Feed all the starving babies or send a man to Mars ?

iamstop · 25-07-2012 12:00PM

Captain Chaos wrote: »

Africa needs to get itself sorted first.

Africa has been deliberately held back the Western world in order to exploit their resources. This has been happening for decades and evidence shows it is still happening. The money and science exists to completely change Africa in to a self sustaining continent and even become a net exporter. What is lacking is the will to do so.

carlmango11 · 25-07-2012 12:00PM

Feed the babies
"Babies" hit puberty
Exponential baby production.

Non merci.

Not to sound like an evil bástard but that's what will happen. The country needs to develop in other ways than just feed the babies.

DarkJager · 25-07-2012 12:08PM

iamstop wrote: »

Africa has been deliberately held back the Western world in order to exploit their resources. This has been happening for decades and evidence shows it is still happening. The money and science exists to completely change Africa in to a self sustaining continent and even become a net exporter. What is lacking is the will to do so.

Held back by the Western world? You're joking right?

2 "Live" concerts to raise funds, decades of donations to assist them, fundraisers for Africa, the list goes on and on. Billions have been raised and yet here we are in 2012 still watching TV adverts of children with flies all over them and more appeals for help. Where is the all aid gone to? Warlords and countless corrupt individuals in that country.

The western world has done all it can to help the situation in Africa. Its about time Africa sorts itself out or falls trying to do so. It should no longer be our problem.

Toby Take a Bow · 25-07-2012 12:13PM

DarkJager wrote: »

The western world has done all it can to help the situation in Africa. Its about time Africa sorts itself out or falls trying to do so. It should no longer be our problem.

Look into how organisations like the IMF enforced 'free trade' agendas on a lot of countries in Africa. Up until then, some of these countries were experiencing growth, but since adopting a neo-liberal agenda, as dictated to by the IMF, they've run into serious problems. This agenda leads to incredible difficulties in developing sustainable industries, and the countries become ever more dependent on supplying raw materials to the 'developed' world.

The 'charity' aspect glosses over this issue and allows us to say 'we've done what we can'. Which isn't true.

europa11 · 25-07-2012 12:22PM

iamstop wrote: »

Africa has been deliberately held back the Western world in order to exploit their resources. This has been happening for decades and evidence shows it is still happening. The money and science exists to completely change Africa in to a self sustaining continent and even become a net exporter. What is lacking is the will to do so.

And I guess the Chinese are just there for the good of their health...if anyone is exploiting Africa they are.

What has been really holding Africa back are Africans, not some mythical "western" conspiracy, they have hardly helped their own cause by first of all consistently putting one corrupt regime after the other in charge of their states, and secondly, in creating countries based solely in most cases on old colonial dividing lines and failing to go back to the tribal based dividing lines that would have saved tens of millions of lives imo (not that we can criticise too heavily on that score with our "loyalty":rolleyes: to British made county boundaries stymieing proper regional government here, not to mention the crazy Northern ireland border).

If there was such a Western conspired scheme at keeping post-colonial nations from developing then explain how Southeast Asian economies who like their African counterparts, gained independence some 50 to 60 years ago have blossomed.

goose2005 · 25-07-2012 12:25PM

I don't see the point in sending a human anywhere, really. For the cost of sending one astronaut to Mars we could send probes to every planet, moon, major comet, minor planet and major asteroid in the Solar System. There's nothing a guy (or girl) in a suit can do that a robot could do for a fraction of the cost.

Toby Take a Bow · 25-07-2012 12:26PM

europa11 wrote: »

If there was such a Western conspired scheme at keeping post-colonial nations from developing then explain how Southeast Asian economies, who, like their African counterparts, gained independence some 50 to 60 years ago. Yet SE Asia has blossomed.

Two completely different geographic areas with different histories, so not comparing like with like.

In addition to this, I think you may be forgetting some painful economic hardships experienced by SE Asian countries up to quite recently (again by introducing a more liberal economic agenda).

Cú Giobach · 25-07-2012 12:32PM

goose2005 wrote: »

I don't see the point in sending a human anywhere, really. For the cost of sending one astronaut to Mars we could send probes to every planet, moon, major comet, minor planet and major asteroid in the Solar System. There's nothing a guy (or girl) in a suit can do that a robot could do for a fraction of the cost.

Robots can only do what they are programmed and built to do, we can only program and build for the expected, humans can deal with the unexpected. There will be a hell of a lot of "unexpected" out there.
Though it's not really a "one or the other" situation, an intelligent combination of both will be the way forward.

Irish Guitarist · 25-07-2012 12:39PM

Humans have screwed up one planet. I don't see why we should screw up another.

Ri_Nollaig · 25-07-2012 12:51PM

Cianos wrote: »

High population density is a good thing, part of Africa's problem is its low population density.

New York has close to zero resources, but a very dense population, and works brilliantly. See what I'm getting at ?

No?

What about that huge country New York is attached to? I think they have a few resources alright.

