Senate How long would it take us to colonize another planet?

Beezel started this (and other threads) after the calls to reunify everything and all previous titles declared null and void, so I just saw as it his version of a land grab before the cavalry rode in.

 

Ahahaha

Darkness falls across the land, the midnight hour is close at hand

 

Let me deal with them, quietly.... slowly.

I promise. It will be quick.

Listen... you can already hear them scream.

Stupid, foolish aliens.

 

He also likes to make random weird comments about political topics while conspicuously avoiding the appearance of taking any side in order to avoid controversy

 

Could you imagine how significant a delay they'd make?

I mean if you factor the time involved to travel there, to colonise... and add unions, you'd get a cost blowout, a significant delay in deliverables, and the disembodied dead of Bob Crow holding space lanes to ransom.

On the plus side, we've discovered the xenoarchaeological evidence of where beezel went missing on his first galactic trip:



Poor beezel. His spirit was willing, but his flesh was spony and bruised.

 

We will never colonize another planet.

 

it depends who's doing the colonizing. is it beezel?

 

certainly not before we achieve Full Communism

 

I would like to amend my original answer to the following: "Within one week of the release of George RR Martin's Winds of Winter."

As you will note, this is a clarification rather than a change in date.

 

Of course.

Also, I feel we will colonise before we achieve full Communism, in that one is feasible and desirable and the other is an ideology with significant failure rates.

 

Can we make a colony on a planet that turns us into blissful hippies:



?

 

YOURE an ideology with significant failure rates

 

We've never had a country that tried true VLMism.

 

srsly tho capitalism is far too short-term in its goals and thinking to handle global warming and resource scarcity on earth, let alone get its **** enough together to colonize another planet. aint gonna happen

 

I'd disagree with that and ask if you even lift, brah. By which I mean, how close are you to the current green tech and venture capital markets? Because genuinely, as a sector, **** gonna get REAL son.

I would actually go so far as to argue the market has a better chance of resolving things than the State by about 60%.

 

Ender that's a ridiculous defense. Even the most vanguard "green" technologies will do basically nothing against global warming. Furthermore, they don't at all address the other half of the problems Rogue Number Ten mentioned, such as a the rapid depletion of world fishery stocks, water scarcity, and a host of other problems that really don't have a technological impediment at all.

Of course, it's a moot point. Since, again, this species will never "colonize" anything that isn't already on Earth.

 

We will colonize the waters of your homeworld.

 

OK.

http://fulcrum-bioenergy.com/

For starters, the technology there has the capacity on several levels to directly impact global warming for the better.

Since you however have expertise in this field, I'd be happy for you to either explain why, or explain why I'm wrong.

This is a hobby, I can go all day with examples if you want.

 

Ender Sigh, that looks like a wonderful company you could make lots of money from. A company that's partway through the construction of one facility. A company that, even were it able to capture the entire market for garbage in the US, would produce only 7.5 billion gallons of all types of fuel. This, in a country that daily consumes 365 million gallons. Congratulations on giving us 3 weeks worth of fuel, even in a hopelessly optimistic scenario that ignores the impossibility of scaling up production that fast, the response of the markets to having municipal solid waste acquire such value, and the complete lack of infrastructure both in our fueling stations and engines for such flex-fuels.


And that's what I'm saying. There's a huge gap between "good ideas" that the market can support, and things that will meaningfully reverse the tide of global warming.

And again, I must stress that you've still not addressed the many other problems we brought up. Is there some company you are ready to invest in that is going to magically stop the problem of over-fishing worldwide, and reduce the trend going on for centuries now where once common, worthless fish are vaulted into ever more stratospheric price ranges as they are fished first to rarity and then to what is effectively extinction?

 

Thank you for fixing that unholy monstrosity that was a post in bold. For a moment I thought tunick had your machine.

What Fulcrum offers is a process for refining municipal waste into biofuels. What you haven't touched on is that municipal waste is a significant producer of methane gas in that you tend to get methane as a biproduct of organic decomposition. Methane has a shorter lifespan than CO2 - it is only around for about 20 years, compared to CO2 which lasts around 80 years. One of the meganerds - looking at you, Lord Vivec, Ramza - could confirm this part too but doesn't methane degrade into CO2?

But methane's main destructive power is that it's 25 times more reflective than a CO2 molecule. So in the short time it's methane, it's destructive until it degrades into CO2 in which case it is still destructive. yay.

So, yeah. You can see why a wholesale uptake of that technology has significant benefits globally, right? And since typically cities pay people to store their waste, your feedsource for the biofuel is going to be an insanely low overhead which means a lower cost to the end consumer.

Cheap, affordable, clean energy.

I get weekly updates on green tech and green innovations. I went to a conference on it. It genuinely is a growth industry, and it will simply be a matter of time before scalable efficiency is achieved and mass production occurs. For example, the twin elements that impede solar's ability to become a primary energy source for the globe is the efficiency of the collection cells and the efficiency of batteries. What do you think is driving innovation in collection and storage technologies?

Go look at the solar or wind industries over the last 5 years, Wocky, and get back to me. Capitalism, which you and Rogue are very quick to criticise and proudly blind to the benefits of, is a model that works off incentives to innovate. Fulcrum's model could never come from a bureaucrat and didn't. This is my point - these innovations, which are out there (that you don't know about them means you aren't looking, not that they're not there), are making incremental leaps and bounds in producing clean, cheap energy. They're not scalable yet, but that will come.

Oh and about overfishing etc? I don't have an answer on that; but my contention is that the state won't either.

 

Not exactly, it has a bizarre free-radical thing going on in atmospheric conditions. There's totally a common type of bacteria that catalyzes CH4+2O2 -> CO2+2H2O, though.

Methane's bad news regardless, though, for the various reasons you outlined.

 

See, I thought you were a cool kid, Ender, but you're not jaded enough. What's this faith in human ingenuity that I'm seeing?

 

MOONRAKER

 

Instantaneous

 

It wasn't instantaneous in the movie.