Phi for All

! Moderator Note I don't know what riled you up today, but you need to be more clear about what you want to discuss. This just seems like a biased rant based on your personal incredulity, and I can't see any meaningful conversation being generated by your obviously inflexible stance. This reads like you're standing on a soapbox yelling at us, and that's not a discussion. Thread closed.

What does this even mean? Are you suggesting the technology available at the time was insufficient? Are you so gullible that you ignore the fact that the major powers at the time were closely watching the space race? Are you saying the technology was so bad that we couldn't do go to the moon, but it was so good that it fooled everyone at the time?! This is why conspiracy is for idiots. You can't even put together a reasonable argument, let alone support your crackpot ideas with evidence.

! Moderator Note Please explain what this has to do with the topic being discussed, or what your point in posting these statistics is. If you don't, I'm going to toss it in the Trash for being off-topic.

Indeed. We learn to shun the things our group/family/community thinks are unattractive. Many heterosexual males equate homosexuality with weakness, the biggest masculine sin. I remember a kid in elementary school who used to rag on kids who wore glasses (I got mine in 5th grade). He shows up bespectacled on the first day of 6th grade, absolutely devastated that he's now a hideously disfigured aberration. He must have been afraid he'd eventually be wearing them when he was picking on others for it, and in that light it doesn't seem that different from homophobia. Not a natural response, but something learned.

"We" as in humans, or "we" as in "all heterosexuals"? I sense this is too general to be a good argument. If we're talking about "remote ancestors" from the OP, do you think early humans were as homophobic as they later became once the Abrahamic religions told them God didn't approve?

JacobNewton decided our rules need to be broken every chance they got, so we're going to free up some time for them to figure out the name of their next sockpuppet.

! Moderator Note You were warned against blogging, soapboxing, conspiracy theories, and bad-faith arguments, yet you keep doubling down. Best of luck elsewhere. Goodbye!

This assumes a spaceship designed only for travel. For colonists, wouldn't the ship need to be more like a temporary home, with facilities for growing food, manufacturing, and other processes you can continue once you reach the destination? The ship itself might be designed to stay on the surface as a home and power supply until a colony can be built. Tourism over multiple years of space flight seems even less likely, although I can see why wealthy tourists would like the idea of sleeping through the boring parts to wake up just in time for the approach to Saturn. Still, unless you can give those years of induced sleep back, I'm not sure enough uber-rich people would approve of losing them. Time is money; if you snooze you lose.

"Destined" as in "pre-ordained"? Or is whatever path you choose your "destined path"? Is "higher purpose" a religious thing, or is it tied to your destined path? Or is it more like Helping People is a higher purpose, and a destined path is deciding to Get a Job in Healthcare?

Fiction always skips the boring details of living, and sci-fi often skips travel with warp drives and folded space. If we were to send actual humans on a long space flight, it would be criminal to put them to sleep when they could be running experiments and measuring everything they can and basically taking every advantage of a human payload. It seems to me that drugging a live crew until they show up at their destination means that crew has nothing to do until then, which means they probably aren't scientists. And if they aren't scientists, why not take robots?

Probably "reacting" via the reputation system, to upvote those responding. Those are limited to a certain amount per day.

No more than meds that can induce a coma for a few years with few side effects. I was more focused on the reasoning behind why you'd have a live crew that needed to be put to sleep for extended periods. Movies are the only place I can think of where induced coma is better than having people live normally. They assume the craft is only for travel and can't support a normal life.

The only one I can think of is production budget for sci-fi movies involving space travel. Putting a small crew to sleep for a couple of years with advanced magic medicine so they don't age is a standard Hollywood solution.

I'm sorry, but this is a very lazy argument. The market for energy is huge and continually growing. If an investor doesn't invest, it doesn't automatically mean "lack of interest". There are usually many factors involved in choosing new technologies (we knew about electric cars, but they weren't viable until petroleum got to a certain price), but if someone could demonstrate over unity in a testable, reproduceable way, it would be a milestone accomplishment both scientifically and financially. It's crazy to think it hasn't been tried again and again. You shouldn't equate "no successful devices despite centuries of designing them" with "lack of interest".

! Moderator Note There's no reason for a new thread when the old one is an open work in progress. Learning by discussion is best when we can see questions being answered, mistakes being made and corrected. This thread will remain locked.

! Moderator Note Fixed a misquote and hid a reply to it.

! Moderator Note Closed temporarily, pending moderation.

! Moderator Note Moved from Brain Teasers & Puzzles to The Lounge.

Here's a list of current bilateral and trilateral treaties that the UK and the US are partners on: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:United_Kingdom–United_States_treaties What do you want them to agree to beyond all these?

I was being sarcastic, without emojis (I never learn!). Your history is a rich tapestry of civilized culture, and I hope you don't let it out of the control of the people/country/state. In the US, we'd have sold off Stonehenge to 3M. You're ripe for Amerifuckation, though. You have enough nationalists who're afraid of immigrants, you've already allowed private firms to infiltrate the NHS using the COVID-19 situation, and even the vaunted BBC is becoming a less-trusted source of honest journalism. If I were you, I'd stay on the watch for religious extremists, because they just bring the whole kettle to a boil. Are you starting to feel like the chaos is being baked in on purpose? Nothing allows for broad spectrum economic opportunities for the already wealthy than uncertainty and fear.

! Moderator Note Please only put Jokes in the Jokes section. If you have an idea you can support scientifically that isn't mainstream science, you can put it in Speculations. If you don't understand a particular bit of science, please ask questions rather than making up garbage. And nobody wants to waste their time discussing anything based on "imagination run wild" if it's not scientifically based. Anybody can have an off-the-wall idea, but that doesn't make them interesting. Science has a methodology to it that tries to remove wishful thinking and subjective bias, and it's been extremely successful, so we're going to be sticking with that method in conversations here.

The Scots and Welsh know the US would recolonize the UK. You spend far too much on public interests like healthcare, you only have like 50 billionaires, and your workers want fair accommodations as if they were really important. You participate far too much in your own economy with all that vacationing, and all that history is bogging you down with old buildings and protected reserves. We can show you how to pave over England's pleasant pastures so you can be just like us!

Both countries already talk about this long-standing alliance. How are you defining the term? Are you talking about more treaties between the 1st and 5th largest economies, or do you want England to be the 51st state?

There may well be a certain amount of incredulity built into the process (it's hard to imagine what hasn't been dreamed up yet). I think there's also an intellectually lazy path that tells some folks it's easier to claim that science is stagnating so they don't have to bother studying it at great length. It's so much easier to claim it's not worth your while than to actually learn it.

This is such a laughable statement that it makes me doubt you're here in good faith. You seem to like making super dumb assertions to get a rise out of folks. It's not interesting at all.