We will Ozon layer falling, too much polution, wars(nuclear missles)...

...

There both bad chooses in this case unlike the Bush campaigns 8 years ago there was a lesser of two evils. And Bush was the leaser of the evils how i don't know but he was the lesser one of the two chooses.
With the 2008 race there is no leaser no good no neutral they’re both evil!
Ok what I am trying to say in the 2000 and the 2004 campaign there was two boles of crap the only deferent was one smelt better
In this one we have two boles of crap that look the same smell the same and add that up together kid what do we have… two boils of crap and one of those boils will be the giant figurehead of the great United States of America.
Since it seems that America has had so much ‘problems’ due to the fact that we had a president bring up this crazy problems a then the rest just fell behind him. I say we just lose the president and keep the council and the judges. We lose the president and become a confederation of republic representatives.

We may not as a species survive long enough to colonize other planets on any kind of permanent, significant scale. There are 11 stars less than ten light years away.
http://cass.ucsd.edu/public/nearest.html

We can't go light speed now and its not certain we ever will approach light speed and survive it, but even if we do, it'll be long trip to get to these stars, assuming they even have planets orbiting them. They might not have any planets worth colonizing because of extreme conditions. If they were worth colonizing it'd be very expensive and time consuming to send anyone up there. Worm holes are likely just fiction.

I think what's more likely is we'll continue to overpopulate and destory this planet while assuming that science will solve the problems of space travel, energy and food and human aggression. We'll have wars on earth. The wrong people will get their hands on nuclear, chemical, biological or nano weapons and there will be some sort of major catastrophe that leads to a new dark age or even a total erradication of the human species. The dark age will be our only hope to survive as a species because it'll make the wars more primitive and give the rest of the ecology a chance to rebound. Technologies will be lost. Life will be awful but there will be less chance of someone creating self replicating nano robots that eat all the top soil. In the end some other species might advance to colonize other planets. Some bug that survives in extemem conditions might make it to mars and evolve quickly to survive. It'll evolve and maybe outpace the human race or just survive it. Then in 400 million years it's ancestors will build spaceships and invade earth which by then will ruled by talking, opposable thumbed decendants of coyotes living in some sort of feudal system.

In the year 2090 we will eat beef that is grown like a plant. The huge plants will get energy from the sun and turn it into food. Part of the plant will use that food to create beef and pork. This will spare us the barbarity of destroying a sentient creature in order to gain sustenance.

Imho, its human nature to fight. We will *never* have peace. Unless of course, an Alien Invasion comes, but after the invasion is over, there will continue to be large scale disputes. Its only until a leader comes, one who has the courage to unite all of humanity, will we ever be at peace. (If that sounds like a fictional novel, its because that's highly unlikely)

we won't make it past the moon. NASA is a big waste of money that can be used somewhere else like I don't know, this gas crisis thingy. The point is we aren't colonizing anywhere outside the atmosphere until we fix everything down here, on Earth.(highly unlikely  )

Governments will stay the same in space(if we ever get there); corrupt   We will still blow the crap out of each other too no matter how much resources are up there.

intersteller empires will have one or two more layers of government. maybe even three.


Ie planetary, system, and intersteller.

Pardon me if I was unclear.

We shouldn't be spending big amounts of money on space travel so quickly until we fix some of the problems here, on Earth, otherwise the space programs will come crashing down. Basically what I am trying to say is, haste makes waste.

no, world hunger isn't caused by lack of money. nope. infrastructure isn't money, i don't get where you got that from. dictators trying to control their populations? possibly, but i don't think that's the main cause. World Hunger is caused by the inability to co-exist. Its also caused by the climate. And there are other problems, like Global Warming, WAR, piracy, more war, and personal differences.

First of all we never really need to leave Earth because EVERYTHING we need is here on Earth. If there is a resource crisis then we will develop newer ways to run our everyday lives like the hydrogen powered car which is already developed, but not released yet. We will make synthetic artificial resources from other resources before we develop *Planet Colonization* and *Hyper space travel*. It would cost billions of dollars to fund these ideas and no one really needs to or will pay this much money for a lost cause which we don't need or maybe will never need. To access the resources on other planets and asteroids think of all the resources it would take to reach these other planets. Will the profits really amount to more than the money required to get there. As for our increasing population I doubt that we will need to colonize other planets because Earth has run out of space. The government will probably put limits on the amount of children you could have such as was in China. I think one day in the distant future not near future will we actually colonize planets and asteroids. Keep in mind that there is no survivable atmosphere on other planets that we know of so far and we are not Vasari where we can alter our DNA and metabolisms to match our needs.

Because using non-replenishable resources is becoming less and less practical everyday, for example, oil gets more and more expensive by the day(seems like it doesn't it  ), we will search space for a new resource or more likely, more of the resource that we ran out of. This is because humans are inert, we don't like change. If we found something that works we stick with it, regardless of the consequences sometimes. And that is what's wrong with society today; we don't want to find alternatives.

-- That could be true...



-- I'm setting some high goals for myself, but I'm looking to open a company that will develop civilian and commercial spacecraft, terraforming techniques and materials, and much more.

-- I have a good idea of how I'm founding it but to keep it afloat I'm not entirely sure. possibly next gen weapons and pharmaceuticals.

-- Although this would be in 8-11 years. Maybe somebody else would do this before me, i can't possibly know so i will stay with my plan.

Quote: Just look at the Palestinians picking on the Israelites. They could go anywhere, but they want that one spot.

Hm I was going to take this tread seriously until I read this statement.

Yeah its all he Arabs picking on the Jews. Damn terrorists! (\Sarcasm)

The way this statement is worded leads me to beleive that the author thinks that the Palestinians actions are unreasonable and unprovoked.

The fact that the powers in control of Israel have spent the last 50 years subgating(sp?) the Arab people. Yes the Arabs fight back but if Israel has the right to defend itself why not Palestine?

Currently the death ratio stands at 6 Arabs for every Israel so you can hardly the Palestinians picking on Israel. Regularly Israel's soldiers march into Palestinian territory with heavily armoured bulldozers. There have been cases of Children being fired upon by tanks for throwing rocks at them!!!!

And lets be fair the Israel(or more accuratly the land it occupies) belonged to the Arab people long before the state of Israel was set up.

Now at no point am I trying to stir up racial or religous hatred (because I'm not a Facist- Honest). Of course there alot to say both ways and both sates have committed horrendous atrocities against each other. But it is Israel that is the aggressor and its actions are against the defenceless poor not against an organised militarty. That is why in my opinion they are acting unethically.

Sure lots of groups acting 'in the name of Palestine' have commited horrible terrorist attacks upon Israel but does that mean that any action Martial against the People of Palestine (and applied retrospectively of course) is suddenly justified?

Sorry to disrupt you conversation I just get a wound up when people say quiet 'simple' things without thinking about it for more than a few seconds.

And doubly so when not a single person tries to rebulk them.

Mat,