Is space colonization possible this century?

>>8170053
next century

Yes

Just think of the difference between 1900 and 1999

The advancement of technology only gets faster

We'll have regular space travel by the end of the century, IF it's in our interests that is, we might just enter a VR world instead

>>8170053
I'll make sure we have 'practical' interstellar travel, before I die. It is my ambition to die on the surface of an alien planet, that is an Earth analogue.

>>8170053
No.

Humanity will not colonize space. It will try, but fail.

>>8170092
>interstellar travel

No human being will do this.

It's more a matter of people being allowed to do it & focused on doing it, than "possible" or not possible.

As its extremely possible.

The total automation of industries/services throughout earth will be the enabler of space colonization.

Nope. The world will be entirely Muslim by 2040. And space is haram.

>>8170582
I used to be a muslim, i don't think this allah guy has a problem with space or space flights
Leaving this planet isn't really harem

It depends what you mean by 'space colonisation'.

I think we've got quite a good chance of having a self-sufficient colony on Mars by the 2040s; maybe with tens of thousands of people there.

By the end of the century, I think it's quite possible we could have a few scattered outposts throughout the solar system; maybe on Jovian moons, our own moon, and Mars - but unless there's a dramatic technological leap forward (think a working Alcubierre Drive being developed), I don't think we'll be anywhere beyond the solar system by 2100.

>>8170177
Watch this space.

>>8170053
Yes, and it was possible last century too. We just choose not to.

>>8170593
Belief in evolution is haram
Western education is haram
Science is haram

>I used to be a muslim,
haram, you must be killed its the only punishment for apostasy

Also postifarinisam is haram, only jews and Christians as people of the book can be allowed to live if they pay 70% jezia tax, there children stolen as gifts for my right hand. All budists and seeks and shintos and hindus will be exicuted with out mercy

>>8170601
We believe you, Muhammad Abdul.

>>8170596
The solar system is a pretty damn big place, you could have billions of people living on mars & venus

If its possible to live and breed at .1-.2 of a G, then living on those outer solar system moons is also possible.
Or just setting up mobile space stations that go around mining asteroids/moons

All of this stuff is extremely possible, the real bottle neck is lifting tonnage to orbit.
We've been stagnant on that for decades now, as noone has been interested in increasing space capabilities.

Imagine if NASA had selected an actually practical 2/3 stage to orbit methane powered reusable rocket back in the 70's
Where would we be now?

>>8170601
>be muslim
>gets called terrorist
>don't be muslim anymore
>still gets called terrorists
you /pol/tards are just as irrational as these sandniggers, go fuck yourself

>>8170596
2040s seems extremely optimistic to me. It's just that there's no good reason to do it. The Space Race had a lot of benefits come from it, but we didn't do it just because, it was to beat the Soviets. There's no compelling reason to focus on Mars, and little guaranteed to come from the billions spent to set up there.

>>8170649

Why would billions of people want to live on Venus?

I'm not sure billions of people even *could* live on Venus. If anyone's going to live there at all, it will have to be on some sort of suspended platform in the upper atmosphere. I can't see billions of people wanting to do that.

As for Mars; I don't expect 'billions' of people will want to live there until it's terraformed, which certainly won't happen within 100 years. You might convince a few million people to go there, but I can't imagine billions of people doing it.

Given that at the moment our most ambitious plan is to send 100 people at a time, a lot of improvements would have to take place before it would be possible to send millions of people to Mars within the century.

If we survive to get to the point of being able to cross galactic distances, it'd probably be more feasible to just stay inside our ships entirely. There'd be no need to settle planets. You can build the ships to be as big as you need them to, and I'm sure VR would be perfected by that point making needing a 'real' beach or something pointless. Plus if other alien races are a threat or concern then staying on ships lets you maintain mobility.

Terraforming could also be a pain and take a long time. And there are no 'artificial' atmospheres, you have to make a real one. There's probably only a few planets that match Earth in the galaxy anyways. Trying to find ones that happen to have a tolerable atmosphere, climate, day length, etc. that conform to human adaptations would be a pain. Or if you can engineer humans to be more adaptable, better off to just stay in super ships.

>>8170663
Offworld will always involve living in large climate controlled environments. Where it is doesn't change the local living environment, other than gravity.

>I can't see billions of people wanting to do that.
It's just a place to live.

Maybe billions is an exagerration though, considering most of the population of the world is human trash, and the white population is less than 1 billion & declining.

>>8170053

Yes but no one is willing to pay for it.

>>8170683
>go to space
>live in dome
yfw you can just live in a dome on earth

>>8170725
But we will have to go offworld to escape the oppressive socialist world government m8

>>8170053
No.

People don't know how to use toilets, therefore it is impossible that our species will ever dominate other planets.

>>8170593

What direction would Muslims pray in on another planet?

>>8171262
Holy shit it is haram.

>>8170067
>The advancement of technology only gets faster
[citation needed]
Most technological advancement is difficult to quantify, and even "muh exponential growth" doesn't mean breakthroughs come closer together in time.
It could just mean increasingly complex technologies come out at roughly regular intervals.
For example: telegraph, telephone, radio, tv, internet.
These technologies are spaced decades apart, and the gap is growing, not shrinking.

>>8170067
>we might just enter a VR world instead
Why not both?
There's already plenty of people that just smoke weed and play x-box all day.
Is that a threat to space exploration?

>>8170596
>I think we've got quite a good chance of having a self-sufficient colony on Mars by the 2040s; maybe with tens of thousands of people there.
I think we will have humans on Mars by 2040, but hardly a handful of them.

