Rape of Mars?

[devance]

The deposits - far beyond the ice that is known to exist in the planet's North Pole - could be so large that were they to melt, they would deluge the planet in water forming an ocean.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6617851.stm

[Jesus On Peyote]

I saw that too, pretty strange.

Dont know what to make of it, maybe launch a few thousand nukes at it to melt the bastard? just a idea to quicken the process

As far as economics goes, if the whole planet was a floating ball of oil, it would still take us a merry long time to get their and bring it back. so i dont think anyone will be raping mars any time soon.

its an interesting thought though,

[husk]

it's a fucking deprssing thought too...

ppl seem to think science is so limitless and righteous...

i mean some ppl here would like to make this planet more 'harmonious' and productive, despite obviously, further manipulating/exploiting of unfucked areas of land with already 'feasible' technologies.

where as over excitable scientists, i think, really just want to escape to a not-to-distant planet, manipulate it and live in some insular techno-city, sell the resources back to us (how much would that cost??).

and surely at least one scientist's fantasy would include, hot, young women kneeling down in subservience to their white coated masters in order to get a taste of the super stylish ice-cold 'mars water' that everybody is talking about, which of course is the fabled fountain of youth...

while both examples are not ideal scenarios in my mind, i would prefer that we humans stick to this planet whether it be for good or for worse, instead of fucking up an untouched(?) planet to repeat the whole (human destruction) process over again...

i don't mean to start an argument, just spinning shit... you know how it is...

pls forward all complaints to:

[email protected]

x peace ppls

Edited May 3, 2007 by husk

[devance]

Not depressing as many life cognizant forms I believe to someday be happening and have a mind like us.

As a example

LIQUID METAL - 6 ELEMENT ALLOY-

his is a complex alloy that again - DOES NOT CONTAIN MERCURY but includes the 6 base elements: Bismuth, Cadmium, Lead, Tin, Gallium, and Indium in very precise proportions. It is super-shiny and glistens with Star-Like metallic flakes on its surface. It remains COMPLETELY SOLID with no liquid sludge until you put it under hot tap water and it melts at a little over 105°F then

----------------------------------

That metallic form of water.

[Jesus On Peyote]

Lmao Husk, No complaints here, agree with ya husk.

On the plus side,scientists think they know more then scientists know (shakes fist) {simpsons quote }

Weve been to the moon once an only once, and can hardly get off the ground without an explosion these days lol. If the human race really is serious about space, they would stop bickering and join space forces.

[tardistestpilot]

I have heard that we have not (at least did not back then) set foot on the moon and was faked.... i think it was if we cant make it we will fake it!!!! ...technology back then was dogdey so was the political situation cold war ,nuke arms race ,and the space race ...now however i can only imagine what they the USA or RUSSIA ,CHINA ect could be capable of. i think now recently in the last twenty years they have had the technology to do so,and probably have , is just what i think anyways

i know it sounds like a conspiracy theory

and is

so i await the impending flames lol

[Jesus On Peyote]

Lol, nah tard, i get ya.

Its a worthy theory, i cant say and cant really be botherd speculating about the nasa scam, but thats what i ment when i said we only got their once and never again.

I think there is "proof" from a russian scientist from back then that said it was near impossible to land on the moon at that time at least coz of the technology wasent there ( i mean if they (the US) can hardly get a rocket off the ground now,imagine back then with there 186 amiga computers), maybe he just said it coz they lost not sure tho.

If i was in charge of the planet ild just focus on the earths problems rather then wasting all the money thats gone into space tech, at least till a unified planet can pull their resources and brains together to get there.

Sure space is cool n all, but after everything thats been learnt, what difference has it made to us mare humans?

[Yeti101]

Mars is over rated. I've heard it has no ozone layer and bugger-all magnetosphere, so anyone who does get there is in for one hell of a sun (and cosmic ray) tan.

