but that wouldn't make it right.

 

[Noctus]

Why not? What makes us different from a virus apart from intelligence? We do the same thing a virus would, and just because we're human, it doesn't mean it is justified.

 

[Purple Nurple]

Why not? What makes us different from a virus apart from intelligence? We do the same thing a virus would, and just because we're human, it doesn't mean it is justified.

That's not true. A virus hijacks an exterior body, destroys it, and uses it for it's own gain.

If you haven't noticed, Mars isn't exactly Malibu Beach, if we did go there and colonise, we wouldn't be harming anything that's already there, we would be building upon it. And if you don't like the idea of human progression, that's fine, but think of how big the universe is. Moving to one other planet is hardly going to have universial reprocussions.

Now, Earth is different. But think of it like this: All these fatcats go off to space, they won't be wrecking Earth any more, eh?

 

[Noctus]

That's not true. A virus hijacks an exterior body, destroys it, and uses it for it's own gain.

If you haven't noticed, Mars isn't exactly Malibu Beach, if we did go there and colonise, we wouldn't be harming anything that's already there, we would be building upon it. And if you don't like the idea of human progression, that's fine, but think of how big the universe is. Moving to one other planet is hardly going to have universial reprocussions.

Now, Earth is different. But think of it like this: All these fatcats go off to space, they won't be wrecking Earth any more, eh?

Yeah, instead they'll be wrecking another planet. The condition of Mars is irrelevant, it's still the same principal. I never said I didn't like the idea of "human progression" but it's just one way of interpreting ourselves.

 

[Arseface]

Why not? What makes us different from a virus apart from intelligence? We do the same thing a virus would, and just because we're human, it doesn't mean it is justified.

Because we don't need to hijack metaphorical cells in order to reproduce. The only reason we do is because we reward it, because we're playing by the laws of an obsolete system. We move past that, we move past most of the negative aspects of our society.

If any other animal had our level of intelligence and adaptability, you can bet the result would be exactly the same. We're not the problem, but we can be the solution.

 

[zmalt]

We move past that, we move past most of the negative aspects of our society.

Yup, and if I had wheels, I'd be a wagon.

If any other animal had our level of intelligence and adaptability, you can bet the result would be exactly the same.

Very true, we are intelligent enough to be gluttonous, we will always be intelligent enough to be gluttonous, we will always be gluttonous.

We're not the problem, but we can be the solution.

Well... I'd say if the destruction of our environment is the problem you are referring to, then we are the problem. We can be the solution, but we won't be.

 

[cheezMcNASTY]

Yup, and if I had wheels, I'd be a wagon.

sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken.

Very true, we are intelligent enough to be gluttonous, we will always be intelligent enough to be gluttonous, we will always be gluttonous.

it isn't gluttony, and here's why. during the industrial revolution, there were no hippies. DON'T LAUGH THIS IS GOING SOMEWHERE. we only really started becoming aware of how our technological advancements were harming the environment in the 50's-60's. now we are dependent upon those advancements and have been struggling to make them more eco-friendly where we can. you can't be gluttonous if you never knew being so in the first place.

Well... I'd say if the destruction of our environment is the problem you are referring to, then we are the problem. We can be the solution, but we won't be.

we weren't aware we were being the problem when we were even more so. Ford didn't think "man this is really gonna **** with the atmosphere, that's gonna be so lulzy" when he invented the first car. so yes, we're part of the problem, but we didn't enter that role with actual malice. the human race isn't doomed to consume and consume and consume. we can recycle what we need and survive that way once we figure out how to correct past mistakes.

 

[zmalt]

you can't be gluttonous if you never knew being so in the first place.

I'm not sure what this means, what part of gluttony is "the realization that what you are doing is in fact gluttony"? You cannot tell me that we use just what we need. Every time I see a new housing development, another deforestation, or another slaughterhouse, I don't think, thankfully we're doing this instead of wasting valuable resources. I usually think, wow, that's quite a waste. There is technology benefiting conservation, that I agree with. But you cannot ignore the fact that technology is also used to harvest resources more efficiently even if the need does not increase. I would say that is gluttonous.

we weren't aware we were being the problem when we were even more so. Ford didn't think "man this is really gonna f*** with the atmosphere, that's gonna be so lulzy" when he invented the first car. so yes, we're part of the problem, but we didn't enter that role with actual malice. the human race isn't doomed to consume and consume and consume. we can recycle what we need and survive that way once we figure out how to correct past mistakes.