File: 1.jpg (110KB, 650x560px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 650x560px

>Interstellar travel is not possible

Do you think, that if humanity still exists in maybe 10.000 years it would be undertaken?
I mean the technologie of 2100 is not comprehensible for us.
But much more import is the financial buying power of large union states like the USA, EU and in the future maybe a global UN state.

If you look at china, what they are building, the scale and quantity, its mind blowing.

If humanity still exists in 12016 I would imagine that every country on earth is at least in a matured state far beyond that of the us 2100. Even states like Sudan or Uzbekistan. A global state with intersolar economy and robot armies who build and research and are participating on a much higher level in the economy and maybe culture if we happen to create friendly superintelligent Ai which happens to have consciousness, the power such a civilization would have would be in the realms of science fiction.

And building a large fleet of o'neill cylinders, strapped together and shielded against meteoroids by simultaneously holding tenths of thousand of people and robots would be an small endower.

A fusion reactor with enough material to power a small sized city for a few thousand years would be possible. You just have to travel long enough to reach other solar systems in our galaxy

Traveling to other galaxies though, is not possible beyond our local cluster

File: 8hNVxPb.jpg (82KB, 780x569px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 780x569px

>>8170177
I should start SSing every nihilistic space colonization post for a glorious colab to post on the day that we land on mars for the first time
>>8170660
>no good reason
come now lad people have been telling you the reasons for a long time at this point
>>8170671
>There's probably only a few planets that match Earth in the galaxy anyways
considering how many are "earthlike" within 100 light years I'd say that this isn't the case
>>8170755
government on a newly colonized mars will likely be very oppressive and socialist out of necessity
food needs to be rationed, housing needs to be managed, etc. etc. if the colony is going to survive. No place for social stratification in a small(ish) offworld colony
>>8171314
pic related

>>8171314
The only threat to space exploration is the government's lack of willingness to fund it.

So the more the economy goes down, the more discontent people are, the less likely we are to explore space.

>>8170755
Only an opressive socialist world government would ever be able to marshal the resources necessary for offworld colonization, m8. There's no profit potential in it, so capitalism will never accomplish it. It would take our entire world civilization bent towards such a goal for decades, if not centuries, to ever succeed at such a task.

>>8171333
Interstellar travel isn't something that can be done through building lots of shit like China. It requires things that we don't understand how to do, if they can even be done at all. If humanity exists in 12016, there's a much greater chance that it will be in small agrarian or hunter-gatherer bands. It's much more likely that we'll be gone, having destroyed the earth's ability to sustain us.

>>8171366
we'll be off planet in 10 years
we'll be off solar system in 500
mark my words

>>8171366
Interstellar travel can be done slow & steadily today

And as technology continues to develop over the next 50 years, it'll look even more practical.
Obviously theres no point going interstellar any time soon given the unlimited amounts of resources/space just in our solar system.

And like Trump said, we gotta fix our problems here on earth or else there will NEVER be anything done in space.

>>8171376
I'll be sure to come back to this thread in 500 years to rub our extinction into your face.

>>8171419
Yeah, there's a very good chance that we'll expand in our own solar system. The odds of doing anything else are stacked very heavily against us.

>>8171420
hehe see you then m8

>>8171420

Not impossible.
4chan is archieved.

If google manages to create an agi by 2025
This agi becomes super intelligent (or not) by 2030
Solves every human disease like cancer, heart disease, Alzheimer
By 2040, then you can come back 2516 and (not) rub it in his virtual avatars face

it's possible but it won't happen

>>8170582
Many imams have said that space travel/exploration is okay as long as it isn't to do anything theologically fishy or a suicide mission

>all these shitposts about other meme planets

O'NEIL CYLINDERS
'
N
E
I
L

C
Y
L
I
N
D
E
R
S

>>8171662
space habitats are a meme
whats the point of em?
Obviously you go to other worlds to mine & live use its resources.

The space habitats that will be built are either in LEO around earth, or mobile mining habitats

File: watdo.png (181KB, 1224x626px) Image search: [Google]

181KB, 1224x626px

There are only a very few ways it can be done. Most people, even those with intelligence, money, power, and the want to do it, don't know how to do it properly.

Living on other worlds in the solar system isn't one of them.

>>8172492
Building an maintaing space solar power satellites from lunar resources. Also tax havens and casinos.

>>8171659

what the does the hell does "theologically" fishy means?

Is colonizing the moon "space colonization" ?

>>8172540
Are you retarded?

>>8170652
/pol/ is a board of peace. Do not generalize the board based on the actions of a few.

File: THX1138cops.jpg (9KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 480x360px

>>8170053

Of course.

When the AI that exterminates us moves out into the universe to convert it to computronium, it will do so quickly and without hesitation.

File: image.jpg (45KB, 474x313px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 474x313px

>>8170053
Yes it is

We'll have a functioning colony on Mars by 2050 and we'll have a spaceport in orbit where crews can refuel and get catapulted onto a trajectory that will set them for moons like Titan

>>8170663
>>8170649

See, this is why we don't have you guys on NASA running this show

Why the fuck would you put PEOPLE on mother fucking VENUS let alone sending a space craft there only to die without doing anything useful?

Russia sent a probe to Venus, it got there.

It's roasting under the sun senpai

>>8173032
Why would you put men on mars??
They will just die because there is no oxygen or atmosphere
retard

File: iq_by_country.png (28KB, 1357x800px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 1357x800px

>>8170652
Goat fuckers are inbreeded retards. They deserve no respect,regardless of religion.