[ThunderIdeal]

it's also cold as fxck. so, hardly any warming sun rays, but all of the skin-melting radiation. covered in carbon dioxide. might be paradise for some ray-hardy, cold-hardy plants if you could irrigate them.

[devance]

http://rawstory.com/showoutarticle.php?src...ease%3D2007-050

Maintaining a molten core over billions of years requires that it also contain a lighter element, such as sulfur, to lower the melting temperature of the core material. The presence of sulfur supports the idea that radial mixing, or the combining of elements both close to the sun and farther away, was involved in Mercury's formation process.

[komodo]

ok well hypothetically.. come nanotech revolution (fingers crossed on that one) making space elevators, shuttle corridors etc should be no problem.

im thinking if there is no ecosystem, if its just raw materials, and we can use them to build SAB spaceships etc.... great! mine it harrrd.

however if theres some kind of life system going on, that needs to be treated with respect. needs checking out first.

i suppose its hard to tell if there is some kind of life force action that isnt yet detectable by our current instrumentation/theories, but probably worth the risk, if it means we can move all the heavy industry over there and make the earth a park, where we know there is all kinds of excellent ecosystem action under dire threat.

[Jesus On Peyote]

I dont think there will be anything good on mars, no life apart from maybe microbes n stuff. It will have Resources but i dont think its worth destroying another planet just for that stuff, even if theres no kind of life.

IMO we needa look further out then mars. into other galaxies. welld need all new nano tech equipment yea.

and instead of stupid rockets we need a big ass mother ship like in independence day

[ThunderIdeal]

they found some planet that they're calling earth's twin. i guess it's small, similar distance from similar star. it's not overly distant. i don't know how they can see such a small planet.

[Jesus On Peyote]

I think they found that with one of the new euro satalights, donno what its called but yea, they shoot it into space n just get it to look out n find stuff.

Anyone see that thing about the supernover or somthing a few days ago?

[komodo]

It will have Resources but i dont think its worth destroying another planet just for that stuff, even if theres no kind of life.

if theres no life, its just a rock flying through space. i mean, its not like we'd destroy the whole planet, just dig up handy minerals and pump a whole lot of weird gas into the atmosphere. then it will be a slightly different rock flying through space. cant see any ethical problem with that?

guess asteroids would be good too, but much harder to mine i bet.

[chilli]

if theres no life, its just a rock flying through space. i mean, its not like we'd destroy the whole planet, just dig up handy minerals and pump a whole lot of weird gas into the atmosphere. then it will be a slightly different rock flying through space. cant see any ethical problem with that?

This is my thought as well, I think sometimes people react to the idea because they've been conditioned to think in terms of protecting our planet, and so they automatically extend the idea to other planets, forgetting that the only reason our planet is so important is because living things depend on it.

I'm curious though komodo (and anyone else with similar beliefs)... as a materialistic atheist (that sounds almost like an epithet, but I don't mean it in that way), do you have any objection to non-human life or ecosystems being destroyed on planets other than Earth, and if so on what basis? What I mean is, given such a worldview, what is the basis for caring for any kind of life that is unrelated to the individual's survival?

Edited May 13, 2007 by IllegalBrain

[komodo]

brain, if you want to ask me something, ask the open question you have, if its genuine. dont start by labelling me, its insulting and i don't take part in set up debate.

Edited May 14, 2007 by komodo

[Jesus On Peyote]

Not to sound like a knob, but Kom, How did IB label you? he did ask a straight forward question

do you have any objection to non-human life or ecosystems being destroyed on planets other than Earth, and if so on what basis? What I mean is, given such a worldview, what is the basis for caring for any kind of life that is unrelated to the individual's survival?

My answer to that is yea i do have objections to destroying alien ecosystems and alien live for personal gain (as in the human race).( as long as they aint the aliens from independence day )

Life is life, no matter if your human, an animal, insect or a life form thousands of light years away from us.