If there's one thing that humanity is horrible at, it's learning from past mistakes. If there's one thing we're great at, it's doing what makes us feel good. Malice or goodness usually don't have anything to do with it. If it feels good (even if the feeling is only short-term), the majority of the time, we will do it. Nothing feels quite as good as consuming, and as long as we can do it, I'd guess that we will. By no means am I certain of this fact, but I would just say that, we're considering going to Mars because we know that we can not survive as a species with only what we have now, and we have a planet. So we're developing advanced technology, not to save this planet, but to move to another one, I find that telling. I dunno.

 

[cheezMcNASTY]

I'm not sure what this means, what part of gluttony is "the realization that what you are doing is in fact gluttony"? You cannot tell me that we use just what we need. Every time I see a new housing development, another deforestation, or another slaughterhouse, I don't think, thankfully we're doing this instead of wasting valuable resources. I usually think, wow, that's quite a waste. There is technology benefiting conservation, that I agree with. But you cannot ignore the fact that technology is also used to harvest resources more efficiently even if the need does not increase. I would say that is gluttonous.

because doing anything without intent isn't the same thing. if you accidentally hit and kill someone with your car it isn't murder, it's manslaughter. if you as a reporter publish accusations with false information that was correct to your knowledge, you are completely protected in court. technology is where it is today as a result of people not being aware of such things as harming the atmosphere or ocean temperature when they were inventing them.

If there's one thing that humanity is horrible at, it's learning from past mistakes. If there's one thing we're great at, it's doing what makes us feel good. Malice or goodness usually don't have anything to do with it. If it feels good (even if the feeling is only short-term), the majority of the time, we will do it. Nothing feels quite as good as consuming, and as long as we can do it, I'd guess that we will. By no means am I certain of this fact, but I would just say that, we're considering going to Mars because we know that we can not survive as a species with only what we have now, and we have a planet. So we're developing advanced technology, not to save this planet, but to move to another one, I find that telling. I dunno.

you clearly don't know what actual malice is. doing something with actual malice means that it was done with the intent of causing harm, that the negative effects of said action were intended when said act was committed. and i'd argue with that. personally i'm a slave to luxery, but there are plenty, TONS in fact, of people who aren't. vegetarians, volunteers, there are plenty of people out there who are willing to sacrifice a luxery for the greater good.
i do as well in my own way. i recycle, conserve energy wherever possible... even the little things count. here's the reality of it: at the rate we're going the ocean will be uninhabitable in roughly 100 years. there's not much we can do to reverse it. but people are stupid, they aren't even acting on that. we're probably just going into outer space because stephen hawking said to. when it comes to outer space, it seems like he's some sort of parental figure to the human race. :lol:

 

[Arseface]

Very true, we are intelligent enough to be gluttonous, we will always be intelligent enough to be gluttonous, we will always be gluttonous.

We're also intelligent enough to know that gluttony will end up killing us. Do you not see a paradox there?

Well... I'd say if the destruction of our environment is the problem you are referring to, then we are the problem. We can be the solution, but we won't be.

We created that problem out of ignorance. We're grown up enough now that we can start fixing it.

 

[zmalt]

because doing anything without intent isn't the same thing. if you accidentally hit and kill someone with your car it isn't murder, it's manslaughter. if you as a reporter publish accusations with false information that was correct to your knowledge, you are completely protected in court. technology is where it is today as a result of people not being aware of such things as harming the atmosphere or ocean temperature when they were inventing them.

