Why did society give up on conquering space...

We're running short of rare earth metals as it is, eventually you're going to need to reach out to the virtually unlimited resources floating around the solar system in asteroids. You're going to need an infrastructure for that, and experience in microgravity construction.
Also this way you don't need to worry about the ethical grey area that is wlllfull genocide of billions of people, because that's kind of a dick move.
I wouldn't mind overseeing a microgravity greenhouse in orbit. Growing tomato the size of watermelons, pumpkins the size of minivans, and then carting them off to a LaGrange Colony for the harvest festival, and bang some biddies from the moon.

What "todays engineering"? The Space Shuttle?

>Eventually resource and population pressures are going to be enough
lol
Every country's birth rate levels off once it reaches a certain level of luxury. I doubt we'll break 9 billion humans on Earth. Plus, the US has reached peak farmland and is returning much of it to forest. Other countries will do the same. Mining is much more likely to push us into space than food restrictions or overpopulation.

>that's kind of a dick move
I wonder why we solve the overpopulation of wolves by killing wolves and overpopulation of foxes by killing foxes, but when it comes to humans then suddenly we can't even think of the immediate impact on environment and just let them breed forever, and instead think of elaborate scheme about escaping the planet and living in an environment our bodies aren't even made for.
>ou're going to need to reach out to the virtually unlimited resources floating around the solar system in asteroids
Yeah, and we don't need to physically start living in space for that to happen. That's what robots are for.

>Why did society give up on conquering space?

There's nothing to conquer. There's just trillions upon trillions of kilometers of nothingness, and if you even by chance meet some planets they are almost certainly going to be dead.

A lack of empathy is a symptom of autism.

>why do humans value human life more than the life of other species?

The real answer is we really don't. Just corporations who love that cheap workforce.

Most of them are born into utter misery which geometrically increases the more of them get born, I guess you empathy sense can short circuit.

Space being quote important when an asteroid the size of the moon decides to pay Earth a visit.

>the only reason we don't approve of genocide is because corporations like cheap labor

Do they? I feel nothing for an indian or african other than disgust at what they do to such pretty scenery and they fail to offer even cultural interest for the existence we should cull them down to populations that number in the thousands imo.

Most people are biologically limited to caring for around 100 people at max. Nobody feels empathy towards the entire rest of the planet and if you say you do, you're a liar.

>t. Michael Bay

T. Shitposter.

Everyone serious agrees that humanity is doomed if we don't spread out further out.

"conquering" space is like "conquering" ocean depths

extremely expensive and utterly pointless

We're doomed if we don't stop overpopulation. It's like saying the solution to a flooded house is building an airplane on the roof and flying away instead of pumping the water out

>tfw you're out of real edgy arguments, so you decide to just make some shit up about empathy

Overpopulation is a meme, the problem is that Earth is going to be destroyed eventually and people who aren't dumb hippies know mankind definitely doesn't have to share that faith, since yes, we'll likely be around and will not have destroyed ourselves beforehand.

Cost less to go into space than RnD on one single version of a jet for the military.

Yes, the vast majority of humanity feels empathy for other humans, even the ones unrelated to them. It seems like that would be self-evident given all of the laws, literature, and general public zeitgeist on it.

It'll stop on its own. Only idiots actually think it's a long term problem.

>Why did society give up on conquering space?
Because interplanetary colonization is hugely impractical and interstellar is impossible. All the smart people recognized this but pop-sci retards haven't caught up yet. Take off the fedora and join us in reality.

I am pretty sure they don't or they wouldn't have to solicit donations for niggerfeed so hard using advanced advertisement techniques. No one really cares, they just pretend too to not be judged.

You're projecting your personal feelings onto society. If no one cared, no one would be running the organizations you can donate to. If the majority didn't care you wouldn't feel like a cad for not donating.

>interstellar is impossible

doubt.jpg

If anything, I suspect it'd be easier than interplanetary in a lot of cases.

Goyim arent allowed to leave their pen.

>make some shit up
Dunbar's number.

>Overpopulation is a meme
How so?

Compare the world population in 1017 AD to the one in 2017 AD if you don't think this isn't a long term problem.