KenSwee · 25-07-2012 01:03PM

No Need to debate, we can do both. Both challenges can be used for mutual benefit.
A Mars mission would also kick start failing economies and industries.
Drop defensive budgets by 10% in all the major countries around the world and we could easily afford a trip and an end to world poverty. A joint international effort in both cases would see a massive increase in technology and biology development; both needed for the solving of both issues in the OP. Assuming that we are going to Mars to see if it is able to be colonised, we would need a massive increase in the development of GM crops, designed to grow in inhospitable environments. This work would be massively advantageous for poor countries with failed crops and bad infrastructure. From a technology point of view, we would see great advances in day to day uses. The Space/Moon programme saw the invention of velcro, for example. The Mars mission would have a more technology based set up and would see great advances in medical, longevity of life, deep sleep programs, cancer research, Ion power plants, cold fusion, electro magnetic research, solar power and hydrogen fuel replacement. The list is endless and once the technology was made commercial, which would be very fast given that companies like Nokia, Google and Honda would probably be involved in the funding and development, the benefit would spread out across many industries and areas.

pickarooney · 25-07-2012 01:14PM

Feed the babies and in exchange they sign their lives over to advancing the space program.

Capt'n Midnight · 25-07-2012 01:50PM

If when the next big meteor hits it will wipe out most if not all human life on this planet.

Even the regular supervolcanos like Yellowstone or Tomba will be a difficult crisis.

We need to have a breeding colony off world.

Oddly enough the energy needed to get to Mars isn't a lot more than getting to the moon. Getting back is a tad trickier though.

Actually several asteroid colonies would be handy too.

Re. Kids in Africa, trade not aid. Replace Aid / debt forgiveness with trade and change rules for lending money to dictatorships so that democracies can't be burdened with their debts.

All the aid to Africa is only a fraction of the interest paid on what they owe.

Lord of the Bongs · 25-07-2012 01:54PM

Sell all the starving babies to the Martians and through inter galactic laws because of our stupid government get only 10% of their entire value back to fund the space programme

Sea Filly · 25-07-2012 01:55PM

Wibbs wrote: »

Mars. Sooner or later we'll need to leave earth if we're to survive as a species. Better sooner.

I happy to stick my neck out and say we will never live en masse in deep space.

ScumLord · 25-07-2012 02:01PM

I say go to mars. We're already more than capable of feeding everybody on earth, there's more than enough food to go around we just don't want to share it. Until people change that attitude there's no point trying to save the babies. To mars!

smash wrote: »

But most of the planet's surface isn't even populated! We just need to manage and grow more resources.

You can't grow more helium, we're running out of helium damnit! We also won't be able to make use of bigger power sources effectively on earth.

Moving into space takes away many many restrictions, while it may seem that doing things in space is more difficult from down here, living up there could become second nature, all you have to do is have a generation born and raised in space. Manufacturing would be much simpler if we could park our factories next to the asteroid belt. Overpopulation space issue would be a thing of the past and obviously we could finally put a heritage order on planet earth and take the pressure off it trying to support the human race.

carlmango11 · 25-07-2012 02:03PM

Cianos wrote: »

High population density is a good thing, part of Africa's problem is its low population density.

New York has close to zero resources, but a very dense population, and works brilliantly. See what I'm getting at ?

Overpopulation doesn't necessarily relate to density. When we use the word overpopulation in this context it means in relation to resources and sustainability. A lot of African countries are considered overpopulated because they cannot support the population with the resources it has.

New York is densely populated but that doesn't mean it's overpopulated. Its economy can support its entire population.

--Kaiser-- · 25-07-2012 02:32PM

Irish Guitarist wrote: »

Humans have screwed up one planet. I don't see why we should screw up another.

I refer you to

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

Diapason · 25-07-2012 02:44PM

This thread wasn't what I was expecting. Where the hell are the bleeding hearts that normally patrol the internet?

Mars all the way.

Lapin · 25-07-2012 03:13PM

Why send a man to Mars?

Send a woman instead.

At least the place will be nice and tidy by the time the men get there !

bluecode · 25-07-2012 03:33PM

As someone said earlier. It's a false dilemma. No one says 'Stealth bombers or Mars' as he succintly put it.

Feed the babies by all means. Or at least attempt to even though it's probably as pointless as going to Mars. Famine and starvations will probably never be fully eradicated.

But as for going to Mars. There is no point. Because there is zero benefit for us here on Earth other than as some form of inspirational adventure or exercise in prestige. You'd need a bottomless pit of money anyway which doesn't exist.

We haven't even gone back to the moon in forty years and that was relatively easy by comparison.

All this space stuff is pie in the sky (space). We've all been exposed to the sci fi stuff. Star Wars, Star Trek etc. But in the real world the technology to do that does not exist and probably never will unless there is some kind of breakthrough out there. There is an ongoing fantasy that we can leave this planet and travel among the stars or even the planets of the solar system. Fantasies that we can mine the Moon or Mars or elsewhere. But think about it. It's extremely expensive to mine here on Earth. Imagine the sheer difficultly in mining on a planet with no atmosphere. Imagine the size and cost of ore ships. This is simply not feasible.

So lets not go to Mars or even the Moon. Stay here on Earth and sort out our problems first.

