Re: Lunacy from Brussels


> It won't happen ever to any meaningful degree. Not enough resources. Also
> a little problem of nowhere useful to go.

That's a laughable comment in both aspects. It's clearly expensive to
build mining equipment, oil rigs, aluminum refineries and so on. It's
dangerous and costly to install and maintain them. Hunting for the
right spot to put them is risky and expensive too. So, we will
obviously never build any "meaningful" number of those appliances. How
could anyone even contemplate such a ludicrous proposal? Oh, wait...
could it be that these devices give us access to huge amounts of
resources otherwise unreachable? Gee, who would have thunk it?

It was not "useful" for colonists in the east to trek to California. It
was not "useful" for people to travel from the first settlements in
Australia across the deserts to the west coast. They were looking for
lebensraum and they were looking for answers - and immortality. They
wanted to be the first, and they were.

Clearly you personally don't have the right attitude to be an explorer.
That's fine; nobody is asking you to put your beer down or get up from
the couch in front of your TV set. The pizza delivery man will deliver
food right to your couch for a price. But don't make the mistake of
believing that this is the non plus ultra of life.

Personally, I would even take a one-way trip to Mars, as long as I had
a reasonable chance of landing and spending some time alive on the
surface. I'd be happy for my tax burden to double if I knew the excess
was going directly to develop technology to get people there safely.

> Star Trek is simply science FICTION. Fun for sure but fiction.

Of course Star Trek is fiction. Real space flight will not resemble
[the majority of] science fiction. Fiction is fiction, though in some
aspects it can be predictive.

.

Relevant Pages