Essay by Eric Worrall
NASA might have to put their plans to invade Mars on hold, if we heed the green concerns of one of Europe’s foremost woke think tanks.
How Technology Can Help us Address Climate Change: Sustainable Solutions for a Better Future
Published 15 hours ago
on March 12, 2023
By Muhammad HamdanThe idea of colonizing another habitable planet has been a topic of discussion for decades. Many people find the idea of finding a new world to call home as exciting and hopeful. However, while the search for another habitable planet is an important scientific pursuit, it is also important to consider the benefits of focusing on our own planet rather than spending billions of dollars in the hopes of finding and colonizing another world.
Climate change is one of the most pressing issues that our planet faces today. The world is already experiencing the impacts of climate change, including rising sea levels, more frequent and severe weather events, and the loss of biodiversity. Rather than investing billions of dollars in searching for another habitable planet, it is important to invest in solutions that can help mitigate the impacts of climate change and protect the health and wellbeing of our planet and its inhabitants.
…
Another reason why it is important to focus on our own planet is the need to prioritize resources. The search for another habitable planet requires significant investments in research and development, as well as the deployment of expensive space missions. By focusing on our own planet, we can invest resources in addressing urgent problems such as poverty, disease, and environmental degradation.
…
There are also important ethical considerations that need to be taken into account when considering the colonization of another planet. The idea of colonizing another planet raises questions about ownership, power, and exploitation. It is important to ensure that any efforts to colonize another planet are guided by ethical principles and values.
…
Read more: https://moderndiplomacy.eu/2023/03/12/how-technology-can-help-us-address-climate-change-sustainable-solutions-for-a-better-future/
I’m glad author Muhammad Hamdan is concerned about ethical treatment of intelligent aliens. Makes more sense than his climate concerns.
“What a maroon”, says Bugs Bunny.
You’re not being rabbitist are you? 🙂
“Cartoon Appropriation”
Gold! “I’m glad author Muhammad Hamdan is concerned about ethical treatment of intelligent aliens. Makes more sense than his climate concerns.”
➕ ➕ ➕ ➕ ➕
Gold indeed. It lead me down a familiar thought path: Would discovering separate, independently generated biological life invalidate the moral basis for Western human civilization, and if so what should define morality? Why would it be wrong to kill and exploit an intelligent alien species? Says who, and backed by what except might?
The problem Eric is that it’s a belief system. There’s no help for these people. Even if you were to sit and patiently explain to this poor sap the illogicallity of his position he still wouldn’t get it, not even if you used coloured pencils and spoke really slowly. I have sat with many of them and the last thing they are interested in is facts, figures and ‘science’. They just sit there with their ‘belief’ shining out of them. There is no explanation or argument you can deploy to help them, no way of showing them that the concept of catastrophic manmade global warming is, to quote Prof. Lindzen ‘absurd’. Media indoctrination has put them beyond reach.
There is no hope for them. They are members of the predominately sub 100 group….
No, Rod, one cannot dismiss them as having low intelligence. One must have an education and facts to overcome coordinated propaganda. It doesn’t matter how intelligent one is if all the information one has is incorrect.
Agreeing with DF – smart people can think dumb thoughts, and a lot of dumb thoughts occur during youth. If “ with their ‘belief’ shining out of them” could be harvested and filtered for bright ideas, then some microscopic portion of the ideas could make life better for the rest of us.
I have tried to explain natural climate change and weather to people until I’m blue in the face. No facts, data or figures make any difference. They are so dogmatic in their beliefs. It’s like some unbelievable mass delusion.
In fact it’s the most supposedly educated of my friends who seem to be the most affected. My tradesman friends can see through this BS straight away. Whatever went wrong with education!!
Its Leftist ideology from government, academia, NGOs and media.
I have a brother-in-law like that. Always bleating on that “we have to do something,” but still happy to have 3 foreign holidays, and the occasional cruise, each year. When I say he’s contributing to the problem that he claims exists, he’ll defend it by saying his bit makes no difference!
Ah! A classic hypocrite.