>>8173391
...said the redneck

>>8173393
Not even American. Mena countries are cancer,and they should be nuke to protect civilization as we know it.

>>8173397
Let me guess, you're born into a middle class family with a nice house where they provided you with food and education and you think everyone's life is as easy as yours ?

>>8170053

yes, we will live off the land. we will construct cabins from space trees, catch space fish, spear space animals, farm space fields, and enslave space people. we'll make tons of money sending back space rubber and space bananas in enchange for earth gold.

>>8173406
>middle class family
Yes. Like most people in my country. Still muslims are inbreed retards. You cant contradict data,because your feelings

>>8173406
Yea because everyone is starving outside the first world, and its totally the fault of white racism huh?
No doubt you believe its a crime that in the west we can profit from the hard work & success of our ancestors

once there's a base on the moon (guessing early/late 2030s) and combined with the emergence of algorithm technology, then yeah, probably by 2040-50 there'll be regular space travel.

>>8173513
going to the moon is largely pointless
Takes more delta V than going to mars

Other than a flag showing operation ofc

Scientificlly, yes. Practically no, because of our governments

>>8170053
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vU-mKsQLWXQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJMf9a8OSbs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVfnd5r8bM0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GA-cUVotYps

File: NASA_Cloud_City_on_Venus.jpg (63KB, 800x530px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 800x530px

>>8173032
Venus floating cities. On venus, breathable air is lighter than Venus' atmosphere. This allows colonies to be built above Venus' sulfuric acid cloud layer. The temperature and pressure there are the most Earth like in the solar system. One could go outside at this altitude wearing little more than a poncho and oxygen tank.

I'm sorry to ask, but what is the point?

>>8170652
>Fucking this
Those edges!

>>8174118
radiation? wouldn't the sun's rays be stronger?

File: gll.jpg (129KB, 1600x1179px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 1600x1179px

>>8170649
>All of this stuff is extremely possible, the real bottle neck is lifting tonnage to orbit.

Psst, wanna really lift shit to orbit?

Lifting shit to orbit cheaply and easily was solved by Stanislaw Ulam and Cornelius Everett back in 1955.

>>8174224
Yes, it is. 2611 W/m^2 baby, which means solar panels generate more power. 2611 W/m^2 isn't enough to burn you (maybe you'd get a pretty nasty sun burn if you sunbathed too long). Oh and I forgot to mention that the atmosphere is thick enough at this altitude that radiation from space isn't a problem.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonization_of_Venus

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20030022668_2003025525.pdf

>>8173372

I never said I would put men on mars.

Autist

>>8174118

Nothing on Venus' atmosphere is anywhere near earth.

Venus is too hot for mankind

File: Advanced_Automation_for_Space_Missions_figure_5-19.jpg (127KB, 800x535px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 800x535px

>>8170179
Sort of this. Currently humans cannot survive in space without large amounts of infrastructure. One way to build this infrastructure in a reasonable time period and a reasonable cost is with self-replicating robot factories.

You send up one, have it replicate a couple cycles, BAM! You have an industrial base in space from which you can build colonies.

NASA investigated making self-replicating factories for the Moon in the 1980s:
http://www.islandone.org/MMSG/aasm/

Since then technology has advanced and some of the basic technical feasibility tests they proposed have been passed.

>>8171662
This. We had the technology last century. And the reason? Standard of living and zero-g manufacturing with easy access to resources.
Did I mention the temperature is whatever the populace decides and weather is scheduled?

File: VenusDensPressTempvsAlt.png (59KB, 973x746px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 973x746px

>>8174362
>>Nothing on Venus' atmosphere is anywhere near earth.

Please refer to table 1 in pic related. At 55 km, temperature is 302 K, or 84 in american units. While the pressure is a livable 0.52 atm. Some cities on Earth such as La Paz have lower pressures than this.

at 50 km, pressure is ~ 1 atm and temperature ranges from 0-50 C. In addition, at these altitudes the atmosphere provides adequate radiation shielding and gravity is close to earth like.

Table 1 taken from: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.195.172&rep=rep1&type=pdf

More on Venus colonization here:
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20030022668.pdf

File: space solar power2.jpg (79KB, 751x544px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 751x544px

>>8174411
>>Standard of living and zero-g manufacturing with easy access to resources.
Actually it was more about putting enough people and a manufacturing base up to churn out solar power satellites to provide clean energy for Earth.

It actually makes economic sense if you have as much money as a global super power, the space shuttle didn't suck, and some new cheap energy source doesn't get invented in the 20 years it takes to pay back the initial investment

>>8174448
I'm no pleb. A copy of The High Frontier sits proudly on my bookcase. With modern automation turning the lunar surface into solar panels via roving 3D printing drones.
By the time we've reached peak moon-solar, we'll probably have long switches to fusion reactors.
The only short term reason I see for orbital space colonies is economic advantage of manufacturing, controlled gravity, living conditions, etc.
Long term it's a great safeguard for humanity and the best way to continue increasing human population, thereby progressing technology and human development.

>>8172942
>functioning colony on Mars

When you have to trade out people for new people because of health restriction of low gravity, it isn't a "colony" it is merely a foothold or base.

>>8174118
>oops forgot about dem hellwinds (300-400km/h)

ur ded

>>8174510
Compared to a Category 5 hurricane wind speed of 252 km/h.

File: lunar solar power.png (110KB, 1134x823px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 1134x823px

>>8174489
>>With modern automation turning the lunar surface into solar panels via roving 3D printing drones.
Moon solar tis a silly idea. Because the distance is huge you need huge antenna apertures, because the moon isn't sunny all the time you need a complex arrangement of reflectors to generate continuous power.

