I don't think it would be hard for spacefareres to get over the coprophagia taboo if it's recycled properly - as it would be. I don't understand what you mean by and and brain surgery. Incest - you mean on a journey through space of many generations eventually incest will start happening? I think there's ways around that. Also  won't future spacefarers be genetically engineered anyway?

if it's recycled properly - as it would be

That's the rub.  Theoretically, all that one really needs to do to recycle feces is to give it a good pass through the microwave and add some supplements.  I've heard it thrown out--but haven't verified--that human fecal matter contains about 75% of the nutrients contained in the base food product.  If you sequester your original space travelers in a closed system with a forced organic diet for a few months you can also reduce the amount of toxic nonorganic components found in stool and urine, and eliminate the need for those filtration systems to be put onboard the ship.

The big drawback to this approach is that aversion to feces is not just societal--there are neural processes that can trigger a nausea reaction to the smell and taste of feces.  Hence the brain surgery:  either to stub out the revulsion one might get from eating stool, or to reroute it to a stimulus that is more appropriate for living on a space vessel, like a geiger counter.  And while we're rooting around in the brain, we might as well do what we can to eliminate our voyagers' biological need for certain amounts of personal space, or claustrophobic triggers.  And the arms and legs have definitely got to go.  Off-planet, they're just sentimental infection vectors that consume energy that would be better applied to robotic limbs that can be completely shut down when not necessary.  Incest may be necessary, depending on how many passengers you want on your vessel, and whether you think you can/should keep around physical intimacy.

The name of the game here is mass reduction.  It only costs $40,000 to transport a gallon of water from the Earth to the ISS, so we can still afford to indulge our biological foibles.  But to get to the next star system, the cost for that gallon is going to climb to the billions.  I don't doubt that it's possible to send full-bodied humans that don't eat their own shit to Alpha Centauri.  But I'm quite sure that we can give such astronauts a 20-year head start, then chase them with my deviant quadraplegics, and have the transhumans show up first.

(is 3fingerspointback)

If you sequester your original space travelers in a closed system with a forced organic diet for a few months...

Should really be

If, while your original space travelers are still on Earth, you sequester them in a sterile environment and put them on an all-organic diet...

as a closed system would by definition not remove any contaminants.

(is 3fingerspointback)

I think it might be easier to just cross breed the people with some dogs that eat their own crap. Since you know, we are talking about space travel and all that.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

It would be redemptive for quadriplegics if their handicap made them most ideal for the trip. Indeed, it is usually those most marginalized by one society who are willing to make the sacrifices to begin a new one. In space, we would be even more dependent on our machines and people who were given abilities by those machines that they didn't otherwise have, would be most prepared to take that leap. So, I can see the wisdom in your argument.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

Back when Stephen Hawking asked Yahoo how humanity could survive the future, it occurred to me to give this answer.  However, I was worried that he might take offense, given that his current lifestyle is just about the closest one could live like my hypothetical spacemen.  If I ever get around to putting some better estimates on this thing, I want to forward him a copy offline to see if he has any observations.

(is 3fingerspointback)

That's hot.

Funny you say that since defense spending as a percentage of GDP is at near historical lows.  But hell, don't let facts ruin a good rant.  The line about bankrupting our children's children is great...  puts it far enough in the future no one will remember how wrong you are.

That's because "defense spending" doesn't include the "special appropriations" for Iraq and Afghanistan.  The classic conservative way of doing math.

Thalia

Indeed, actual spending on defense is woefully negligent enough to give any real conservative like George Will a massive headache or at least an extreme distaste for the current "Republican" in office.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

You can add those back in, and you still aren't even near historical averages, much less make any sort of rational case that defense spending out out of control and is OMG! going to bankrupt the country (in 50 years or whatever your children's children's time means...hell we could all be using giant stone coins by then... who the hell knows).

and we probably will if Bush continues to be so negligent in his defense spending.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

I'm sure the Democratic congress will do a great job controlling the purse-strings like they have doing...well...whatever the hell it is they've done since they got elected.  

Rombuu, the Iraq war is like 20 billion dollars a month.  That's a LOT of fucking money.  And the fiscal responsibility doesn't end with that spending, but in projecting costs, interest and future likely developments.  Return on investment?  Forget about it.  Baby Boomers retiring and killing social security?  Bet on it.  Healthcare crisis spiralling out of control?  Yeah a certainty.  Education costs skyrocketing?  Yup.  Dollar losing value to the euro?  Uh-huh.