“we have to…”
We should offer the mindless masses hope by promoting, on social media, the idea that the GHGE is saturated such that no additional warming will result from further CO2 increases. Hard to prove it is not saturated and there has been very little warming in the last 20 years. Most people, progressives excluded, want to believe in a sunny future.
“We should…“
They are never happy unless they are miserable.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/da5858f6-c0fa-11ed-8e20-0f5794810aad?shareToken=547d7f1e1fd38e2d71da6324a5b7bf5f
Correction, they are never happy unless everyone is miserable.
Their entire sense of self-worth is tied up in their belief system.
They have value, because they care.
If it turned out that the things they care about, are not a problem, then their sense of self worth collapses. That must be avoided at all costs. No amount of mental dissonance is too much to go through, in order to avoid this loss of self worth.
The most troubling thing about these published articles is, it proves there are people out there willing to put their names to nonsense.
I am sure we all agree spending money on relieving poverty or real environmental issues is preferable to colonising Mars….
The idea such sensible policies are needed to save the planet from some imaginary danger called climate change, is the bit that’s wrong. It shows the virtue signaller is playing to the woke gallery speaking in tongues to the converted. He is not communicating with the rational real world that exists in the stalls…..
The problem with government spending money to relieve poverty, is that it has never worked. In fact it will never work because government is not capable of addressing the causes of poverty.
Poverty is not caused by people not having enough money. Poverty is caused by people doing stupid things. Government spending cannot stop people from doing things. The only thing government can do is to try and make the consequences of doing stupid things less painful.
The problem is that when you make doing stupid things less painful, you encourage even more people to do even more stupid things. As a result you end up making poverty worse.
“we all agree…”
Not really. Poverty, being relative, could never be eliminated from a system based on production.
The problem with eliminating poverty, is that poverty is relative.
The so called poor in countries like US, Canada, Europe live better than 70 to 80 percent of the rest of the world.
Poverty is always defined based not on what a person has, but based on what other people have.
If you live in a 1500 sq ft home, and your neighbor lives in a 10,000 sq ft home. You feel like you are poor.
Whereas your great grandparents probably lived in a 10 by 15 foot hut that couldn’t keep the rain and the wind out.
Aha, now we know what Zombies have for lunch: Vacuous nutrient free word salad
And don’t they do well on it – maybe there’s hope for the rest of us
Maybe the Cordyceps outbreak has begun…
You have seen the Lineker fiasco, right?
All the BBC goes on about is its sacred impartiality.
Now that is very funny. But they control the message just the same.
“we know …” One man’s word salad is another man’s blog comment.
NASA might have to put their plans to invade Mars on hold
I can’t see Musk doing the same, can you? Not unless they… ban it, anyway. Of course, NASA already has
Dr. J. Nick Benardini as the agency Planetary Protection Officer within the Office of Safety and Mission Assurance
https://sma.nasa.gov/news/articles/newsitem/2021/05/27/nasa-announces-new-planetary-protection-officer
Looks like he could be out of a job if the progressive Luddites get their way. Meanwhile, at the loony Conversation they say
This is where we can learn from Mars. There is a near-endless variety of ways that unpicking the chemical evolution of one planet might better inform geoengineering actions on our own.
…
The problem is there this is surprisingly little communication between Mars scientists and Earth climate change specialists.
https://theconversation.com/how-exploring-mars-could-help-us-fight-climate-change-on-earth-57164
I think I can guess why there’s little communication between Mars scientists and climate alarmists.
Its just an example of NASA and large aerospace companies’ efforts to join everybody else on the intersectional bandwagon of climate change. There is big money to be made from them thar associations, hop on!
Lots of people have made lots of money by linking their pet project with either or both climate change and anti-racism. They can get a three-fer by throwing in gender equality.
They don’t have to ban it. All they have to do is to raise taxes on the productive high enough that people like Musk no longer have enough of their own money to attempt such things.
“Planetary Protection Officer”
Now there’s responsibility without authority.
Either that, or it’s authority without responsibility.
Sure. Rather than spent billions on the future of humankind, let’s spend trillions on ineffective action and useless virtue signaling.
