True.

At least in poverty stricken nations. Oh and the US. But most of the rest of the world is a little different.

Sure in the early days of developments wealth helps in all nations. But it just tends to be a matter of time before new medical tech makes it to all the population in most 1st world nations.

The US is really pretty unique being one of the wealthiest nations but not having universal health care.

I sorta agree.

Unfortunately modern science is slow to change ideas it has accepted in the past.

Neil Degrass Tyson did an interesting talk on the % of religion in science. Based in the US. And it basically indicated that the higher you get. The lower the odds you belie in religiose ideals.

But the levels were pretty high until the top. And still not 0 then.

I personally think (opinion not fact) this has left us with a community. That hesitates to challenge science on religion alone. IE we don’t see ideas thrown out when it is clear religion was involved in forming them. But instead only when clear evidence refutes them.

In my less the humble opinion. This leaves science with a few old wives nuns tails. That are still followed 400years after the 1689 acceptance of the scientific method.

Honestly Humanity has been pretty arrogant. Took 100s of years before we recognised birds use tools. Mainly because everytime it was seen. Some other excuse was seen for why the bird was sticking a stick into a tree. Science was so sure mankind was unique it was unwilling to see reality.

But honestly if you think that is bad. Do some research into why European explorers thought Europe represented the most advanced civilisation. African cities raised to the ground rather then face the idea they may have been their before us.

Sorry but those are assumtions based on the idea that the earth is unique.

It is now estimated thatt trillions of plannests wxist in the milky way alone. And abiur 2 million galaxies in the observable universe. We have absolutly no idea how common ir complex the start of life is. Ands assuming we are in anyway unique is not a scientific answer with the knowlesge we have. It is just an assumption.

If life is common and we habe no way of knowing that is not the case. Then we also have ansolutly no way of knowing how common intelegence is.

If intelegence is common. It is reasonable to assume with time radio is an easy invention. Cos lets face it. Based on our data the least intelegent civilization we know off. And the most intelegent discovered it withing 5k years of discovering what we call civalusation.

So again the idea that it is complex for a life to evolve and develop radio is nothing but an assumption. Admitadly a common one. But not one based on any evidence at all. Instead one that is common mainly due to arrogance of mankind assumeing earth must be unique. Just because we lack the tech to see any others.

As for the odds of us developing in time to hear others. Again. The number of plannets and variaty of distances throw that argumebt in the trash.

The estimated number is so great. That no matter when i. The last *estimated" 13.7 billion years we look at. Odd ate high that nillions of planetz exist at the correct distance for us to hear them at some point in the last 100 years of radio until we die as a race.

Again i want to repeat. I am not saying this is such. I have no idea.so to say it is woild be absurdly arragant. And i am far to pessimistic to think such will happen in my lifetime.

I am only sayiing when you remove the (scientifically unviable based on current knowledge) idea that the earth is unique for some reason. Abd add it to the evidence we have found of how many potential planets are in the universe.

Occams Razer is in no way valid to assume it cannot or is provably not alians.

The simplest explanation is NOT the evolution of an entire other species that survives all the way through to advanced tech to send radio signals.

That make a huge huge religion level assumption. That creats so much complexity to throw occam out ass a viable answer.

Is earth unique.

Without assuming the greatest abundance of evidence we have is unique. Then no occams razer is in no way able to make the existance of other planets having reached a similar status as complex.

I’ll repeat again. I in no way think it is. I just challenge that occam is a viable evidence it is not.

As assuming earth is more complex then any other phenomenon in space. Requires you to explain why earthonly happened once. In the huge amount of time astrology is able to see. And vast space.

Any answer that comes is almost paradoxical in its level of complexity. Without more evidence.

Hmm not so sure.

Hear me out. I am not actually saying it is alians. Just questioning that it is not is the logical conclusion of occams razer.

First remember we have 0 idea atm. So occams assumes the simplist explanation is correct.

But over the past couple of decades. The number of planets we have identified has grown hugly.

We only recently gained the ability to detect anything earth sized. But hav already found several.

Evidence is indication that the number of potential planets that are capable of housing life is far from low. Even if we are taking one in a million planets able. Most scientists interested in the field now agree life existing somewhere is more likely then earth being unique for some reason.

So complexity wise. Other life having evolved and developed radio. Is no more complex then some unknown answer. In fact the idea that it is impossible to be alian life is more complex then the idea that it is possible.

Once we have more information. Things will likely change quickly. And I lack the optimism to claim its likely alians.

But occams razer wise. We have evidence of life creating radio waves and transmitting them into space. As we do it a lot. Where as some totally unknown thing we have never seen up to now is a little more complex as a solution.

It could be inherited from a common ancestor.

Or it could just have likely evolved multiple times in different primate branches.

As we have absolutely no way to document how early it first happened in our own branch. To assume it is linked is just more attempts to try and indicate the human branch is special. Use of tools has been seen in many many branches. We don’t assume that came from a joint ancestor that crawled out of the water. Or before.

How do they handle this on ISS

While you are correct. Human experience wise.

We have long had theories and full maths on centrifugal force’s needed to create a gravity like enviroment

Its really more about the will and dedication to develop such ideas.

I huess you need to add the amount of false science to things as an excuse.

Exxon for example spent millions on climate research. And were the first to discover global warming evidence.

But after a change of leadership spent billions on false or questionable science to argue against man made and every other excuse about the evidence.

Plastics is another that did a huge amount of damage to the laymans intrepretation of science.

Plus many many more over the last 4 or 5 decades.

Hard to blame lay men for thinking science is often about the highest bidder rather then formal methods.

Your last para is likely the important one. Rather then this being some idea to make things more efficient. It was likely done purely to see how human brain cells function. This may long term lead to more effective solutions by mimicking the ideas learned. But ATM we really still do not know how much we don’t know about the human brain.

