The way world population is growing, it won't take much longer
to cross 10 billions and its already creating a lots of problem
like deforestation,food problems,green house effects,climate change
etc.Moreover,there are threats of asteroids or comets coming towards planet Earth,this type of incidents are very much feasible and has been predicted by many scientists.Do you think that we should start thinking about living in the moon as an alternative
way for the survival in keeping mind the upcoming catastrophic incidents.
41 years is too less a time create an environment on moon conducive to living
I for one don't think that is a good idea, and I certainly don't think it would happen on any major scale by 2050 even if we were determined to make it so.
I'm not astronomy wiz and it's really gonna show here..
My understanding is that the moon is like WAY small compared to the earth. Big, as far as moons go, but small as far as transporting millions or a few billion people to go live somewhere else.
Plus, being that the moon is sort of tied to the earth on a orbit wouldn't a catastrophe possibly break that gravitational force? Where does the moon go if the earth is broken?
A more plausible scenerio by people who want to go somewhere else to save humanity is mars.
Personally. I think that if you screw up earth by pollution, over population, and the like, what right does humanity have to go screw up another planet.
Thank you for your very interesting reply.I also agree with you what you said.Since moon is the the nearest heavenly body from earth and it takes less time to travel to Moon than Mars,it just can be a better option for full understanding of human living
requirements and the study of their psychological changes while living in an alien environment.In the next step we can move on Mars or even somewhere else as well.
No, humanity should not try to solve such a problem by colonization outer space. What I think humanity should do is start educating the downfalls of having too many babies. I am very sure billions of people on the surface of this planet are not aware of the drawbacks to having kids. We are not evolved yet, and as such we will either learn to repair the damage peacefully toward each other and the planet or face the consequences and see wars evolving.
Already, water is an issue in several major hotspots around the world. Countries are threatening each other for water and it's availability. Once again going outerpace is not the solution - it will futher burden this planet of it's resources. We need to peacefully resolve issues through peaceful means using education as a tool to enlighten people who are not aware of the implications of population and it's effects on food and water.
Besides, there are no resources on moon other than rocks. Water is the giver of life. Without it life is just not possible for our biology.
Thank you for bringing the issue that billions of people on the surface of this planet are not aware of the drawbacks to having kids.Living in moon is not like colonizing outer space,its just
an alternative idea apart from our only living ground planet earth.There is already technology of extracting Oxygen from Moon's soil;we need to extract Hydrogen and invent the device of making water.Do do really think its so difficult to get water in Moon.For human nothing is impossible, our only limit is our limiting belief or imagination.Thank you.
Please look at the news of TIMES ONLINE,December 6, 2006
Man to be living on the Moon from 2024
Mark Henderson, Science Editor
Human beings are to go back to the Moon within the next 15 years and this time they will stay, according to ambitious plans to establish a lunar base announced by Nasa.
The first manned mission to Earth’s satellite in two generations will blast off by 2020 to start work on an outpost that eventually will be occupied permanently, the US space agency said.
At first, crews of four will make week-long runs to the Moon, before larger missions make progressively longer trips to build up living modules and power plants. The goal is to establish a full-time human presence by 2024, with astronauts spending six-month tours at the lunar base.
I believe it is feasible, with our technology, to have stations on the moon, much like they have in the poles, where several people can live for several months to several years, in the next few decades. However, true colonization of the moon by 2050 seems a tad beyond our current grasp. Of course a brand new technology may spin that theory completely out of the water, but as it stands, no. In the 90's an experiment was conducted called Biosphere 2 in Arizona, US where they created a self sufficient dome with several scientists living there for a year. They were almost successful (a thumb amputation of one of the scientists caused a break in the seal as she was rushed into an emergency room). Something on a much larger scale, in a more hostile environment, would take massive amounts of money, research, and technology.
Nature often solves overpopulation problems herself, and we have had many scares in the past few years of a pandemic. I think it is much more likely to see one of these in the next half-century sweep through the world and do a little pruning of its own. And there are a lot of untapped land resources. I don't know how many people have driven through Nevada, but there's a lot of room there!
As for educating people not to have kids, thats a grand idea, but designed for failure without the regulations of an Orwellian society. Look at teenage pregnancies, how many times do we tell them not to procreate?
hello Alixandre.thank you for your reply and pointing out towards
untapped resources of our world.For educating teenagers not to
procreate is a social responsibility and we all should work together as a family to solve out this problem.
I think by 2050 we will noy just invade the moon but we will probably ruin it too. Humanity just never learns.
We have already created a junkyard with our satellites.The orbits are overcrowded and there are many dysfunctional satellites in space.
What is your opinion about removing the junkyard of satellites.
Get more systematic, today the fear is that a satellite will collide with a dysfunctional satellite which has gone off its orbit.All countries meed to get together for the good of mankind, these immaginary lines just cause trouble.
" How do I make people understand?
We are all part of the same bamd."
NASA to assess living on the moon
22nd May 2009
NASA says it is on target for a June mission to scour the moon's surface for landing sites and water that would allow humans to work and even live on earth's nearest neighbour.
The space agency hopes to launch a dual craft in June, part of which would survey the moon's surface from orbit while another unit ploughs into the lunar surface in search of water.
The mission will focus on the little-known lunar poles, hoping to confirm reports of hydrogen accumulation and possible water ice not found at the equatorial regions that where
famously explored by humans in the last century.
Look, the moon is not a planet. Plus the astronomical cost of sending things to the moon. The government keeps quiet about how much each launch affects global warming already. We don't need to be sending tons of spaceships to the moon unless we can figure out a better way to send ships into orbit.
One science fiction book I read solved the issue by using a giant sling shot style launch. This would have to be accomplished first before we destroy more of our ozone layer.
I think living on Mars is a more realistic dream, although I don't see it happening til later in the century.
http://www.blackcommentator.com/297/297 … _large.jpg
I don't think there will be living on the moon then (unless a few astronauts spend some time there, like they do on the space station).. In the 1960's everyone thought there would be flying cars by 2000. Here we are - still driving around in pretty much the same thing as ever.
by DaniellaWood 10 years ago
Is there life on other planets? What do you think?Scientific descoveries suggest that some planets are too hot or too cold for life and that others have no water and so on. But surely humans and animals canNOT be the only living creatures in the whole of the solar system...some even claim to...
by Eugene Hardy 8 years ago
Should humanity make the long term investment in establishing and maintaining industrial and technical colonies for access to resources and research?
by Dishant Varshney 3 years ago
We should think how to alleviate the ramifications of our atrocious acts. Acts which made the hole in the ozone layer over the Antarctica, this hole permits UV rays to melt the ice glaciers resulting in floods and hurricanes (UV rays are also harmful for us, as these rays lead to skin cancer). Acts...
by Liwayway Memije-Cruz 5 years ago
Almost everyone is already alarmed by the impacts of climate change. Several initiatives by scientists, climatologists, educators, researchers and environmental advocates on the issue of climate change are so many and they are on the rise. In your own respective fields or courses, how do you think...
by Alem Belton 12 months ago
I'm pretty sure this is a story in the bible, Noah's Arc or something? Anyway I want to know if this is even scientifically possible.
by Augustine A Zavala 6 years ago
We know less about our oceans than we do about space. Should do more to explore our own planet?Should we divert funding from the space program to do this?
Copyright © 2021 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|