We already have the keys to ending poverty. Free enterprise, the rule of law, a lower cultural tolerance for corruption, etc.
The real problem is the solution to ending poverty does not involve central planning, equity of results, social justice or common ownership.
World hunger, while not mentioned, is a political problem. World hunger does not come from a lack of food. But 8f we follow the ideas of people like Muhammad Hamdan, then the root problem will be too little food.
The main mission of the Enterprise is peace among the galaxies….and ending galactic climate change….Captain Kirk has devoted his life to the mission. Peace.
Its 5-year mission is to explore strange new worlds, meet new civilizations and destroy them.
Holy + my mind jumped to Trek (TNG in my case) as soon as I read Soylent Green’s words “free enterprise”. Ironically the Trek worlds seemed to be post-capitalist. If AI and automated production can keep pace with human fecundity, post-capitalism might be possible.
Productivity all by itself has been able to not only surpass human fecundity, but outpace it by a significant margin.
Will the robots get bored at work and post on blogs?
While I don’t share the concern about climate change, I do have to at least somewhat agree that it’s not useful to try to find other habitable planets to colonize. Given what we’ve found so far, that would require a sustained effort for very likely centuries (The best currently available drive option would take 100 years to reach Proxima Centauri. Trappist-1 is 10x that distance.
If the space-colony ship had launched in 1922, I’d be saying “cool”. Money? So much borrowing at the federal level its hard to call federal taxes taxes anymore.
Yeah, Henry Ford should have invested in worldwide governmental handouts to eliminate poverty rather than invest in that newfangled technology that only replaced those hard-working horses.
Questions of ownership?
It’s an uninhabited world.
National parks problem – there will be resources.
Eric, Eric, why so cynical? This is A RESULT!
July 06, 2010:
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/nasas-new-mission-building-ties-to-muslim-world
hooray?
https://moderndiplomacy.eu/about-md/
At this rate NASA won’t get to Mars. CCP may if they can figure out how to do it with galley slaves, and where to stick the oar. We’ve yet to discover intelligent life in Washington, D.C.
I don’t think our young Mr. Hamdan is really the problem, but I’m wondering who those Modern Diplomacy sponsors really are.
“Climate change is one of the most pressing issues that our planet faces today. The world is already experiencing the impacts of climate change, including rising sea levels, more frequent and severe weather events, and the loss of biodiversity.”
This is the blatant lie that that has brainwashed a significant percentage of the population into believing in the climate crisis fiction. The misinformed need to be educated as to the empirical facts.
Our emissions are greening the planet creating more life. The Tropics contain by far the greatest biodiversity. A warming world would increase that.
The biodiversity issue is also complicated by word definitions. What is the minimum distinction that makes a creature a new species (that I can name after myself)? What is the correct amount of biodiversity? To maximize biodiversity, should I make every creature a species? Can I then name every creature (after myself)?
From the article: “Climate change is one of the most pressing issues that our planet faces today. The world is already experiencing the impacts of climate change, including rising sea levels, more frequent and severe weather events, and the loss of biodiversity.”
Lies, lies and more lies.
The arrogance of these people reminds me of the story of Xerxes and the Hellespont. They would do better to heed the humility lesson of King Canute and the tide.
How about we focus on real problems, instead of fake ones like “Climate Change”. The $trillions being wasted on “climate action” could be used to help humanity instead of hurting it, and actually to help the environment instead of wrecking it.
I am with this guy to a point. I question the idea of moving to a different planet, I don’t think we could make it anywhere but where we are. I am not against exploring them, it is nice to see what is up there.
He is completely wrong concerning climate, it seems clear what he knows comes from the mainstream media. I fail to see how anyone could imagine we haven’t spent enough money on climate change. We have spent more than enough on it, a small amount was necessary to educate ourselves, most of it was wasted. If we had spent the same amount improving fossil fuel and nuclear generation we would be orders of magnitude better off.
Couldn’t it easily be argued that without many technological advancements and other types of knowledge, it is actually quite hard to thrive in many areas of this planet?