I personally would rather die on earth than live on the moon. I mean seriously........what kind of life would that be??? I'd rather see the human race become extinct on earth, than to dirty up that beautiful orb in the night sky.
Printable View
I personally would rather die on earth than live on the moon. I mean seriously........what kind of life would that be??? I'd rather see the human race become extinct on earth, than to dirty up that beautiful orb in the night sky.
Really agreed, although it is a preference. But yea I suppose I'm very of the earth really. I want this planet which I have evolved by millions of years of evolution for, with all the things this body and psyche have for millions striven to accommodate. A single sun on an approximate 24 hour day. This dirt and all it is made up of. Etc.Quote:
I personally would rather die on earth than live on the moon. I mean seriously........what kind of life would that be???
Mortal on this planet? Sure, but even space hasn't exactly promised me immortality :) I can't say for sure I'd turn it down :~)
Anyway, I don't hugely object to funding space exploration (how about we take the money being spent on wars ....). It's just a bizarre focus if you are more the doomer type, and you are like: "woah things are deteriorating rapidly on all fronts, the human species may not even survive on earth much longer, and that is the focus!". But what can I say .... 2012 era U.S. governance and politics is completely out of touch, when it's not downright scary.
A very popular deep in the collective unconscious meme has always envisioned the elite escaping a trashed planet (see Neil Young's "After the Gold Rush"). Although no I don't actually posit that as super likely (and heaven knows I wouldn't want to get slammed for speculation). It's quite possible most of the space money is really just intended to be pork. How is that for a down to earth explanation? Or I think it is possible Newt actually is an off the wall dreamer sort, which he somehow manages to fit in the bounds of right wing conservative ideology, which is the most unlikely of places for it. His off the wallness is actually kind of enduring, makes him seem more genuine than the entirely 100% manufactured Obama. But should Newt be given power? Of course not.
It's the part about claiming the moon and declaring it a state that creeps me out; establishing a base some day may be inevitable.
I like what John Stewart had to say about it, which was. . . paraphrased --
Essentially, it's a great idea to get 13,000 in a moon colony and let them become a state, but it's entirely crazy to allow DC to become a state, you know, a place in the US with 5 times (or something) the amount of citizens as a potential moon colony.
DC should never be a state. As the seat of the federal government, and theoretical servant of the states, it would be inappropriate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoebird
i'm thinking, then, that citizens that live in the city itself might be better served to belong to a state near-by so that they can vote on stuff. otherwise they get all taxationed without representation.
Actually, the entirety of Congress is charged with representing DC's interests as a federal enclave. Not just a few Congresscritters, but all. It may not be direct representation, but it is some pretty comprehensive representation.
well, having lived in and around Washington, D.C. for much of my life......if half a million people should not have the rights and votes others have, living in every other area of our country, then perhaps we should designate the buildings and institutions of the Federal government, as the "seat" of government, and allow all the rest of that area, and its residents to split up and partition the rest of the area of the District between Maryland and Virginia, (probably mostly the area would go to Maryland, since it's kind of carved out of the State of Maryland). The idea that hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of people would have little representation for the area in which they live (they used to have NONE), seems ridiculous to me, especially since large numbers of the people living there don't even WORK for the Federal government.......and, as in many other things, a responsibility that is "everyone's" responsibility, often is "no one's" responsibility, and the District of Columbia has been ignored and poorly represented by the U.S. Congress, for quite a long time.
I'll post this here, for general interest, because it's always surprised me that a very large percentage of people are unaware of the fact that residents of the District of Columbia (Washington, D.C.) do not have the same rights of representation as citizens in the other areas of this country. It's been a long standing thorn in the side of D.C. residents.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distric..._voting_rights
"Voting rights of citizens in the District of Columbia differ from those of United States citizens in each of the fifty states. District of Columbia residents do not have voting representation in the United States Senate, but D.C. is entitled to three electoral votes for President. In the U.S. House of Representatives, the District is entitled to a delegate, who is not allowed to vote on the floor of the House, but can vote on procedural matters and in House committees.
