Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 5557204" data-attributes="member: 177">There are now about 7 billion people on the planet.&nbsp; With only 30% of the people on board, you get billions of people working on it.How many firefighters and cops put their lives on the line on a daily basis to get other people to safety?&nbsp; Sure, it is in human nature.&nbsp; Humans are driven to see their genes survive - and if the only way to get any of your genes survive is to push some folks off this planet, lots of people would do that.And, as others have noted, if you link their chance of getting on the Arks with their active participation, you'll get your billions.Getting hundreds to safety is insufficient.&nbsp; You need thousands to have a stable gene pool for the future.&nbsp; I'm thinking tens of thousands. I think turning the majority of the possible output of the planet into the effort for *two and a half decades* could achieve that.That may seem ambitious, but only by current standards.&nbsp; Currently, NASA does everything it does on a budget of $19 billion a year.&nbsp; The US Budget is something like $3 trillion.&nbsp; So, NASA's currently working with just a touch over half a percent of the US budget.The full Gross Domestic Product of the planet is more like $58 Trillion - nearly a factor of 20 greater than the US budget.&nbsp; Imaging funding NASA and the ESA and the Chinese with not just a fraction of a percent, but with the whole value of an industrial nation.&nbsp; Or of several whole nations.That, sir, would produce results.Don't get me wrong, when I say the cost would be terrible, I mean it - many things would get left by the wayside if you did that.&nbsp; But you wouldn't be looking for long-term sustainability here.&nbsp; We'd be willing to trash the world economy, because the world economy is going away no matter what we did.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Umbran, post: 5557204, member: 177"] There are now about 7 billion people on the planet. With only 30% of the people on board, you get billions of people working on it. How many firefighters and cops put their lives on the line on a daily basis to get other people to safety? Sure, it is in human nature. Humans are driven to see their genes survive - and if the only way to get any of your genes survive is to push some folks off this planet, lots of people would do that. And, as others have noted, if you link their chance of getting on the Arks with their active participation, you'll get your billions. Getting hundreds to safety is insufficient. You need thousands to have a stable gene pool for the future. I'm thinking tens of thousands. I think turning the majority of the possible output of the planet into the effort for *two and a half decades* could achieve that. That may seem ambitious, but only by current standards. Currently, NASA does [I]everything it does[/I] on a budget of $19 billion a year. The US Budget is something like $3 trillion. So, NASA's currently working with just a touch over half a percent of the US budget. The full Gross Domestic Product of the planet is more like $58 Trillion - nearly a factor of 20 greater than the US budget. Imaging funding NASA and the ESA and the Chinese with not just a fraction of a percent, but with the whole value of an industrial nation. Or of several whole nations. That, sir, would produce results. Don't get me wrong, when I say the cost would be terrible, I mean it - many things would get left by the wayside if you did that. But you wouldn't be looking for long-term sustainability here. We'd be willing to trash the world economy, because the world economy is going away no matter what we did. [/QUOTE]

Verification