Now solar paving the moon is fucking cool. Ignatiev came up with quite a simple process to make solar panels on the moon by paving them:
www.niac.usra.edu/files/library/meetings/annual/jun00/433Ignatiev.pdf

On fusion power, if fusion power plants costs are similar to that of current day fission plants, the adoption rate of fusion power will probably be slow and you are fine.(I will have to find the study on this) However, someone could damn well invent the Mr. Fusion and you'd be screwed. The uncertainty in future electrical prices is a problem here.

>>8174510
Winds aren't a problem if you move with the wind. The Vega balloons did just fine moving with the wind:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vega_program#Balloon

>>8174307
This.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYoLcJuBtOw

Project Orion could have allowed a kind of space colonization only imagined in SF and it could have done so decades ago.

Granted, we're talking reasonable levels of colonization. Alberta, Canada is sparsely populated. The North Sea is sparsely populated and only by oil rigs.

Still, people live there pretty much full-time and that's what matters. Even if in 100 years, only 1000 people live in space full-time, it's still off-world colonization. Even if they're asteroid miners, space construction personnel, etc. then it's still worth it and it's a huge boon to the economy of Earth.

Those handful of offworld workers equate to hundreds or thousands of same on Earth given the abundance of energy and resources. Even if we only exploit cis-lunar space, the potential economic expansion is immense.

Asteroid mining doesn't get you platinum group metals at current market values, it'd naturally depress spot prices for things like gold, platinum, palladium, etc. but that's not the real value. You don't SELL the metals outright, you sell rights to the metals to various companies, you make them bid.

If you can control input prices for entire industries like electronics, auto manufacturing, weapons, etc. then you have IMMENSE power over the global economy as a whole. That's the true value of asteroid mining.

That aside, pharmaceuticals, materials processing, etc. in orbit also have potential to be huge industries.

Even just colonization and exploitation of the space between the Earth and the Moon holds the promise of revolutionizing the economy of Earth and thus life on Earth.

>>8174553
Why not tether the habitat to the ground, and take advantage of unlimited 24/7 wind power?
Both for electricity & lift

File: 1466884161010.jpg (28KB, 295x238px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 295x238px

>>8174553

>internetting

>>8174553

Reading this made me realize you could probably support tilted solar panels on the moon with drinking straws: low gravity and no wind. Lol. No need for expensive aluminum supports like on Earth.

>>8174700
Because you need a cable >50 kilometers long to get up to altitudes where the temperature is comfortable

>>8173391
>inbreeded

>>8174955
Yea, marginal cost for massive advantage

>>8174963
You need a cable 50 kilometers, capable of resisting both high temperature and sulfuric acid. Carbon fiber rope might work for this, but no one has flow a kite higher than a couple kilometers. Not to mention you have to make your habitat a giant fucking airplane.

Hardly marginal cost.

>>8175126
Anything would work, you have lifting surfaces or balloons every km or two along the cable, so it doesn't need to hold its own weight.
Sulfuric acid is at low concentrations, only existing for a stretch like 20km long.
500 degrees celcius at the surface is not at all an extreme temperature

In exchange for this, you have the ability to use your habitat as a lifting surface, you could dredge vast areas of the ground from your stationary habitat, and have unlimited wind power.

>>8171333
Will 4chan still exist in 2100?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QhfkmEbQto&feature=youtu.be

I see people questioning the need to expand makind beyond our planet and I can only think one thing:

Why do you do anything you do? Is there any need for it? Do you need to, for example, have a partner, make friends, live long, be happy?

Answer is: you need to do whataver the fuck you want to do.

So yeah, some of us just need to explore the darkness beyond because we want.


Oh and if you ask me, I think we'll have Alcuberrie Drives before 2050 IF we don't blow ourselves up before

>>8177563
>So yeah, some of us just need to explore the darkness beyond because we want.
And some of us just need to take money from other people because we can't afford what we want.

The ISS is a gigantic sinkhole of public spending with nothing to show for it but obnoxious bragging.

we already have the tech that's hundreds and even thousands of years more advanced, but it's being hidden by the cabal

look up the Secret Space Program and Corey Goode

>>8177570
I wasn't talking about the ISS. Anyway space exploration in general is way underfunded

want a economic reason? Get Alcuberrie Drives and you have access to unilimited resources.

>>8170053
In the sense that we've colonized Antarctic it's almost certain. I tend to believe that children won't be born and raised on other planets though. The light delay means that you'd need 25 years of sustain medical care to become a productive member of off-world society. Culturally, all such children would be weird Space Mormons jerking off with a spare tube of droid oil into a handful of rock dust. ...unless that Space Mormons and Scientologists will inherit humanity. I honestly can't decide which would be the Empire and which the Rebel Alliance though.

>>8170053
Of course its possible but without no shekels going to the governments they wont do it.

>>8177623
We must first learn to create artificial gravity before colonizing planets our damn biological nature makes living on anywhere that isnt earth an eventual death sentence.

After we can generate gravity the rest is easy.

>>8170053
short answer: no
long answer: never

>>8177648
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrifuge

>>8171419
I think this is the wrong way to look at it
We're never going to run out of problems on earth. If we wait to fix global warming and all the massive migrations it might cause we're never leaving this rock

>>8177648
>our damn biological nature makes living on anywhere that isnt earth an eventual death sentence.
Vast overstatement. It's not THAT bad.

>>8177697
That helps in micro-g, that would be absolutely absurd on the surface.

