Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

No Planets.

1 (0.7%)

Dead Planets Only.

11 (7.7%)

Dead Planets and planets that have the potential to support life.

22 (15.5%)

Dead Planets, planets that have the potential to support life, and planets that have microbial life/proto-life.

37 (26.1%)

Dead Planets, planets that have the potential to support life, planets that have microbial life/proto-life, and planets with pre-existing biospheres that lack any sapient species.

43 (30.3%)

Dead Planets, planets that have the potential to support life, planets that have microbial life/proto-life, planets with pre-existing biospheres that lack any sapient species, and planets that are inhabited by other sapient species.

21 (14.8%)

Other.

5 (3.5%)

No Opinion.

2 (1.4%)

Total Members Voted: 142

[PTTG??]

Well, then we could hardly call them humans.

[lemon10]

They would still be human, and still be homo sapiens  as long as they are able to interbreed with earth humans.
But yeah, tweaking humans would probably be far easier and far cheaper then terraforming a whole planet, as well as increasing the range of planets we would be able to live on.

[Criptfeind]

Well, then we could hardly call them humans.

Well that does not really matter. To us at least.

[Bohandas]

Has anybody else come to the realization that the first nation to stably colonize another planet will in doing so acquire a territory which can easily be made immune to the prospect of Mutually Assured Destruction, and thus be able to swiftly conquer Earth. That's why I support planetary colonization. To quote Lord darth Vader, "There'll be no one to stop us this time"

[Africa]

They would only be able to conquer earth if they didn't mind it being...mutually destroyed.

[Criptfeind]

Defending a planet is hard I would say MAD is even more likely.

[Africa]

Also, human expansion doesn't have to equal the wholesale destruction of ecosystems. It has, because we never had any clue what we're doing. It does, because most of us don't give a shit and can't see the big picture to save our lives. But it doesn't have to.

[Nikov]

A major goal of the space race was to get missile bases on the dark side of the moon so a first strike launch could be made without exhaust flares being detected or radar detection of the warheads travelling across the globe as an ICBM does. Things never got to that point, though.

MAD as we know it will be an obsolete concept within the century.

[Criptfeind]

Is that a good thing or a bad thing?

[mainiac]

It's a nonsensical thing.  It's more of less impossible to envision what weapons and countermeasures are going to exist 100 years from now.

[Bohandas]

I just figure that you'll have A LOT more time to shoot down an interplanetary missile than an intercontinental missile