Plasma rocket techknology breakthrough.

it`s hell AND exciting!

 

Exciting as it may be, it's not Real. That's not how we work. Unless we find some aliens species with who plan on wiping us off the map, there won't be united humanity

 

And yet we've been able to create the UN, despite the fact that we've been developing global human empathy for only a few decades. I think that speaks of merit.

 

NATO is losing its integrity because the state of affairs in which it was founded is no longer applicable. So Meee is right. We don't co-operate if we don't have to.

 

I disagree, I think the failure of NATO is an urban myth based on inconsistent and pick-and-choose information provided by popularized media.

NATO is actually doing quite alright, it has its up and down like every other organization. Besides, the success or failure of NATO isn't a valid argument for judging the entire human race. Have in mind that the very democracy that we're living in today, haven't even existed for more than a century or so.

If you look at it from a longterm perspective, it's actually quite easy to be optimistic. But when people who don't know what they're talking about, continue to feed the media with doomsday scenarios, it's easy to believe that it IS valid.

For me, it's actually a great sign of how good we're actually doing, when people start complaining about ridiculous things in the media, stuff like Muslim's trying to take on the world, 2012 doomsday, and more. It's all complete and utter nonsense once you actually look into it from ALL sides and realize how incredibly ridiculous it actually is. But if that isn't done, then it's understandable that some might actually believe that crap. It's like Joseph Goebbels taught us - tell a lie enough times and people will start believing it.

 

Meee is not right. It is a scientifically supported fact that humanity has been unifying into bigger and bigger chunks for the past thousands of years. If we are to continue the trend we come to a very reasonable prediction that eventually we will all belong to one global super state of some kind. We cannot say if it's going to take 50 years of 500 years but it is likely to happen eventually.
Science > Meees and kuvasz personal opinion. Sorry.

 

That isn't my opinion, sorry. Those are the relflections on the thoughts of my American studies professor I'd been taking lectures from and all the other analysts who wrote those countless research essays on the issue. Along with the views of Andrew Pierre, guest lecturer, former ambassador. Their opinions > your "science". Sorry.

 

[citation needed]
Anyones opinion < reality.
And no it is not my science. It is science. It is reality. We started off as small groups of related individuals and traveled through small tribes, city states all the way to semi-globalized society we have today. To say that suddenly all progress should cease is an act of faith.
Please tell me why should we stop progressing forward all of a sudden? On what grounds do you base that on?

 

How could I give citation to a bunch of lectures, notes, and two dozens of printed essays? I'm not going to check if they're available online.

I was saying that if a union is initiated by necessity (like NATO was) then that union is bound to dissolve once the reason for the unity is lost. It is because there is, very pragmatically speaking, no job they need to attend to. And the unity can't rearrange and thus live on because the foundation was designed to cater for the reason for the unity and nothing more, and changes are passed extremely hard in NATO anyway.

Also note that I said "if we don't have to". Very few foundations/groups have been established because of not having anything better to do. That is to say if there is no direct profit from co-operation, man tends to take the every-man-for-himself attitude. I might be a bit biased by our incumbant PM and the general attitudes of our politicians, but I highly doubt this is a unique Hungarian trait.

 

I do not care about the state of NATO (which is by the way grossely underestimated by a lot of people as Kinkseraph pointed out). You agreed with Meee that there will never be united humanity. I don't see a reason why I should believe that.

So I am asking you: On what grounds do you base your belief that there will never be united humanity? (your definition of 'united humanity' would be welcome since it's such an ambigious phrase.)

 

i think humanity will never be united because of politics, backgrounds, bloodfeuds, history in general. We will come to tolerate each other further, but nothing more then that.

Anyway moving away from this, once these new rockets are put to work, should we start on making a permanent moon base?

 

So what are your definitions of united humanity? A global super state? United states of earth? Utopia where everyone works together for a common goal?

 

How about we get back on damn topic, space get to it.

 

Gforce puts the FORCE in Gforce

Oh and speaking of force btw:

 

No, I wont let you make a statement and then get away from it without providing any justification. What is your definition of united humanity?

 

Fine, my definition of a united humanity is one that works for the great good society, but due to human nature this is impossible. Happy now? Besides, an imperium would be better.

Anyway, can we now get back to the technological part of this discussion?

 

I imagine a unity much like a team in sports - all the members see the common goal (and they actually share that common goal, not forced onto them) and they are all willing to make sacrifices to achieve that, with personal aims becoming nonexistent. Because of how specific and limited the scope of this unity can be I think the minute the goal is reached or teamwork is made impossible (no enemy to defeat, etc.), the unity dissolves.

As for Kinkseraph's claims, as if it wasn't obvious, I didn't get my info from pick-and-choose sources or popularised media, but analysts who have a sound understanding of the situtation, oftentimes due to their previous involvement in it. But if it makes you feel safe then go ahead and believe that the NATO is doing just fine - that's ok with me. Now enough of this OT.

 

So in your opinions, how should a permanent moon base be setup, personal, design, etc etc.

 

You believe that something which is impossible to reach (due to human nature) is impossible? Me and I think almost other 7 billion people are right there with you. So why make such an statement?

And technological discussion was over last time I checked. In fact there was no discussion at all only statements of opinion. So if you want to create another tangent I will try and hop onto the choo choo train although I do not see much of a potential in it:
This new type of propulsion has very little effect on travel between earth and moon. You will not have enough 'space' to use it's full potential as you would if you travel to Mars. Sure it is a step forward but an unecessary one since even with 60s technology it took only couple of days to reach the moon and the travel time is definetly not one of the most important factors that stops us from setting up a moon base.

Yes I agree and so should anyone else. This utopia is indeed impossible or too radical to make feasable predictions on. But that is not what I think or what the data points to.


And seriously: Stop going off-topic JUST to make a straw man made of solidified petrol. If there is a good tangent offering itself for grasp I have no problem if someone takes that opportunity saying 'I think 2+2=4 is true' is not a good subject for a discussion.

 

You have a point, so base on mars then?