>>8177809
>We're never going to run out of problems on earth.
Very true. I don't subscribe to "Earth is doomed and this is our only option" but I see no reason against colonizing Mars and more space stations soon. Interstellar is pretty silly for the next 50+ years though. Consider the delay in even communicating with such a hypothetical colony.

>>8177809
If western civilization collapses in a few decades, we ain't going anywhere.

>>8177861
a. it wont
b. we can already be somewhere by then. not interstellar but colonized.
c. international efforts > national efforts

>no colony on the moon
>no man on mars
>no man on any non-terrestrial moons

I say no. I don't think we will ever make it outside of Mars, and Mars will be a dead end.

>>8177876
>>no colony on the moon
Useless.

>>no man on mars
That's what we're currently aiming for...

>>no man on any non-terrestrial moons
It's fairly logical for that to come later.

>I don't think we will ever make it outside of Mars, and Mars will be a dead end.
Those are some cool feelings, but without any argument supporting them they are pretty useless.

File: 1456922705580.jpg (145KB, 960x600px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 960x600px

Probably only if Trump wins.

Or if we get another free market candidate or something.

>>8177927
>implying Bernie is in the race
It's between shit and shitter. No one wins.

File: 1467108457190.gif (2MB, 720x404px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 720x404px

>>8177930
I can't wait for the incredible butthurt when Bernie endorses Shillary.
lmao

>>8177932
>>8177930
Dnno
Bernie might be sticking around because he knows hillary will be indicted soon

>>8177932
Who gives a shit? Shillary is slightly less insane than Drumpf. As I said, no one wins.

File: 1467437675776.jpg (187KB, 1024x819px) Image search: [Google]

187KB, 1024x819px

>>8177938
>Drumpf
>LOL DRUMPHHPPHPHHH XD

Kill yourself.

File: power.gif (990KB, 400x305px) Image search: [Google]

990KB, 400x305px

>>8177932
>hillary will be indicted soon
Hah, what legal system are you basing this on? Politics is about gaining enough power to outrun your past.

>>8170601
The buddhists would slaughter the muslims.

>>8177930
it'd be awesome if we got voting reform from this election.
First past the post voting has to die.

>>8177939
>offended trumpet supporter
Kill yourself.

File: 1467004822425.png (30KB, 828x613px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 828x613px

>>8177939
damn those people are ugly

Those are the types of people that think john oliver is funny.

File: 1467105232389.jpg (1MB, 1035x1035px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1035x1035px

>>8177945
>assdamaged john oliver lover
kek how does it feel to be retarded enough to laugh at cringy facebook-tier "humor"?

>>8177940
This. All the shit she's done and I'd still rather have her in there than Donald. Especially is Warren is her VP.

File: 1353102463474.png (441KB, 720x530px) Image search: [Google]

441KB, 720x530px

>>8177949
>All the shit she's done and I'd still rather have her in there than Donald.
Are you absolutely insane.
She would LITERALLY start world war 3.

Donald wants to be friends with countries like Russia.

Clinton wants to bomb them.

>Especially is Warren is her VP.
Warren is a leftist sociopath that wants to tax and regulate the shit out of everyone.

>>8177959
Not him but I'm voting clinton just to laugh at you lunatic fucks. I'm sure the majority of trump voters feel the same. What an election this will be. What a country this is.

>>8177947
>everyone who is against me is allied with ALL of my enemies
I don't watch political comedy, I heard drumpf and it sounded memey. Kill yourself.

>>8177960
>Not him but I'm voting clinton just to laugh at you lunatic fucks.
>voting clinton
>calls other lunatics

Enjoy your nuclear holocaust and/or sharia law.

>>8177959
Gotta vote my conscience. I'm a lot more worried about war with China anyway and that's what we can expect from Trump.

And there are many people and corporations who need to pay tax. I should be taxed more, it's ridiculous. I take home about 200k a year and maybe live on a quarter of that.

>>8177965
>Enjoy your nuclear holocaust
I'm pretty sure that's what you should expect from Tramp.

>>8177966
>And there are many people and corporations who need to pay tax.
No, we need to dramatically cut government spending and taxes so that people can start small businesses.

>I should be taxed more, it's ridiculous.
Holy fucking shit are you brainwashed.
Go donate all your money to our horribly inefficient government who is just going to waste it anyway.

>>8177967
Again, Except for bombing ISIS(which many counties support), Trump is the anti-war candidate.

File: 1466921628173.jpg (28KB, 556x644px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 556x644px

>>8177969
Government spending should be increased. We need to fix our fucking infrastructure to the tune of 3 trillion by 2020. We need to increase military spending. And we need to dominate space.

And government inefficiency is a myth created by privatization-cucked right wingers who want to rape the government as contractors. And you think I'm brainwashed.

>>8177969
>so that people can start small businesses.
Maybe you should focus on taxing the large rich corporations so that small businesses aren't so easy to crush? Also, do something about oligopolies.

>Holy fucking shit are you brainwashed.
My inherited capital is sacred and righteous. That's not brainwashed at all.

>horribly inefficient government who is just going to waste it anyway.
Tangential, our horribly inefficient government is taking too much from the poor and middle class, if you lower taxes do it for them.

>Trump is the anti-war candidate.
Trump is an uneducated xenophobic flip-flopper, I have no idea how you think you know what to expect from him.

>>8177971
Donald is just in it for the $$$$

>>8177970
>Government spending should be increased.
Government spending should be cut by 90%.
I have no idea why you people actually WANT to be poor and have a terrible economy.