Compare the average birthrate from 1017 to 2017 if you think overpopulation is a long term problem

>dunbar's number
>the number of people you can maintain a relationship with is equal to the number of people you can feel empathy towards

I'd operate a charity to skim off the top while bludgening those who refused with social ostracism tbqh, and I would co-opt the preexisting universalist sentiment generated by Christianity in it efforts to overide kinbased altruism and spread its powerbase outside a single ethnic conclave to do so.

Kinda like what happened and why we pretend africans are real people.

Compare the global GDP in 1017 to 2017.

Compare per capita GDP.

If anything, you'll find that people have more access to resources than ever before.

Irrelevant.

Yep.

>d-doesn't count!!
lol

Dunbar himself doesn't agree with you

Well yeah it literally doesn't count when the number of humans is far greater. It doesn't matter how many are born, what matters is how many survive.

How many are born obviously matters when it drops to below replacement level in every first world country. All reputable predictions show global population reaching its max and then falling within our lifetime.

That literally only happened to white people and the Japanese historically.

It's still an open question whether the governments of the developing world will be able to maintain control of the growing populations and lower birthrates quickly enough to avert catastrophes.

>that literally only happened to first world countries historically
woah
Also, you're wrong. Check out Brazil, for example.

Because most of society are normies who play zero-sum games and are only motivated by zero-sum game.

We got more prestige than the Russians. We got up one step in the ladder and they got one step down.

You'd have to convince normies that a space program will uplift them one step up in the ladder. All the arguments regarding resources and capacity and what not are for naught if normies don't see their status increases.

You do realize that a shocking number of scientist, whose work skirts around this potential weapon, have died under mysterious circumstances for the past 3 decades.

Someone is looking out for us but its name ain't God.

Simple formula. When the cost of having a kid is too much, than parents scale down minus the minority dysgenics experiment via welfare that occurs in the US.

If I'm in the Congo, my kid doesn't need expensive shit. He just needs to survive. He is more likely to die before adulthood than in 1st world nations. it makes sense to just pop out a bunch so that at least some will live to adulthood and have children.

If you have a kid in America, there's so much shit and services to buy that it makes sense scaling your kids to your means.

What about Brazil? It's neither first world nor white.

>You do realize that a shocking number of scientist, whose work skirts around this potential weapon, have died under mysterious circumstances for the past 3 decades.
Source?

Brazil's fertility rate is below the US. In fact many non-white countries are. Maybe you should actually look at the numbers.
cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2127.html

USA is packed to the brim with poorfags though.

>Compare the average birthrate from 1017 to 2017
Compare the infant mortality rates in 1017 to 2017

Well we were talking about white countries, USA doesn't qualify.

Doesn't matter when the fertility rate eventually drops below replacement.

Poverty is a relative term. I had a smartphone while I was homeless. Not unlimited data but that's manageable when urban areas have some form of public wifi somewhere. I had free showers with my $30 gym membership.

What fucks over the US is the terrible dietary culture. Most people haven't felt actual hunger or actual satiation. They eat like shit and instead of viewing health problems as something that could be mitigated or eliminated by eating better, they double down on seeing doctors for drugs and procedures and surgeries...

A diet of eggs and bacon is healthier than most American diets. Yeah you gotta add some greens (and apparently a cup of onions a day cuts down rates of gastric cancer by 80%...) but it's simple. There's a lot of simple lifestyle changes that could save the nation trillions. But changes like "eating 1x or 2x meals a day and practicing IF" are as hard as going to the moon for most of the population.

>make the entire world forcefully infertile
>reproduce only artificially via genetic engineering and artificial wombs
Problem solved. You can have a yearly quota of new humans this way and get the global population to a stable few hundred million within a few generations.

Ha Ha ha. I can see that in a developed planet. But such proposals strike me as ones made by people in a 105-115 IQ range. Smarter than the average normie. But the global solutions are simplistic, not simple.

People want kids and their legacy. For better or for worse. You'd have outright rebellion and massive civil war if you tried imposing such measures in western liberal democracies.

You don't want the French Revolution II: Bugaloo électrique

>People want
That's the thing, we shouldn't really give a fuck about what they want. What they want often isn't what's best for them.

No retard people want kids because of an uncontrollable mindless instinct dating back to the earliest animals on earth.

"Best" is about balancing people's desires, you can't just dismiss them outright. I don't think you've really put much thought into this.

