Simon_Jester wrote:Ray, there ARE organizations and entities that are capable of making plans on this timescale. It's a product of certain specific cultures and attitudes, but it's a thing that human beings are capable of. We're not all, automatically, all the time, hardwired to ignore things that we expect to happen after the day we die.
Do you actually have anything to say here, besides "it seems impossible, and it seems impossible, and I'm pretty sure it's impossible?"
Like what? NASA and other organisation doesn't really count because they've added new useful technologies within poeple's lifetime. And the investment in public space agency is nowhere as massive as a sleeper ship venture.
Our failure to commit on any major venture to the moon or Mars today is pretty much an indication of the limitation of our current society.
I think you are limited in your perspective of your government's short-term nature and thus unable to imagine any other form of government. Do you honestly believe that your current form of government is the pinnacle of civilization?
No, but I don't believe we are capable of developing a government that could manage interest on a time scale of several hundred years.
You also have to keep in mind that creating space infrastructure is also a multi-generational thing.
Yes, but look at the projects that failed to take off the ground on the account of cost. We do benefit directly in the short term, like the GPS.
No, it wouldn't because of the life support cost of keeping thousands alive versus a few hundred or less (for a skeleton crew).
The purpouse of transporting people in a frozen state isn't just to preserve them for hundreds of years but to lower life support cost. Keeping a cryo-pod at low temperature and other things is more economic then providing everyone with a room, food, water, etc.
That still assume that the technology needed to preserve human in statis for several centuries is cheap. For a technology like this to work, it would require massive amount of reduancies.
Pessimistic much? I mean, if you really believe this then the species is doomed to be unable to manage itself to leave Earth.
Kinda. Humans have certainly been shown to fuck the future because of short term benefits.
Let me repeat myself: a slowship is a "input: money, output: colony on another star system" deal. Like the moon landings or space programs in general. This is an incredibly mayor project.
Those are projects that had short term benefits. Moon landing was driven by the cold war to beat the Soviets. Once the cold war was over, funding for the Apollo mission was cut.
I really find it a little depressing that you really believe that there can be no other perspective about this than a "get rich quick" investor's.
The whole thing CAN be made profitable IF there is something that colonists do that is valuable to the society that built the slowship. It's just an extremely long-term investment. You also have to keep in mind that to a society that can build interstellar slow-ships, what is valuable may be different than a modern man's.
There's no reason to assume human society would be fundamentally different in any major way. Investment in technology are made because they do provide short term benefits.
Humans are such funny creatures. We are selfish about selflessness, yet we can love something so much that we can hate something.