>We need to fix our fucking infrastructure to the tune of 3 trillion by 2020.
>muh infrastructure
Fixing our fucking economy is far more important than infrastructure.

China spends trillions on "infrastructure" and they end up with ghost cities.

>We need to increase military spending.
Absolutely not.

Can you tell me why you want to be poor and everyone around you to be poor?

>And government inefficiency is a myth
AHaHAHAHAHA
Holy shit.
A large portion of your paycheck goes to pay the interest on the national debt.
The government is insanely inefficient and has been known to be many times.

>>8170067
>>8171314
Honestly it does move fast though, you have so many people in the world investigating science and technology, that when someone finds or suggests something, everyone tries to prove it wrong or right and tries to perfect whatever it may be or base or make something off of that theory, invention, whatever it may be. For example: we developed flight travel in early 20th century and by the end of it, we had become capable of supersonic travel because of people further investigating and making inventions off of one another's work. I think we could possibly pull it off by the end of the century, at the least to Mars.

>>8177971
>Maybe you should focus on taxing the large rich corporations so that small businesses aren't so easy to crush?
lmao the only reason large corporations are able to fuck over smaller ones is because they get special government favors that liberals support.

Raising taxes on the rich only fucks over small companies.

Why do you think large corporations support tax increases? It fucks over their competitors.

>if you lower taxes do it for them.
Why don't we lower taxes for all classes.

>>8177976
>I have no idea why you people actually WANT to be poor and have a terrible economy.
Cutting government spending only increases the disparity. It's good if you have that mountain of capital to sit atop.

>China spends trillions on "infrastructure" and they end up with ghost cities.
what is Shenzhen

>A large portion of your paycheck goes to pay the interest on the national debt.
>The government is insanely inefficient and has been known to be many times.
Tangential rhetoric. Cutting government spending wont fix this, it will simply cause systems to collapse entirely and the entire situation to get worse. Have you considered that if the inefficiency bothers you, maybe you should focus on the inefficiency instead of the spending?
>Absolutely not.
I certainly agree with that, military spending is diverting from infrastructure that matters.

>>8177970
>And government inefficiency is a myth
Are you 12 years old?
Tell that to the soviet union.

If you give people MORE money for failing, of course they're going to be inefficient.

>>8177980
>lmao the only reason large corporations are able to fuck over smaller ones is because they get special government favors that liberals support.
>Why do you think large corporations support tax increases? It fucks over their competitors.
Have you considered not all tax increases are equal? I've already stated I don't want to raise taxes for the poor and middle-class.

>Raising taxes on the rich only fucks over small companies.
This is the stupidest thing I've read all day. Hat tip to you, milady.

>Why don't we lower taxes for all classes.
Because we have trillions of debt you imbecile.

File: 1348803204577.jpg (75KB, 960x580px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 960x580px

>>8177982
>Cutting government spending only increases the disparity
Bullshit, it puts capital back in the hands of the economy, back in the hands of the middle class.

>Shenzhen
What does that have to do with anything?
China spends trillions on infrastructure projects that just sit there and don't get used.
In fact north korea does this too.
More infrastructure spending won't help our economy.

>it will simply cause systems to collapse entirely
Good, I hope the government goes bankrupt so they can start over again.

>maybe you should focus on the inefficiency instead of the spending?
There's nothing you can do to fix government inefficiency, it's the nature of government that makes it inefficient.
The only way to fix this is to take away most of their money and leave it in the private sector where it can actually prove beneficial to the economy and society.

>>8177989
>Have you considered not all tax increases are equal? I've already stated I don't want to raise taxes for the poor and middle-class.
Sanders wants to increase taxes on the up and coming rich.
You know, small business owners.

It's idiots like you who want to tax people like this, which only ends up helping large corporations in the end.

>This is the stupidest thing I've read all day.
NOT AN ARGUMENT
You literally support taxing the shit out of the smaller competitors of large corporations.
Good for you.

>Because we have trillions of debt you imbecile.
LMAO Oh wait you actually think the debt will ever magically be paid off.

The only solution is to cancel the debt entirely and start again.
Younger people don't deserve to be enslaved from the mistakes of baby boomers and gen xers.

Cancel the debt, cut spending dramatically and lower taxes.
It worked before, we did this after WW2 and deregulated and it ended up being the most economically productive year in american history and paved the way for the post war boom.

>>8177992
>Good, I hope the government goes bankrupt so they can start over again.
I'm glad you're in a cozy position where this wont affect you, but the poor and middle class will be absolutely destroyed by this happening. There will be absolute chaos.

You have nice hypothetical ideals, but a loose grasp on reality. I'm for more private sector, but as it stands the rich will simply form more oligopolies. You can't focus on one issue and ignore the rest.

>>8177996
>You literally support taxing the shit out of the smaller competitors of large corporations.
You live in a fantasy.

>Cancel the debt, cut spending dramatically and lower taxes.
Case in point.

File: 1376799704054.jpg (156KB, 960x613px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 960x613px

>>8177999
>but the poor and middle class will be absolutely destroyed by this happening
The poor and middle class will be SAVED when this happens.

There will be a slight downturn, then the economy will restructure within a few months time.

This has happened before, in 1920.

>but a loose grasp on reality.
You're the delusional child that thinks we should increase government spending when it's already at record highs and is causing everyone to be poor.
It's unsustainable.

>but as it stands the rich will simply form more oligopolies
They form oligopolies NOW because of your policies.
Central banking, copyright law, patents, high regulations etc

>>8178002
>You live in a fantasy.
Seeing as you're providing absolutely zero rebuttal, I can safely say you're wrong and have been BTFO.