Sea Filly · 25-07-2012 03:36PM

bluecode wrote: »

You'd need a bottomless pit of money anyway which doesn't exist.

Thank you! Why do people forget this? Even going to the Moon proved too expensive and that wasn't even deep space.

Secondly, even if it wasn't too expensive, you have to be, well, not a dumbass to go into space. So we will never go en masse.

+1 to the rest of your post too.

IvySlayer · 25-07-2012 03:41PM

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Oddly enough the energy needed to get to Mars isn't a lot more than getting to the moon. Getting back is a tad trickier though.

Why's this? Mars is 95% carbon dioxide, could easily convert into methane! Fuel supply. Methane can also be seperated into oxygen and hydrogen, there's the water and air supply!

BillyMitchel · 25-07-2012 03:41PM

Rabidlamb wrote: »

If you overpopulate an area

Who over populated?? God? Allah? I think a lot of the African people didn't have a choice in that one.

Diapason · 25-07-2012 03:46PM

Sea Filly wrote: »

Secondly, even if it wasn't too expensive, you have to be, well, not a dumbass to go into space.

Currently yes, but I'm sure the same was true in the early days of powered flight. Now we have Ryanair.

Sea Filly wrote: »

So we will never go en masse.

In our lifetimes probably not, but NEVER is a bit of a stretch.

Helix · 25-07-2012 03:50PM

sending people to mars is more important than saving even a considerable number of lives of starving kids, unfortunately

interplanetary travel may be the most important thing to the survival of the human species, saving some third world kids is not

ScumLord · 25-07-2012 03:52PM

bluecode wrote: »

A
But as for going to Mars. There is no point. Because there is zero benefit for us here on Earth other than as some form of inspirational adventure or exercise in prestige. You'd need a bottomless pit of money anyway which doesn't exist.

There is a bottomless pit of money in the form of raw materials in space. There's asteroids made out of diamonds, gold and even water just floating around up there. Going into space would destroy our bonkers economic system because everything that's rare and controlled by the few down here would become abundant and available to just about anyone up there. There's also the likes of helium 3 that could solve our energy needs permanently.

We haven't even gone back to the moon in forty years and that was relatively easy by comparison.

In a sense we are going to these places we're just doing proper preparatory work first by sending drones to scout the locations first. we learned a lot from going to the moon and it takes time to make proper use of that data.

But in the real world the technology to do that does not exist and probably never will unless there is some kind of breakthrough out there.

That Sci-fi has inspired scientists to make much of star trek a reality. Just about every thing in star trek has gone through initial testing, transporters have been tested and work. the major thing holding us back is a power source.

There is an ongoing fantasy that we can leave this planet and travel among the stars or even the planets of the solar system.

It's not a fantasy, we're actually doing it now. I think we can easily spread throughout this solar system, traveling to another star will take a lot longer but it will happen.

Fantasies that we can mine the Moon or Mars or elsewhere.

I don't think we will mine planets once we get into space, everything we need is floating around the asteroid belt.

So lets not go to Mars or even the Moon. Stay here on Earth and sort out our problems first.

Our problem is earth is finite and we will outgrow this planet, our only hope is to spread into space. Ultimately it's the only hope for life on this planet because if we leave we'll more than likely take a lot of life with us.

Cú Giobach · 25-07-2012 03:59PM

bluecode wrote: »

As someone said earlier. It's a false dilemma. No one says 'Stealth bombers or Mars' as he succintly put it.

Feed the babies by all means. Or at least attempt to even though it's probably as pointless as going to Mars. Famine and starvations will probably never be fully eradicated.

But as for going to Mars. There is no point. Because there is zero benefit for us here on Earth other than as some form of inspirational adventure or exercise in prestige. You'd need a bottomless pit of money anyway which doesn't exist.

We haven't even gone back to the moon in forty years and that was relatively easy by comparison.

All this space stuff is pie in the sky (space). We've all been exposed to the sci fi stuff. Star Wars, Star Trek etc. But in the real world the technology to do that does not exist and probably never will unless there is some kind of breakthrough out there. There is an ongoing fantasy that we can leave this planet and travel among the stars or even the planets of the solar system. Fantasies that we can mine the Moon or Mars or elsewhere. But think about it. It's extremely expensive to mine here on Earth. Imagine the sheer difficultly in mining on a planet with no atmosphere. Imagine the size and cost of ore ships. This is simply not feasible.

So lets not go to Mars or even the Moon. Stay here on Earth and sort out our problems first.

Since one of our defining characteristics as a species is our curiosity, you might as well ask people to stop breathing.
You have 2 choices, accept it or hate it, but you will never change it.

Sea Filly · 25-07-2012 04:00PM

Diapason wrote: »

In our lifetimes probably not, but NEVER is a bit of a stretch.

I genuinely believe this.

Sea Filly · 25-07-2012 04:02PM

ScumLord wrote: »

It's not a fantasy, we're actually doing it now. I think we can easily spread throughout this solar system, traveling to another star will take a lot longer but it will happen.

It would take 9 years to reach the edge of our own solar system, never mind another star.

Feed all the starving babies or send a man to Mars ?

Comments