The United States Constitution grants congressional voting representation to the states, which the District is not. The District is a federal territory ultimately under the complete authority of Congress. The lack of voting representation in Congress for residents of the U.S. capital has been an issue since the foundation of the federal district. Numerous proposals have been introduced to change this situation including legislation and constitutional amendments to grant D.C. residents voting representation, returning the District to the state of Maryland, and making the District of Columbia into a new state. All proposals have been met with political or constitutional challenges; therefore, there has been no change in the District's representation in the Congress."
Mr. Gingrich is too late. The debt ceiling has already reached the moon. My hope is that government efforts in space will soon be eclipsed by private enterprise, which will have no constituents to pander to except shareholders.
Not that anyone should actually live there, but I think the US should claim the sun, not the moon. We could then start charging all the other countries for sunlight to help reduce the deficit we built up defending them. The powers that be could just replace the cabinet with the board of PG&E and it would be a done deal. To maximize profits we should also charge for moon light. It is, after all, just reflected sunlight. Kind of like pretty second hand smoke...mirrors optional.
ETA: It's the make it a state part I don't like. Love the idea of a revitalized space program. I think we need a new common dream (and goal), but we don't necessarily need to stake a claim everywhere we set foot.
I guess my world is very small, and I like it that way. Make very few trips to town, enjoy nature around me, watching the moon and shooting stars at night, listening to the frogs and crickets in the summer. I could go on and on about the incredible things that excite me every day on this little piece of earth I have. I really can't relate to much of the other stuff.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. I suspect its probably the most intelligent perspective to have from a happiness-maximization standpoint. However, if some few of us didn't find that to be insufficient we would never have left the trees.Quote:
Originally Posted by CathyA
It would be great to have a unifying idea that isn't fear-based/war-based, for sure.
That being said, I'm also not interested in living in another planet. I've already been invited, but I realized that I was from here.
And btw, I was invited in a dream. don't think i'm too nuts. LOL
LDAHL.........and what would have been so wrong/bad with that? :)
I find myself thinking the same way sometimes, CathyA.......especially when they start measuring intelligence in dolphins, etc., and we realize that there may be animals right here on our planet with great intelligence, and who knows? Maybe they thought about taking the path that humans have taken and decided to just frolic in the sea instead......I always DID want to live in a treehouse, hehehehe
I think dolphins got the better deal. No work, no taxes, no speeding tickets, no wars, no crime...
no books, no computers, no gardening and making apple cider, no dreaming of space flight, and no margarita parties on the patio.:cool:
A dolphin's life is great...for a dolphin!;)
Well I often envy a cat's life. Just lying around all day, never have to go to work, and yet get fed and housed despite it. Often seem content, lying around like the furballs they are, purring away. If it wasn't for the risk of being run over by cars and eaten by predators I'd trade in a heartbeat. Human life is hard.
I've only had one stint in my life where I got to lay around all day and was generally relieved of responsibility. Thankfully that period only lasted a couple months because it was beyond any doubt the worst couple months of my life! I thought that having virtually unlimited time for the three R's (reflection, reading and relaxing) would be great. WRONG! The first week or two was pretty nice, but that was all. I will never begrudge anyone who wants a cat's life/dog's life/goldfish's life, its a personal choice and as long as no one else has to support them in that lifestyle I say more power to you. For me, I look at our now deceased kitty for a clue. In 17 years (roughly what...mid-80's in human terms) that cat did not grow emotionally, she did not learn anything new after about her second year, there were never any challenges to overcome, no accomplishment beyond living another day. All she faced every day was an endless, mind numbing routine. She seemed happy enough and was certainly loved and well cared for so in cat terms she had a good life. In human terms, no thank you. To anyone who wants to have such a life I say go for it, but please stay out of the way of those of us who don't. For my own sake I'd much rather dream of space.
Wow Gregg....that's a little harsh. A simpler life doesn't rule out growing and learning and accomplishing.
Well I tend to see taking joy in the ordinary, mere human life (and not a cat's life, no matter how much I may wish it), is the way to be. Do I always? Nah I tend to get kind of dark sometimes, but I do when I'm at my better self.
