SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
AP-NORC poll: Asteroid watch more urgent than Mars trip
Americans prefer a space program that focuses on potential asteroid impacts, scientific research and using robots to explore the cosmos over sending humans back to the moon or on to Mars, a poll shows.
The poll by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research, released Thursday, one month before the 50th anniversary of the Apollo 11 moon landing, lists asteroid and comet monitoring as the No. 1 desired objective for the U.S. space program. About two-thirds of Americans call that very or extremely important, and about a combined 9 in 10 say it's at least moderately important.
The poll comes as the White House pushes to get astronauts back on the moon, but only about a quarter of Americans said moon or Mars exploration by astronauts should be among the space program's highest priorities. About another third called each of those moderately important.
"More than 80% say the United States is not leading the world in space exploration."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 24 2019, @04:23AM (11 children)
What are you talking about? Drive or train across the US, the country is practically empty... The main problem with the world is corrupt governments making their domains relatively uninhabitable.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Monday June 24 2019, @05:09AM (10 children)
No, it isn't "practically empty". Much of the southwest was populated near the capacity of the land to support people "comfortably" when the white man arrived here. Look at that land today - it supports ten to a hundred times as many people, and we've ravaged the land. Arizona, the Colorado river, and so much more. All across this nation, we've destroyed habitats, and altered those that we haven't outright destroyed. My adopted state of Arkansas is an example. Today, it's mostly evergreen forest. It wasn't like that 150 years ago - it was mostly hardwood forest, and almost as varied as my home state of Pennsylvania. Hell, look further east, at the devastation of the landscape. When was the last time you saw a chestnut tree, dropping tons of almost free food on the ground for you to pick up?
Look at the skies during the spring and autumn migration seasons. In my own lifetime, flocks of birds made a bright, sunshiny day turn dark, like storm clouds were passing overhead. Not any more!
When you take a serious look at the state of the land around us BEFORE the white man arrived, and compare that with what we have today, THEN you realize that there really is cause for concern. We poison out environment, because there are so damned many of us.
I'll repeat - the earth's population should be reduced by about 75%, so that the world can begin to heal itself.
Let me add in mental health and psychological problems. Mankind wasn't actually meant to live in termite hills like NYC, Chicago, LA, Tokyo, Hong Kong, and a couple dozen other huge-ass megalopolis. There are reasons why country folk are generally more stable than city people.
To summarize, we've pretty well fucked the world over. I'm not part of the global warming hysteria crowd, but holy shit, just look at what we've done to the world!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 24 2019, @05:27AM (8 children)
All you mention is just change, destruction would be if it was like a contaminated wasteland.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Monday June 24 2019, @05:33AM (7 children)
*rolleyes*
Maybe you should do an internet search, and start tallying up all the plant and animal species that have been extincted in the past 100 years. Maybe you should also search for EPA superfund sites. Start with Love canal, maybe?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 24 2019, @05:50AM (6 children)
As if anyone knows the extinction rate from before 100 years ago... I looked into one of those papers once and came away very unimpressed: https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?noupdate=1&sid=8090&cid=200461#commentwrap [soylentnews.org]
You're buying into a lot of BS from known fearmongerers.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Monday June 24 2019, @06:20AM (5 children)
Fair enough - I've often objected that climate researchers and others make presumptions which they can't verify.
Even so, a species that can only be found in one place on earth, disappears after extensive mining operations in the area. Or another disappears after clear cut logging. And, yet another can't be found after years of raw sewerage being dumped into the water. I feel a loss, each and every time I read of something like that. And, yet, slash and burn farming continues in the Amazon. Poison continues to be dumped into the Congo river. Our own "dead zone" in the Gulf of Mexico hasn't gone away. Or, imported rats devastate a local animal population on some remote island, or Australia or NZ. And, back to those American chestnut trees. They're all but gone, with only a few small populations in far northern regions left.
I've come to dislike the word "diversity" because it is so over used in strange contexts - but I seriously believe that diversity is important to the health of this world. There isn't a single organism that can fill niches all around the world, unless it is humans, roaches, and rats.
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Monday June 24 2019, @09:42AM (3 children)
> Even so, a species that can only be found in one place on earth, disappears after extensive mining operations in the area.
I would be interested to know what is the rate at which new species arise? I never saw that, only stuff about the rate at which old species are dying.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday June 24 2019, @11:08AM (2 children)
If you ignore microbiota, the rate is zero
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 24 2019, @03:13PM (1 child)
So you're a Bible nut believing in devolution this whole time?
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday June 24 2019, @11:41PM
Evolution happens all the time. However, new species of polycellular organisms take longer to evolve than the capacity of humans to extinguish existing ones.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Interesting) by bradley13 on Monday June 24 2019, @05:12PM
On very flaky mobile, so I'll keep it short: te decline of insects is terrifying. Yet farmers continue massive, indiscriminate use of pesticides.
We don't need to reduce human population by 75%. More like 90%. We also need to end the current uncontrolled experiment in dysgenics, where the most successful individuals have the fewest children.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by takyon on Monday June 24 2019, @11:08AM
If you concentrate humans into these places, it should lower environmental impact per capita (less need for personal transportation) and keep the hurt away from the countryside (farming excluded). If they are less stable than country folk, then that would cause them to kill each other, which slightly contributes to your population goal.
As for psychological problems, they can strap on a VR headset and be instantly transferred to a pristine, hardwood forest-filled Arkansas.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]