Assuming there is another planet that can be settled, under what circumstances would one have to move away from Earth?
(2 votes)
Loading...Do you believe him? He sounds very credible to me, too. He's also a physicist. And according to his own account, he researched UFOs in Area 51.
Will there be a manned mission to Mars in the future, about 10-20 years? We can only talk about projects, but how is progress being made here?
For me they would be black holes.
How close was man or NASA to the sun? Did we fly to Venus? In space, we've always flown away from the sun, right? So never toward the sun?
Moinsen, I have a few questions about space/the universe. 1.) What would happen if an astronaut took off his helmet or even went out without a spacesuit or if the door of a space capsule opened for 20 seconds? 2.) If I move, nudge, or throw an object in space, would it continue to move…
The idea is so absurd. It is much easier to make the Sahara or the North Pole habitable or to build an artificial island on the Pacific than to draw on a distant planet, even if it were so suitable for it.
It is absolutely embarrassing that educated scientists present this repeatedly as a possible solution to environmental problems.
Perfect
Did that make such a thing? Do you have an example? With regard to scientists who actually promote this as a solution.
It’s always being suggested. Of course, the scientists then always emphasize that we should protect our planet. But many find that we should explore how we could live on other planets and what planets would be eligible for it. I think we should invest much more in research as we could live sustainably on Earth. I believe that there is not even an international research programme.
I’m not just talking about climate change. Climate change is just a detail. I am talking about the exponential increase in pollution and exploitation of resources since the beginning of humanity. Many suggest that this is a necessary condition for people or even for intelligent cultures. The question is: could people also survive if pollution and exploitation of resources were not increasing? How could we achieve this?
Just one example: China has tried to stop population growth with a one-child policy. The programme was stopped for economic reasons. The Chinese have found that the economy does not run well if the population does not grow. That was the reason to stop the one-child policy.
I think in many areas we’re hitting this border. The economy demands growth. What many do not know: if the economy does not grow over half a year, prosperity will decrease. Our economy is a Ponzi system. If she doesn’t grow, she breaks down. Many economists claim that this is not different. This would mean that humanity cannot live sustainably.
That’s what I’m trying to do. I am honest about the fact that climate change is still very well limitable and not a substance for a world fall scenario.
I could also formulate that if I were interested.
That is exactly what I mean: it is being researched on a variety of topics, but there is no overall strategy. I have seen that environmentalists have prevented the renovation of a 100-year-old hydroelectric power plant from being environmentalists against wind power and that solar cells on a roof were not allowed, because from an aircraft had been changed from the local image. These are all examples from Switzerland. There is much less coordination internationally.
I mean, an international group of wise people from science, technology and business would have to do and think about what it is all about. They would have to design an overall strategy as to how survival is possible at all. The question of this group is not: how can we improve a little bit locally? What would be enough for us to talk about a sustainable way of life?
I fear what would be necessary is beyond what we would be willing to do by far. – For example, if it turns out that the number of people on Earth would have to be reduced to 1 billion within a few years, I would probably be more for an orderly decline. The bad thing is that we don’t even know what it would take. We don’t even have an international team of researchers trying to find out.
What the Club of Rome did goes in the right direction, but not far enough. It is now necessary to specify these considerations by concretely consider what impact the use of certain technologies would have.
Sustainability has many facets, as there are many research areas, whether energy, material research or sociology, how to get people into the boat to think about the environment.
There are already some international research programmes on various topics.
But I also think, even if you live so sustainably, it would be more appropriate for the general technological development A. More habitat (sorry had no better term) and B. more resources from outside the earth to be able to be heard. This is, of course, quite future music, where A is even more in the future than B, which could be realized in the next decades.
In order for this boom to no longer harm the climate, the production and launch of rockets should possibly be transferred outside the atmosphere. A moon base would be advantageous for this.
Alternatively, you could also find a fuel mixture that does not harm the climate, because as far as I know, there is no such thing at the moment.
Sorry for the long answer
you could no longer live on Earth (environmental pollution) or the Earth would be destroyed (e.g. asteroid impact / lost planet)
In my opinion, when the whole world is completely focused on the basis of our boundless monetary greed (abuse capitalism for these reasons).
And then what people do you want to send to this miracle planet? Everybody’s not gonna be there!
when I become president