So the purification filters ate really targets to aim jewish space lasers at vacinated kids?

Not funny whe. It sounds so like R congress people.

Standard jet engines aren’t

So yes there is an alternative. But corperations have to be willing to invest. Just like consumers had to get engines upgraded when we moved to unleaded. And cars replaced when moving to ev or any other fuel.

An valid alternative dose not require everything to be identicle. Only corporate profiteering needs that.

Actually that brings up an interesting comparison. In Victorian england it was common for gentlemen to have art of naked faeries. Because having naked human women was morally unacceptable. Whereas faeries not so much.

Makes you wonder if rural American men find remembering an alien anal probe. As more morally acceptable to their mindset. Than bob next door getting intimate with them.

well rummer has it. That is where aliens tend to congregate.

Seems they must have a very interesting biology. That they developed anal probes as there scientific data gathering device.

Or maybe they evolved on a world with only a liquid diet. So the methods of expelling solid food waste is the most surprising to them.

Or you know maybe lots of red neck folks. Trying to explain to their wives how objects keep getting stuck.

Agreed.

The biospear had several problems. First was they failed to get the air right. After a period they had to introduce oxegen.

Unfortunatly as they had sold to the media as an attempt to make an independent enviroment. RTher then an experiment to learn and develop such stuff. The media instantly started leaping on the fact that they failed.

This caused everything finacial to collasps. As it was a privrate project.

A uni took over. They then had other issues with fungus etc. But looking at what we know about fingal networks now. Many years later. Its hard to know if this was not more informative then believed at the time.

This is why things need a start.

PS biosphear had problems way beyond technical ones. Its science and repurarion was ruined by a number of issues. Some fair most media atracks. These prevented the project gaininf funding to resolve the issues. The summation of it though was. They did not sell the idea thar an experiment is really not a solution. So were attacked when they had to introduce new input.)

But anything like this can only start once we have easy access to space. Then other issues will be solved. While boispear like earth projecrs can help with some major stuff. Convincing folks to invest and learn needs an idea of where it will fo. Thar requires a world wide willing ness to work for the information. Reducing rhe largest cost. (Access into space and ability to mine resources and energy from space is the largest part of that.) Everything else is just time and will. Nothing steller is likely to wipe the plannet out in the bear future. (At least nothing wr see) and honestly space based civilisation around our star has its own long long term time limit. But many issues we have on warth are sased by moving production and resource mining into space. And the other stuff becomes automatically worth solving once mankind has reason to be up there.

We cant do x will always be a reason to learn. Not a limmitTion on our ability to try.

Lets face it. Long term sea voyages were something man kind was very unprepared for. When we discovered sailing. These problems are just the next level of our learning.

Agreed. Only time I can see it being needed. Is if we end up with multiple nation colonies. Trade between them may be a reason.

But its far from clear.

But landing pads alone. Seems like a valid reason to consider the tech.

It may also lead to the production of movable regalth sheets. (Assuming structural integrity can be resolved. ) Used to build shelters.

I can see a future possible. Where people lay rebar like grids in the dust. Cover it. Satalite uses sunlight to power lasers to melt the dust. And that generates a sheet of ceramic material used for all lorts of production.

Personally I feel building stations that orbit the sun. Is more longterm doable. Any planet with the gravity to be habitable just ises more resources to get to and from. Where as using station spin to create our own gravity is very well understood. While also allowing energy from the sun to be way more then needwd.

But it is likely other stations will need to be built to do these things.

Mainly because we can build enviroments where we can grow food and other resources. But it takes time to perfect the methods to do so. And doing so on places like the moon or mars will be easier to start.

The issue is not the texhnology to make space stations self sufficient as far as human need is concerend. It is the will to invest in the ideas we already have to do so.

The only technical issue we have 0 idea how to solve is radiation. And even that. The issue is more about doing so without huge weight.

Lets face it. We know surounding a station with enouth water will protect the inside. But as we build everythijg on earth. Moving a stucture able to hold metre+ wall of water cannot be lifted from earth.

But if we have a (lets just say enviroment as colony is such a complex term) on the moon. Able to produce machinery. Then learning to send shops to the astroid belt. Mine huge ICE asteroids for water oxegen and fuel(h2) is the next logical approch. Followed by mining for metles and ceramic production.

Once we have done that. Time becomes the main cost. As the fuel os there to return goods. (And fuel) with no speakable gravity to fight against. Electricity from the sun on closer orbit would be the main production energy once resorces are moved in. Then building large (even huge) stations surounded with water is just an engineering problem.

Ws know(theorise) to make a station with 1g spin. Livable for humans we need about 200m so something 2x thar diameter would likely be the starting idea. This is the sort of thing we as a race have the skills and knowledge to design and construct if we want. Building hydofarms and even makeing soil is possible. But would need more reserch on effectivness. But again. If we are isingbsolar power with no atmosphere to limit its (outside the stations) the idea of running once built is fairly cheap.

All these things sound science fiction. But they arw well within our current tech understanding. Just not our experience. But the removal of mass based gravity in the movement and production of the resources. Would make these solutions much easier then most seem to think. (Cost and resource wise)

Mainly as a push of point tonother places.

As much as I hate some billionairs attitude to earth.

It is true that even without human greed. Our planet is a single point of failiure for the human race. At some point we need to populate other enviroments.

The moon is not the best place to live. But it is the best place to expand from. Outside earths gravity. We have options to make 1g enviroments using spin. We also have more energy from the sun.

Today we have technical limitations on radiation sheilding and growing in space. But again its all stuff that can be resolved.

We also have far more non organic resources in space. That do not damage a an ecosystem as we mine them.

So if human kind wants to expand we will need to move from this planet eventually.