>Case in point.
Wait, you ACTUALLY think paying off the debt is in any way possible.
Are you insane?

>>8177976
I'm only poor compared to the rich assholes who need to be taxed more.

A progressive tax rate (rich pay more, middle class/poor pay less) would make us less poor.

Single-payer health insurance would make us less poor.

Infrastructure repair creates good long term jobs (we are DECADES behind on our roads/bridges/dams etc). Cost less in personal/commercial auto repair, saves working people money.

Governments need to spend. Government spending is good for the economy when done properly.

And we do need to increase military spending, especially in cyberwarfare and missile deffense.

>>8177984
Do you really think our government and economy are set up anything like the Soviet Union's?

And what specific failure and inefficiencies are you talking about anon?

>>8177992
Last I checked I'm middle class and taxes are not a burden. I live pretty well, got a boat, got a truck, got a house. Life is good.

Nah, this century will be defined by WW3. If the good side wins, then space colonisation will happen. If the brown side wins, we go back to pre-industrial tech.

File: 1353540304091.png (130KB, 1134x1357px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 1134x1357px

>>8178013
>Single-payer health insurance would make us less poor.
So taxing the middle class EVEN MORE while providing them sub par and expensive "services" that they could have gotten much much cheaper in a free market makes them less poor?
Pic related.

>Infrastructure repair creates good long term jobs
No it doesn't. It only lasts as long as the infrastructure project is not done.

We need PRODUCTIVE jobs not wasteful jobs for the sake of employment.

Are you this economically illiterate?

>we are DECADES behind on our roads/bridges/dams etc
Then why the fuck should we destroy our economy to repair them?

Let's lower spending and allow the economy to come back, then we'd be able to pay for infrastructure. It's not a priority right now.

>Government spending is good for the economy when done properly
lmao yes, PROPERLY, not trillions of dollars on waste

>>8178025
The most likely scenario is a Sino-American conflict contained to East Asia within the next 10-15 years. There is about a 75% chance of this happening.

US will due to naval superiority unless China loses its shit and nukes the fleet. Then no one wins.

File: 1353121185758.png (429KB, 1000x1100px) Image search: [Google]

429KB, 1000x1100px

>>8178019
>Do you really think our government and economy are set up anything like the Soviet Union's?
That has nothing to do with this at all.

The nature of the government is inefficiency.

When the government is in control of everything, EVERYTHING is inefficient and poor.

>>8178033
I'm not going to edit your homework for you anon.

Idiot. Progressive tax system means taxing poor/middle class slightly LESS, and taxing the rich at a HIGHER rate.

Read more. We have decades of infrastructure work to do. That's long term.

How is putting people to work and reducing upkeep cost on private vehicles bad for the economy? New roads are also cheaper to maintain than decrepit ones. Use your head man.

You do know that the WASTE you're talking about are the wars that Bush started, right? That's why we're in the shitter.

>>8178035
That is the most poorly made, beta infographic I have ever seen. And you're the one that brought up the Soviets.

>>8178033
>>8178035
Brainwashed trumpets need to stop embarrassing themselves with lack of reading comprehension and repeating rhetoric directly from their favorite fatcat billionaires.

>>8178038
>Progressive tax system means taxing poor/middle class slightly LESS, and taxing the rich at a HIGHER rate.
LMAO I didn't even talk about a progressive tax in my post and you call me an idiot.

You're a fucking retard.

>We have decades of infrastructure work to do. That's long term.
Who cares, spending money on this will not fix the fucking economy, we need to increase production, increase manufacturing, increase capital goods.

We need to create wealth instead of destroying it.

Are you this economically illiterate?

>>8178042
You're just incredibly angry right now and have absolutely no argument.
Tell me what's wrong with the image.
Oh wait you have nothing and are butthurt.

File: 1358290294344.png (274KB, 500x490px) Image search: [Google]

274KB, 500x490px

>>8178045
>get BTFO
>get angry and shitpost instead of posting an argument back
Typical low IQ, economically retarded leftists

>>8178050
Keynes isn't socialism, no matter how many times you say it is

File: 1353378460009.jpg (281KB, 748x992px) Image search: [Google]

281KB, 748x992px

>>8178056
Maybe, not but he's supported by socialists and is on the left.

He was also horrendously retarded.

>>8178045
This.

>>8178059
>supported by socialists
he isn't. stop equating socialism with democrats.
Government spending can be part of a capitalist plan.

> that quote
He was the one who suggested a negative progressive tax rate, wasn't he?

File: 1466988563150.png (73KB, 454x453px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 454x453px

>>8178047
You sound rustled.
If you can't see how tax rate is relevant to this discussion, you're either 14 or retarded.

If you can't see how creating jobs and fixing roads is good for the economy, YOU are economically illiterate.

Yes, we have to manufacture and produce things, but the billionaires won't bring the jobs back unless our wages go as low as the chinese.

Wake up cuck, you're a fucking slave and you are advocating for your masters.

Reminder that the portion of income that people spend (as opposed to save) is inversely proportional to their income.

>>8178061
>stop equating socialism with democrats.
but many democrats also support socialism

They don't equal each other but are definitely related.

>He was the one who suggested a negative progressive tax rate, wasn't he?
I don't know.
He was a pretty stupid man though and his polices have failed time and time again.


>>8178065
>If you can't see how tax rate is relevant to this discussion
You brought it up out of nowhere, I was just calling you an idiot for doing that.

>If you can't see how creating jobs
Holy shit you're getting mad now

There's nothing good about a "job" in and of itself.