The intent does not matter when the results would be the same regardless of intent (for the purpose of what we're arguing at least). The person who was "manslaughtered" instead of "murdered" is still dead. In the same way our planet will still be drained whether you call the human race a virus or benevolent protectors. We're not going to be punished or have the Earth v. Humanity trial anytime soon. No one really cares about the long-term damages because they won't affect us. We're intelligent enough to be comfortable, in order to be comfortable gluttonous actions must be taken, we will continue to be gluttonous. Once again, intent doesn't matter in this case, if we say, "Thank you mother Earth!", every time we clear a forest, the damage will be no less severe.

you clearly don't know what actual malice is. doing something with actual malice means that it was done with the intent of causing harm, that the negative effects of said action were intended when said act was committed. and i'd argue with that. personally i'm a slave to luxery, but there are plenty, TONS in fact, of people who aren't. vegetarians, volunteers, there are plenty of people out there who are willing to sacrifice a luxery for the greater good.
i do as well in my own way. i recycle, conserve energy wherever possible... even the little things count. here's the reality of it: at the rate we're going the ocean will be uninhabitable in roughly 100 years. there's not much we can do to reverse it. but people are stupid, they aren't even acting on that. we're probably just going into outer space because stephen hawking said to. when it comes to outer space, it seems like he's some sort of parental figure to the human race. :lol:

Of course I know what malice is, I wasn't arguing that we were being malicious, I was in fact saying that malice and goodness had nothing to do with the actions we were taking. We acted out of ignorance in the beginnings of our civilization and took more than we needed, not knowing there was a limit on such things, now we know there is a limit and we still take. We're used to comfort, I'm not saying we're being malicious, I'm saying we're not going to change what we're used to. The little things do count, but against a much larger thing that's happening more frequently. Every time you turn off a light or plug in that new energy star refrigerator there's someone dumping chemicals in a lake or leaving their television on while they sleep. I'm not saying that it's not admirable to do the little things, but I just don't see this planet being permanently inhabitable in the long-term scope of things. And that's a truly heartbreaking shame. I'm not saying we're evil, I'm saying our actions are gluttonous because we are accustomed to comfort. Here's hoping we change.

We're also intelligent enough to know that gluttony will end up killing us. Do you not see a paradox there?

Haha, humanity is a paradox! The only thing that means is that we get the rare privilege of seeing our demise coming.

We created that problem out of ignorance. We're grown up enough now that we can start fixing it.

I would say we've been beyond ignorance for quite some time now, and we're still drilling in our oceans with outdated technology. What does that say about our willingness to fix any of these problems?

I apologize for the long post. I also hope that you're right and I'm being a grouchy pessimist. But the more I see, the more support I have for the negative side of this argument.

 

[Arseface]

Haha, humanity is a paradox! The only thing that means is that we get the rare privilege of seeing our demise coming.

And with that comes the ability to prevent it.

I would say we've been beyond ignorance for quite some time now, and we're still drilling in our oceans with outdated technology. What does that say about our willingness to fix any of these problems?

Well, I should have said some of us are grown up enough. But that's not my point. Lemme espain it to you.

All animals who live in the wild have to compete for resources. Whether that simply means being faster than them and getting to the gazelle first, or totally destroying a nearby tribe/pack/etc to get theirs, it's still competition. It's really the only system that works in the wild (because animals can't rationalise that cooperation will get them more than they get through competition), and since we as a species come from that environment it's really the only way we know how to behave. Now, when you take into account that capitalism, which has done wonders for us to try and regulate and civilise that competition, is now being used to augment it, and actually rewards dishonesty and corruption, you get a feedback loop which will only end when the various economies which run the world collapse OR, we realise that there are better ways of going about things. I'm putting my money on the former, but seeing as how the latter would be infinitely more preferable, why not try?

Just because greed and competition is natural, does not mean that it has to continue.

 

[zmalt]

And with that comes the ability to prevent it.

We have the ability to salvage a lot of what we destroyed, I'm not arguing that. In my opinion, I don't think we will choose to, whether we have that ability or not. Once again, I hope your opinion prevails, it would make me happy.

All animals who live in the wild have to compete for resources. Whether that simply means being faster than them and getting to the gazelle first, or totally destroying a nearby tribe/pack/etc to get theirs, it's still competition. It's really the only system that works in the wild (because animals can't rationalise that cooperation will get them more than they get through competition), and since we as a species come from that environment it's really the only way we know how to behave. Now, when you take into account that capitalism, which has done wonders for us to try and regulate and civilise that competition, is now being used to augment it, and actually rewards dishonesty and corruption, you get a feedback loop which will only end when the various economies which run the world collapse OR, we realise that there are better ways of going about things. I'm putting my money on the former, but seeing as how the latter would be infinitely more preferable, why not try?