At best, the only reason in my opinion to go looking into space is not for resources and our own "planetary gain", but to find other intelligent life, not to destroy and rape its resources but to try understand it,befriend it and even maybe one day co exist in some kind of sci fi peace.

[chilli]

brain, if you want to ask me something, ask the open question you have, if its genuine. dont start by labelling me, its insulting and i don't take part in set up debate.

Sorry dude, but you're being totally fucking paranoid... I asked the question as openly as I could, it was exactly what I wanted to know, if you want to accuse me of dissembling you can go fuck yourself.

*EDIT* BTW, I originally had typed "...as a materialistic atheist (that sounds almost like an epithet, but I don't mean it in that way, please correct me with your preferred terms if necessary)" and "given such a worldview, what is the basis for caring for any kind of life that is unrelated to the individual's survival? This comes across kind of smarmy on the internet, but I'm genuinely curious."

I edited it because I thought it sounded fucking ridiculous and unnecessary.

Edited May 14, 2007 by IllegalBrain

[komodo]

hey JOP, it was this language from IB that i was objecting to:

as a materialistic atheist...do you have any objection...on what basis?...given such a worldview

i was being incorrectly labelled materialistic, and declining to defend myself against the inference (proceeding from that incorrect label) that its logically neccesary that i'm self-centred and uncaring. notice how ready IB is to say abusive stuff like go fuck yourself to me, while in the same breath accusing me of paranoia for not playing straw doll for their argument, to me their approach just seems a bit competitive/violent, so my 'response' was indicating something to that effect. its no big deal for me.

back with the program: i'm not a materialistic atheist, which means i can't answer the question the way IB would like. if IB asked (without the presumption) if i have an objection to life being destroyed on other planets i'd say, subjectively, yes, as indicated in my earlier post on thread. if IB is trying to frame a logical inconsistency between "materialistic atheism" and compassion, i'd say, objectively, i can see no reason a materialist cant be passionately devoted to any cause (be it animal rights, basket-weaving, war, beauty, etc), out of fascination, wonder, love, a warm feeling in the belly, whatever. the way i understand the terms, materialism is not self-centred survivalism.

Edited May 15, 2007 by komodo

[Jesus On Peyote]

Kom, you left out

I'm curious though komodo (and anyone else with similar beliefs)... as a materialistic atheist (that sounds almost like an epithet, but I don't mean it in that way)

you could have cleared that up and answered his question in the same post, thus not leading this thread into oblivion.

Edited May 15, 2007 by Jesus On Peyote

[komodo]

was editing my post when you replied and have given the question a go, even though it wasnt really me it was referring to, just had my name on it. JOP i guess from the tone of past two posts you're sure i was being unreasonable, too bad, i can still see where i'm coming from pretty clearly!

Edited May 15, 2007 by komodo

[Jesus On Peyote]

I can see where u are coming from and i saw what he said, but he also said he dident mean it the way it may sound ( due to typing misinterpretations) but there is no need to reply this post

brain, if you want to ask me something, ask the open question you have, if its genuine. dont start by labelling me, its insulting and i don't take part in set up debate.

When instead of saying that you could have solved it in one post

i was being incorrectly labelled materialistic, and declining to defend myself against the inference (proceeding from that incorrect label) that its logically neccesary that i'm self-centred and uncaring. notice how ready IB is to say abusive stuff like go fuck yourself to me, while in the same breath accusing me of paranoia for not playing straw doll for their argument, to me their approach just seems a bit competitive/violent, so my 'response' was indicating something to that effect. its no big deal for me.

back with the program: i'm not a materialistic atheist, which means i can't answer the question the way IB would like. if IB asked (without the presumption) if i have an objection to life being destroyed on other planets i'd say, subjectively, yes, as indicated in my earlier post on thread. if IB is trying to frame a logical inconsistency between "materialistic atheism" and compassion, i'd say, objectively, i can see no reason a materialist cant be passionately devoted to any cause (be it animal rights, basket-weaving, war, beauty, etc), out of fascination, wonder, love, a warm feeling in the belly, whatever. the way i understand the terms, materialism is not self-centred survivalism.