Why doesn't the government spend money employing half the population to dig holes, and the other half to fill them back up?

Are you ACTUALLY retarded enough to think unproductive work will help the economy?

What about growing food, producing capital goods, mining for resources, manufacturing? You know, the things that actually make a fucking ECONOMY?

Do you realize how retarded you sound right now?

>but the billionaires won't bring the jobs back unless our wages go as low as the chinese.
There's no evidence to this at all. The only way our wages will go that low is if we keep printing money.

Your solution to this "problem" is to destroy the economy even further so we produce and manufacture absolutely NOTHING.

You people are so clueless it's unreal.

>you're a fucking slave and you are advocating for your masters.
You're the one advocating more government and corporate power.

>>8178069
While we're on the subject, can you think of a way to privatize roads?
Highways can be tollways, but individual roads to each person's house (and the upkeep on that road) seems like it'd be more than each individual is able to spend (at least in my podunk town).

File: Privatization%20of%20Roads[2].jpg (14KB, 240x359px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 240x359px

>>8178078
>can you think of a way to privatize roads?
I'm not an ancap so I'm not in favor of doing that.

Many great books have been written on the matter though.

>Highways can be tollways, but individual roads to each person's house (and the upkeep on that road) seems like it'd be more than each individual is able to spend (at least in my podunk town).
roads that are around houses would probably be owned by homeowners associations you would pay a fee to maintain them

>>8178038
>We have decades of infrastructure work to do
Just because you liberals repeat a meme doesn't mean its reality

First off: You import endless streams of foreigners that chew up all the tax money, leaving nothing extra

Secondly: The only places with infrastructure issues are ones that have chronically misspent money & ignored maintenance/build shitty stuff in the first place.

Thirdly: None of this matters more than the fact you commie shits wish to turn the US into a third world state.

>muh bush
rofl liberals..

>>8178088
> blaming the big bad government for foreigners instead of the people who hire them
delusional

>>8178096
I didn't know businesses gave out welfare, visa's, and citizenships

>>8178102
>And most illegals from Mexico come to get a job
Or to commit crime.

>hurr they just want to get a job and improve their lives

They could do that at home as well
No reason they should be here

>>8177563
>I think we'll have Alcuberrie Drives before 2050

>>8177589
>Get Alcuberrie Drives and you have access to unilimited resources.

The concept is more hypothetical than you realize. Just because something doesn't violate relativity doesn't mean it can actually be built, not to mention economically.

>>8178038
>Progressive tax system means taxing poor/middle class slightly LESS, and taxing the rich at a HIGHER rate.
Progressive taxes mostly dont work,if you want to increase expending,as you were suggesting. The places with a higher public sector,mostly finance their expending through regressive taxes like VATs and sale taxes. In fact the US has one of the most progressive tax systems in the world,specially compared to countries like Denmark

>>8178150
I understand that. But I'm a bit optimistic and I believe that it will be possible through a chain of effects that will start with either nuclear fusion or efficient quantum computing and will more than sure feature both

>>8178426
You're just throwing buzzwords around. Fusion and quantum computing don't give you negative energy.

Also you're more than just a bit optimistic (or pessimistic as I would see it, since I don't want it to happen for complicated ethical reasons).

>>8170053
Possible? Sure.

Likely? Not so much.

File: 1457739883581.jpg (246KB, 960x895px) Image search: [Google]

246KB, 960x895px

>>8170053
Also scientist recently found that you can grow crops in Mars (the know it by plating seed in soil with the same composition as Marx surface, wich was discovered by the ROBER sent to Mars)

>>8173391
>Inbreeded
>Posts irrelevant map

Guess who's retarded.

It's always been possible

Remember when this thread was about space colonization?

>>8170601
>Buddhists, Sikhs, Shintos and Hindu's.
Oh, I'm keen for Indian genocide.

>>8170053
> Is space colonization possible this century?
Not even remotely.

Even long-term occupation of anywhere farther than the moon isn't feasible without a "we didn't see that one coming" breakthrough in propulsion technology.

We simply can't ship enough hardware out to Mars or beyond in order to create a habitat where the first non-trivial "incident" doesn't automatically kill the entire population.

>>8170053
If the a.i industrial revolution comes this century, aka as machines capable of doing human work better than humans (which is pretty possible on the next 20 years) then we could start sending the first robotic astronauts which would help construct the first actual infraestructure for say asteroid mining or satelite repairing/recycling

>>8177812
astronauts do their best to stay healthy and so yet after 3 months or so their bones start to fail and after a year they need medical treatment for reentry.

now 0 gravity is a thing, what about planets with 10 g?

>>8170582
So Dune?

>>8174411

>Did I mention the temperature is whatever the populace decides and weather is scheduled?
I want you to contemplate, very seriously for a moment, the ramifications of handing over weather control to a colony of disagreeable organisms whose primary method of communication is memes.

>>8171262
>asking the tough questions

>>8177883

>Those are some cool feelings, but without any argument supporting them they are pretty useless.
It's a gravity well with no significant natural resource prospects (inb4 buruhruhrusajbuurrr water), and no useful atmosphere.

The moon is actually much more compelling from a colonial standpoint. Lower gravity, no trace atmosphere bullshit, lots of potential propellant. Good secondary anchorage for orbital construction projects, and microgravity science. GREAT platform for telescopes.

Mars is a meme.

>>8170053
well yes and no

we will probably have a permanent orbital industry by the 2050s, but it will mostly be automated
>tfw you will never be a space cowboy and listed to blues while to tug asteroids into orbit around the moon