A simpler life doesn't. A cat's life does.Quote:
Originally Posted by CathyA
CathyA & ANM, I'm sorry if I sounded harsh, that wasn't my intent (and hoping a little editing knocked a few spurs off). Thanks for pointing it out. What really kind of has me going is that there are people who really would live the life of a pet. Not producing, not contributing, just laying around and waiting for someone to take care of them... We all know someone like that. I happen to have a few family members like that and they drive me crazy. I don't expect more than that from a cat because frankly they aren't capable of just a whole lot more. Humans are. If we want to talk about what is the most tragic waste of a resource you can forget about oil or clean water or gold... It's (human) brain power. Hands down. And it gets wasted at an alarming rate.
ApatheticNoMore is right, human life IS hard. Hard, at least in the sense of challenging, isn't necessarily a bad thing. Life is worth living when we make it worth living. Nobody will do it for you. And it takes action. It's been a long time since the collective hive in this country put value in action, but we need to get back to that. Newt may sound like some kind of dork for proposing a moon base, but at least he had the kahunas to throw something on the table that stirs the imagination. I'm not one that believes a moon base should be job one for the next president, but we need to do something to get this country off its (cat like) butt.
I had the feeling it was personal for you Gregg. Even in a simpler life you don't want people to always take and never give. There's always something to do to better your surroundings and your lot in life, even in a very simple environment. And "simpler" is not "easier". I had to laugh with a person I met on a chicken forum. We both live out in the country and even though we say we're living "simple" lives, its hard physical work. He said "Hey ...simple living isn't easy......I thought "simple" meant living in a condo and eating out all the time." haha
So no matter where you live or what you do, or how simple or complicated your life is, I think its important to be engaged.
I think alot of people in our society "work hard".......but they don't like what they're working hard at, and it has no meaning or value to them, other than a paycheck. They have to work overtime at a job they don't like in order to have all the things we think we need to have. Then they start dreaming of doing nothing.
For many reasons, alot of us are depressed and tired. It makes the life of a pet look pretty good.
And yes, there are a ton of lazy people in this country too. I can't argue with you about that.
I get bored pretty easily. it's why i'm not a SAHM. Yes, being with my son is awesome. Playing blocks is only fun for about an hour. My son will play for 8 hrs straight, and he free plays. I was watching him play (because psychologists suggest free play -- not constant play with mama). After doing the household chores and gardening chores, I was pretty much work-free from oh. . . 10 am onwards.
BORING.
So, i went back to work. :) YAY! Fun! :) Makes our schedule rough sometimes, but it's still awesome.
What does it take to get a unifying idea in the iPad Era?Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoebird
How about "let's develop ways so we can all have energy to power our lives before we all kill each other over the little dribble of oil we have left?" That would get my vote, even if it came from Newt.
But it's not titillating enough. Ensuring a good life for our descendents is such a buzz kill. We need to go to another planet (while this one eats itself alive) to bring everyone together?
+1 That's what I think too, what's wrong with preserving and restoring this planet as a grand vision? (if you need one) At this point that actually won't be an easy task. What's wrong with a good life on earth as a vision?Quote:
How about "let's develop ways so we can all have energy to power our lives before we all kill each other over the little dribble of oil we have left?"
:) A bit tired of these grand visions period, war is a force that gives us meaning and all that. But seriously some cooperation is needed on the state of the planet (yes this planet earth) right now.Quote:
But it's not titillating enough. Ensuring a good life for our descendents is such a buzz kill. We need to go to another planet (while this one eats itself alive) to bring everyone together?
I think it's a great idea. To have free, renewable, non-polluting power that everyone can have access to. Awesome. :)
We already have it. All we really need to do is develop technology to store it overnight.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoebird
Gregg,
Right. So lets focus on that instead of war and space (though space is cool), and also perhaps on cleaning up our messes around here (that would be good) as our next technological development, and then from there, we might be able to manage a space colony. Cuz I don't think we can manage a space colony without those two technologies first anyway. OH, and how to manage, maintain, clean, etc an artificial atmosphere. That one may not be so easy, but IDK.
I'm very curious, btw, about methane = power from composting in germany (among others). Fascinating stuff. Definitely useful on space colonies.
++1 :cool:Quote:
Originally Posted by Gregg