It's really easy to say that. Now listen to your post being read back to you by Shaniqua at the DMV. If you want to use weapons, be aware that the men or/and women that you think will use them are far different from the type of people who will use them.

Imagine Le Courbesier speaking of rationality in his designs. He might have truly meant well. But predicting what is good for collections of autonomous cognitive entities is a problem that stumps even the wisest of men.

In spirit I agree with you though. As a matter of policy though, it's prudent to watch the emergent rationality of certain systems. Our idea of rational is far different than the sorts of shapes and design that actually produce maximum efficiency.

NASA has spent less in its entire life than the DOD spends in a year. Everything they have done has been an incredibly value. The modern era could not exist as it is, with out NASA's space flight work.

And the DoD is why NASA could get rare earth elements from multiple routes of logistics defended, from pirates and state actors, with overwhelming force. Now if you're looking for a villain, look at the State Department. A bunch of men who don't receive blowback for all the stupid, idiotic, short-sighted, and retarded schemes they pull. A bunch of demented college professors trying to play as Plato's Guardian class, so to speak.

And what are they going to do, seize the means of reproduction? It's not like they're gonna magically become fertile by killing people.

>western liberal democracies
Western liberal democracies should fuck off already. They've ruined enough.

What are they going to do? There's more guns than people in the US. You'd have mass defections from military and police personnel once the state goes to war against its people. At best, the US would be fractured with the "Union" being only able to hold 'till the natural boundary of the Mississippi.

Now I could see that happening in great cuck Britain. Who has the guns? Not the people. And if the people don't have guns, who cares what the people think...

>the US

They've ruined enough. But politically they're still very viable as long as they can maintain logistics for the resources of industry and consumption. When they lose their hold on maintaining logistical networks, they lose their hold on a population that expects a certain standard of living and stops getting it.

People wanted to advance the human race.
Earth won't last forever.

This. Fuck the chinese too.

Because of politics.

A space colonization project would require hundreds of billions of dollars in investment up front, but would take so long that it wouldn't yield any results during the president's administration that would make that initial investment.

Great leaps of progress only happen for humanity during times of necessity. Space exploration won't be focused on until overpopulation or a damaged environment becomes acute.

Filthy earthnoids souls are weighed down by gravity, that's why.

Just you wait, they'll get whats coming to them.

Tall whites Maitres Draconians
Illuminati Freemasons Kazhars
Demons Archons Demiurge

Alright, would you want to die to lower the population?
...
No? Good. Now you understand why we won't and will never do that.

And your powerlevel has been revealed, /pol/ack.

unironically liberals

anything that might have military applications or take money away from welfare projects was seen as morally wrong

small pic but its a black activist group protesting nasa

This. the enlightenment was a mistake. Had it never happened technology would still have advanced but people would be less retarded today.

...

Cyberspace had happened.

Falcon Heavy launch in around a month.

First commercial rocket to fucking Mars. Then there's BFR in 2020/2022

>"pennies for the hungry"
>woman is obese
Really makes you think...

>No? Good.
Strawman.

Martian Technocracy when?

as long as you have to drag around huge things of fuel its eh

People are shorted-sighted; we lack foresight in a collective manner. Competition is an important driver of advances.

We'd have to seriously fuck Earth up to render it less habitable than any other place in the solar system. It's always going to be the best place for humans to live.

People have no interest in goals that are not achievable within their lifetimes, and thus, do not want to put the effort in. The modern person is defined by their obsession with instant gratification.

its taking 100+ years for the kikes to profit of all that dank applied research from the 50s and 60s

they literally removed all funding for this type of progress because white middle class was going too much too fast.

We value diversity more than who's best for the job.

Some people wanted to advance the human race. Most wanted to stick it to the Ruskies.

>we solve the overpopulation of wolves by killing wolves and overpopulation of foxes by killing foxes
That's a horrible example, since after we did that in most of Europe, we realised it was a fucking retarded move.

>the main argument against this is "niggers will murder you if you implement it"
Well okay.

There's nothing retarded about population control in animals.

>It's neither first world nor white.
So is everything in any shade of blue on this map.
Even places that are light blue tend to have certain issues, like indians having a gender imbalance.
I think the source on this.

...

That is a tour group. You are an intellectual cuckold.