Just because greed and competition is natural, does not mean that it has to continue.

Sooooo.... we agree. We both hope for the best, but expect the worst... Unnecessary explanation aside, it was a good discussion. Let's hope people see the light and start planting trees and stop pointing hair dryers at glaciers while simultaneously firing assault rifles at polar bears.

 

[Purple Nurple]

sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken.

Don't say this about Marla - at least she's trying to hit rock bottom.

 

[cheezMcNASTY]

The intent does not matter when the results would be the same regardless of intent (for the purpose of what we're arguing at least). The person who was "manslaughtered" instead of "murdered" is still dead. In the same way our planet will still be drained whether you call the human race a virus or benevolent protectors. We're not going to be punished or have the Earth v. Humanity trial anytime soon.

yes, it does matter. obviously the person is still dead, but we aren't talking about the dead person in this analogy (i.e. the harmed environment), we're talking about the culpability of the human race. a person who ends up killing someone on accident is held responsible in a different way from a murderer. if O.J. Simpson had accidentally killed his wife then we would all probably have a different opinion on the guy. sure, nicole would still be dead, but would his career still be over? would he have to keep such a low profile for fear of being scorned?
i doubt it.

No one really cares about the long-term damages because they won't affect us. We're intelligent enough to be comfortable, in order to be comfortable gluttonous actions must be taken, we will continue to be gluttonous. Once again, intent doesn't matter in this case, if we say, "Thank you mother Earth!", every time we clear a forest, the damage will be no less severe.

hippies care. people who can profit from making green technology care. people who buy said technology care. and the government cares (to a limited degree) else they wouldn't be setting standards in place to fix them. did you know that the majority of toxic emissions comes from africa, asia, and south america? about 3/4 of the problem is out of reach from where i'm standing. so what does my being comfortable have to do with them? i could grab a megaphone and shout at peru, but in the end that'd just be noise pollution.

Of course I know what malice is, I wasn't arguing that we were being malicious, I was in fact saying that malice and goodness had nothing to do with the actions we were taking. We acted out of ignorance in the beginnings of our civilization and took more than we needed, not knowing there was a limit on such things, now we know there is a limit and we still take. We're used to comfort, I'm not saying we're being malicious, I'm saying we're not going to change what we're used to. The little things do count, but against a much larger thing that's happening more frequently. Every time you turn off a light or plug in that new energy star refrigerator there's someone dumping chemicals in a lake or leaving their television on while they sleep. I'm not saying that it's not admirable to do the little things, but I just don't see this planet being permanently inhabitable in the long-term scope of things. And that's a truly heartbreaking shame. I'm not saying we're evil, I'm saying our actions are gluttonous because we are accustomed to comfort. Here's hoping we change.

of course you know what malice is! if i didn't make it clear, i'm not talking about malice. actual malice is a legal term, and that part of your post that i emboldened means you admit that our pollution problem was not done with actual malice, meaning the human race is not inherently destructive (i.e. a virus).

the planet won't be inhabitable, that's not what we're arguing about. with the way things are going (regardless of whether greenhouse emissions are the cause) the ocean will only get warmer.

Haha, humanity is a paradox! The only thing that means is that we get the rare privilege of seeing our demise coming.

I would say we've been beyond ignorance for quite some time now, and we're still drilling in our oceans with outdated technology. What does that say about our willingness to fix any of these problems?

that's the result of the few rich businessmen who'd rather save money by using outdated technology. that small percentage is hardly representative of our entire race.

I apologize for the long post. I also hope that you're right and I'm being a grouchy pessimist. But the more I see, the more support I have for the negative side of this argument.

there really is no right or wrong here. that's what philosophy is, it's arguing about obscurities without actually getting anywhere. it's a good time killer, which is why i'm bothering.

Don't say this about Marla - at least she's trying to hit rock bottom.

she's just got to give up man. she has to realize that some day she's gonna die. until she knows that she's useless.
skank.