Directly after brains first response. i have no problems with either of you, just trying to highlight the misinterpretation.

from what i know of IB, he aint the kind of person that would purposely try start an argument.

[chilli]

Hi komodo,

"...notice how ready IB is to say abusive stuff like go fuck yourself to me..."

I said "if you want to accuse me of dissembling you can go fuck yourself"

It only applies to you if that's what you were doing... if you weren't, then no need to feel like you're being abused.

What I wrote could definitely have been put better, but the ironic part is I didn't want to appear to be asking a kind of 'hidden' question, which is why I laid out how I understood your philosophy at the outset... ie., if I hadn't qualified my question with the label, you might have wondered why I was asking you that. Sorry for the confusion komodo, you and I just seem to speak at cross purposes a lot. I'll even refrain from addressing you in the third person, as that would be slightly childish.

i'm not a materialistic atheist which means i can't answer the question the way IB would like.

I'm truly very sorry for this mistake, I obviously fucked up big time here... I think I've mixed you up with someone else or misremembered some of your posts... but there is no particular way I would like you to answer it, I'm really not trying to set you up or be duplicitous or any other kind of underhanded thing you seem so quick to accuse me of. I wasn't trying to frame a logical inconsistency, I am sure you have good reasons for believing whatever it is you believe... I was just asking what they were. Not to use against you in some kind of bizarre trap, but so that I could understand your way of thinking better. Why? Dunno... maybe I have a crush on you.

With regards to the actual topic, I see your point that subjective values may drive an individual to prefer one course of action over another, you went a long way to convincing me of this in an earlier discussion. What I don't see is how this can be extended to a system of values that should be normative for others... for instance, you say "if theres some kind of life system going on, that needs to be treated with respect", but why does it need to be? Why should corporations with different values to yours not plunder Mars and for that matter the Earth and the whole universe (lol) for everything its worth? Because the idea of life fills you (or anyone) with a sense of wonder?

The only reason I could come up with is because it may be bad for us and our children, thus appealing to most people's sense of self-preservation and desire to continue the species... thus my reference to self-preservation. Indeed, this is the tack I use when arguing for a green perspective with people I don't know, because they may or may not believe in the sacredness of life itself as I tend to. I've never quite been able to understand for instance radicals who argue that human life isn't important in the grand scheme of things, so they should fuck off or die and leave nature alone, because while this is true enough from their perspective, I fail to see why they think other life is important if they apply the same reasoning.

Forgive me if I've again muddled up what your beliefs are, as I don't know you from a bar of soap... let's make a policy, from now on I'll try not to even ask any kind of personal questions if you try not to read crafty evilness into my posts. Deal?

I may be indulging in slightly acrid rhetoric to compensate for my feelings of being slighted earlier

Edited May 15, 2007 by IllegalBrain

[komodo]

i appreciate the explanation IB, and will try to imagine you have good intentions in future! and JOP thanks for the input, i'd still do things the same way around though.

you say "if theres some kind of life system going on, that needs to be treated with respect", but why does it need to be? Why should corporations with different values to yours not plunder Mars and for that matter the Earth for everything its worth?

philosophically, i think there is no need for anything, only wants. i was using the term in a practical sense, saying that given complex living ecology is valuable, it needs to be looked after. i can make a good case that such value should be ascribed by intelligent, caring, reflective beings like humans, but ultimately the word need as i used it is based on an reasonable assumption of shared values, not an absolute. (IB you've heard some of this before)

im not sure about the emphasis on self-preservation and child rearing urges. speaking for myself, i don't base my values on what is best for my organism and (non-existent) offspring, although i guess many people do. personally i think our blue planet, functioning ecosystems, and biodiversity are shatteringly beautiful, and i put this personal objective idealism of beautiful living systems ahead of the well being of any particular body or species, including my own.

Edited May 15, 2007 by komodo