Since most figures for the rate of deforestation come from die-hard ecologist groups, we can easily assume these numbers to be quite liberal in their
estimation of the actual rate of deforestation we experience. However, this is not the subject of the debate, and I simply wanted to suggest we do not
base the chance of finding a cure on "shady" estimation.
On a side note, how could mapping the ocean floor be nearly as large a task as the exploration of possibly infinite space will prove to be? My friend,
I believe you are just grasping at straws here.
Anti-gravity porjects have been underway for years, albeit behind locked doors in mostly secretive compounds. But to explore the benefits of research
into the nature of gravity we do not need to step into space. This research is done daily without need to leave the ground. If this research is so
pertinent, then it can be continued here on Earth, and not in space.
Indeed, the junk I referred to is self explainitory in nature, but this fact does not decrease the ever growing threat it will pose to our wasteful
That site explains in detail the dangers of high velocity debris currently in Earth orbit, a dangerous debris field which is added to with each new
"Large, manned space stations and large constellations [of satellites] of the late 1990s and beyond demand a better understanding of the hazards of
the dynamic Earth satellite population," the report cautions.
This is a view I agree with, and one which demands our full attention first and foremost before any mention of further exploration, on ANY scale - be
it single nations or a united international effort.
Continuing the issue of debris in space, I quote you saying;
I don't think that we could make enough junk in space as to have anyone notice. Besides we have dumps here, we could create them in space.
We are already creating enough junk in space to be noticed, indeed it seems to be a large scale operation to simply track these debris. Previously I
mentioned the unavoidable fact that we would eventually pollute space, just as we pollute our planet, and you seem to now agree with my views. Indeed
we have dumps here, a major problem we will wrestle with for untold generations to come. Given the scale of the problem while we are confined to a
single planet, why should we feel we have permission to add to a problem we already reconise? No, we cannot venture forth into space and defile it
with our waste while believing this to be the way of the future.
You admit that our possible "neighbors" would be vastly advanced. I hope I am correct in this assumption based on your comments. What do you say
then society would do if faced with an agressor of the likes of humans, with the power we now wield? I highly doubt any race we encounter would
underestimate our capabilities, or the sheer power of our atomic stockpiles. Humans would call it a pre-emptive strike, we were dealing among
ourselves. Reconise the threat, and crush the possible danger now before it takes root and returns to bite. Were this to happen to us, with an alien
race simply acting out of defense against a savage race such as ourselves, humans would call it invasion. We would condemn such an act, not taking the
time to realise what action we would take placed in the same situation.
No, I see no reason to be worried FOR our neighbors, but rather be worried BY them.
I suggest however that while the idea of diversity would be good in theory, we do not want to stretch our resources thin. Resources we both admit are
becoming more evidently finite in nature. Instead, I suggest we DO "do one or the other", but make it an educated choice, being well aware that this
decision could well hold the fate of the human race in the balance.