That's a lot of talking points. And for a change I find myself disagreeing with most of what you say!
All of those biological or adaptation problems you describe are about zero gravity. As I'm sure you're aware the idea of artificial gravity through rotation was first proposed at the beginning of the 20th century by Tsiolkovsky. Then of course later by von Braun.
I would say the reason why humanity is not far more advanced along the space exploration road is due to deliberate decisions by the bad guys occupying all the positions of power, money, and influence. They are classic feudalists, after all, and therefore they can't have people looking up to the stars, they need them to be crawling in the gutter. I don't even need to go into 'conspiracy theories' to expand on this fact, I hope. But this - I would argue - is precisely why all those bad guys have consistently and doggedly pursued the dead end of zero gravity, instead of investing everything in rotating space stations (likewise better propulsion systems - electrogravitics and suchlike).
So when we analyse the history (and near-term future) of human space exploration we can only do so by analysing the people who will ultimately make the decisions. And they don't want people to have a better future.
Example: you mentioned the JWST. As an exoplanet hunter it's a monumental waste of money and the kind of thing that makes me seriously effing angry. Despite science already having the capability, the JWST (which cost, what, less than 1% of USA's annual military budget) was not given the capability to detect habitable planets smaller then Neptune in the habitable zone of the nearest neighbour system. As I say, humanity already has the ability to build a better telescope and tell the entire world about the habitable planets in our vicinity (including biosignatures, with all that entails) - but as I also say, that would mean giving the global masses hope for a better future - they'd start demanding utopian things of their so-called leaders, and all that feudalism would start being eroded. So the 1% would no longer have any power.
So all of this is political, in the end. And that should make anyone who cares angry as hell!
I also disagree with you about so-called CO2 levels - during the Cretaceous, for example, levels were 3x higher and there was an abundance of life. Humans would've been fine at most latitudes. Same on other potential planets. Likewise, a lot of plants (i.e. fruit and vegetables - food, in other words) and some mammals too (also food) evolved in times of far higher temperatures and thus co2 levels. So I think objections like atmospheric differences are a little overrated. Still, it would be very interesting to find out what the actual limits really are.
Then again - as you know - I am a very hopeful and futuristic kind of girl. So it goes without saying I'd dismiss most concerns people raise! And I do adore talking about all this stuff. (See also Katrina's DEXOS series, especially part 4).
Yeah, that was sort of my point - about inspiration, I mean. Without inspiration, humans are a subjugated species. Hence the war on inspiration by the usual suspects. Which has been going on for a long time, it’s not a new thing…
That's a lot of talking points. And for a change I find myself disagreeing with most of what you say!
All of those biological or adaptation problems you describe are about zero gravity. As I'm sure you're aware the idea of artificial gravity through rotation was first proposed at the beginning of the 20th century by Tsiolkovsky. Then of course later by von Braun.
I would say the reason why humanity is not far more advanced along the space exploration road is due to deliberate decisions by the bad guys occupying all the positions of power, money, and influence. They are classic feudalists, after all, and therefore they can't have people looking up to the stars, they need them to be crawling in the gutter. I don't even need to go into 'conspiracy theories' to expand on this fact, I hope. But this - I would argue - is precisely why all those bad guys have consistently and doggedly pursued the dead end of zero gravity, instead of investing everything in rotating space stations (likewise better propulsion systems - electrogravitics and suchlike).
So when we analyse the history (and near-term future) of human space exploration we can only do so by analysing the people who will ultimately make the decisions. And they don't want people to have a better future.
Example: you mentioned the JWST. As an exoplanet hunter it's a monumental waste of money and the kind of thing that makes me seriously effing angry. Despite science already having the capability, the JWST (which cost, what, less than 1% of USA's annual military budget) was not given the capability to detect habitable planets smaller then Neptune in the habitable zone of the nearest neighbour system. As I say, humanity already has the ability to build a better telescope and tell the entire world about the habitable planets in our vicinity (including biosignatures, with all that entails) - but as I also say, that would mean giving the global masses hope for a better future - they'd start demanding utopian things of their so-called leaders, and all that feudalism would start being eroded. So the 1% would no longer have any power.
So all of this is political, in the end. And that should make anyone who cares angry as hell!
I also disagree with you about so-called CO2 levels - during the Cretaceous, for example, levels were 3x higher and there was an abundance of life. Humans would've been fine at most latitudes. Same on other potential planets. Likewise, a lot of plants (i.e. fruit and vegetables - food, in other words) and some mammals too (also food) evolved in times of far higher temperatures and thus co2 levels. So I think objections like atmospheric differences are a little overrated. Still, it would be very interesting to find out what the actual limits really are.
Then again - as you know - I am a very hopeful and futuristic kind of girl. So it goes without saying I'd dismiss most concerns people raise! And I do adore talking about all this stuff. (See also Katrina's DEXOS series, especially part 4).
If we look at it through a different lens, then the main thing humans in space provide is inspiration. Otherwise we might as well send robots. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy7keddnj31o
Yeah, that was sort of my point - about inspiration, I mean. Without inspiration, humans are a subjugated species. Hence the war on inspiration by the usual suspects. Which has been going on for a long time, it’s not a new thing…