************************************
Not sure why that is so stunning an opinion. Will space travel fix the debt, warming, and overpopulation, or will solving these issues allow us to invest the resources to further our space goals? I say the latter. There are limited resources in this planet, both physical and intellectual. Space will never in our lifetime get the lion’s share of these resources, period. Within the limits of these allocated resources, you have to wisely use what you’ve got. The shuttle and ISS are not wise uses, that’s my view and I’ve sticking to it. Space technologies will be useful in achieving solutions, but they are not THE answer. If I don’t respond anymore I’m not ignoring you, I just can’t make my views any clearer without writing another 10 pages to this already long thread.
The underlying point to that first question is the commonly posted idea that somehow we can/should solve the problems here on earth first, before we go into space. I suggest you check out this diary entry http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/1/26/92437/0610 .

As to your second point, what your talking about means a) sustainability, which is basically rationing and b) that space has/will be a net drain on the resources of humanity. Now, concerning sustainability, again, see this link http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/why_implementing_the_space_option_is_necessary_for_society.shtml
The fundamental point was actually made by Deng Xiaoping “We can either spread poverty, or we can spread wealth”. This is true economically, its also true about energy, also true about culture, about all aspects of society. And unless we engage the larger universe, we will be forced to ration, which means a general decline.

As far as shuttle, or ISS, or the VSE/ESAS/CEV, you’ll find many people who have issue with how the funds are spent. And if your only point is we need a better plan, you won’t get any argument. But what you seem to be arguing is that a) manned spaceflight is inherently super expenseive and that B) it will continue to be for many years (maybe 100 or so). And that’s the problem that many people, myself, have with your points. It doesn’t need to be anywhere near as expensive as it is. Look at the VentureStar, and how close that came to significantly reducing manned spaceflight
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?id=4180 . And that’s not the only one out there – there is SpaceX, t/space, Rutan obviously, kistler – there is a whole host of potential ways to drop the cost of spaceflight in a relatively short time. I assume you’ve heard of many of them, but if you haven’t, I suggest you check out this link http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/1/5/214640/5315 and this link http://www.hobbyspace.com/AAdmin/archive/SpecialTopics/toSpaceTimeLine.html
. And that’s the point.

Because you obviously are not a deep thinker.

Will space travel fix the debt, warming, and overpopulation, or will solving these issues allow us to invest the resources to further our space goals?

First, you need you to think clearly.

Space ‘travel’ will solve nothing. Learning how to live in space will solve everything. Earth is in space. Get it?

Space will never in our lifetime get the lion’s share of these resources, period.

Stunning example of absolutism.

Space technologies will be useful in achieving solutions, but they are not THE answer.

There are no ‘answers’ in science. That’s mathematics.

Please do tell, how else to you propose to solve the immediate problems of living in space? This I gotta hear.

You really are thinking things through, aren’t you.

We aren’t interested in imports in the near term,
we are interested in scientific advancement and
technological development here on Earth. None
of that will happen as long as debt increases.

Your third link shows the CO2 increases. Same thing, space exploration will not solve this.

Space is the ONLY way to solve it.

Your denial is stunning. These are the big three
problems of the world, and they are intimately
related. The whole house of cards is about to
come crashing down, financially, environmentally,
economically, socially, and technologically.

We as a species are investing far too much of our
resources on weapons and paranoia, and far too
little on educating, feeding and employing the
masses, of generally ignorant and selfish people.

However, space-based shadowing devices could ‘solve’ it (for a sufficiently non-PC definition of ‘solve’). A carefully engineered, sophisticated small-angle scattering system tuned to IR wavelengths in the earth-sun L1 point sufficient to counter a 2x CO2 increase could have a mass in the thousands of tons.

As for the problems Mr, Elifritz provided, world over population will (or has the potential) be solved by raising the standard of living in low GDP nations. Poor people have many children as a hedge against old age, so there will be someone to support them. All industrialized countries have very low or even declining population growth. Space is not an answer to this problem as no matter how cheap launches get you will never launch more people off the planet than are being born at any one time.

The second link showing the debt clock is also not a good example. Space exploration/colonization will not easily produce any commodoties that can be easily transported to earth. The only exception to this is maybe power from orbiting solar plants, but are we really going to invest the trillon plus it would take to develop this tech? In a perfect world yes, in reality no. Space exploration will not solve this problem.

Your third link shows the CO2 increases. Same thing, space exploration will not solve this. Investing in renewable and environmentally safe technologies, and changing peoples travel and energy habits will.

Now, if you want to argue that we won’t solve these problems and therefore have to colonize space, fine. Or that the threat from an asteroid may make it wise to spread out, fine, but the space station and shuttle are not going to help with population/debt/global warming, except in a periphial(sic) way.

Once again, I say boost the station high enough so it won’t burn up for a few years, sign the hand reciept over to the europeans so they can worry about it and start fresh.