The way you're doing math is comparing unlike times and unlike challenges.  The US cannot afford this protracted war.  And by the time the tally is in, the cost will be so staggering and the waste so indefensible it will be laughable that anyone could attempt to defend it.  

Part of the reason I gave up completely on Bush is that he is fiscally irresponsible.  He is NOT a fiscal conservative.  My grandparents probably thought the world would never recover from the costs of WWII.  Well it took a while but the world did "recover".  But WWII was a cause for restructuring the entire planet.  What was taken into consideration was future goals and what teh future would look like.  

Can you honestly say that the return on investment in Iraq will be worth the costs, considering what we are going to face over the next generation?  I mean there are things we know we are going to face and we can't seem to figure out an answer.  20 Billion a month?  Heck put that back in social security.  

20 Billion a month?  Heck put that back in social security.  

I'd rather they flush it down the toilet than waste it on propping up the social sercurity system, frankly.

I just pointed out that defense spending as a % of GDP is lower than it has been at most points in history -- the idea that it is bankrupting the country is absurd.  Is it worth the costs?  That's a judgment call for people to make on their own.  If the other things you listed are important to people, they will find a way to pay for it.. if they aren't so important...well, there you go.

Well, apparently the American people think it's time for the US to get out of Iraq, and it's important.

So tell me again how  wanting something important makes it so.

Fine, we should leave then.. what the hell is your point?

My point is that what the people think is important is a mere trifle to what the government of the day thinks is important.

Social Security, you seem to consider this spending as some kind of mistake.  The time when we did not have social security was quite disastrous.  There was this thing, a world wide depression they called it.  The older folks we shit out of luck, clogging up those soup lines in Hooverville.  Yeah, the Social Security tax was meant to protect a part of the population from those types of conditions, and it is a social statement of responsibility and respect for our fellow citizens.  It is paying back to those before us who gave us the world to live in.  It was a security net for the old, disabled and a thank you to them as well.  They paid their lives into it, so when they age and can no longer work, they can still survive their golden years.  Over time, the aging were subsidized by the younger, working class.  Even so, Social Security is an important program, and without it, the United States is not the superpower it is today.  The cost of caring for the old and the disabled is staggering.  Social security off sets that tremendously, and helps to keep the economy robust.  If Social Security fails, I expect another great depression.  Keeping an expanding and growing demographic of our citizenry alive and involved in the economy is not "flushing" anything "down the toilet."  Saving social security is very important.  I won't retire for over 30 years, and I don't expect to see a cent of social security money.  But if it is still around then, America is better off.

The cost of the Iraq war: $446,248,000,000+.  For that price we could have insured 267 million children.  That is enough to insure every child in the US.  Or we could have hired 7.7 million teachers for that price.  Or we could have given 21 million scholarships for that price.  

America's GDP is a prosperous 13.3 trillion  dollars.  Military expenditures are 4.06% of the GDP. (2005 estimate)  That is the highest percentage of military expenditure sing 1993.  

The cost of the Iraq war: $446,248,000,000+.
[...]
America's GDP is a prosperous 13.3 trillion  dollars.

Working the math backward on that gives us an estimated $9 billion/month expenditure, and roughly a 0.8% per year expense from the $3.5 billion/year federal tax revenue.

No small amount of money, but it's hardly going to break financial back of the US.

Yeah, there are opportunity costs for everything.

4 whole percent..wow.  Yep.. bankruptcy is right around the corner.

Rombuu, talk to me in a couple of years.  The 4% we're talking about is only the up front costs.  The back end costs are always higher.  I'd like to see how you'd fare to spend 4% of your income on something that will have no return on investment and end up costing you double that or more in the long run.  If you make 70k/year that is liek spending 2800 bucks, we'll say on a jetski or something, but you can't get a ROI on it, there's no lake near you.  But lets say someone took it and used it and crashed it into a boat, and you were liable and it ends up costing you much much more, you don't think this could bankrupt you?  Diverting all that income and expenditure?  Remember the cost of living goes up, you still have to pay your mortgage and bills etc?  It could very possibly bankrupt you.  This hypothetical scenario is only an example of this recklessness.  

9/11 was an expensive and harmful day in our history.  But this Iraq war is a ridiculous waste of money.  And also extremely damaging to the financial well being of future America.  

I'd like to see how you'd fare to spend 4% of your income on something that will have no return on investment and end up costing you double that or more in the long run.

So, you want to see my bar tab basically?

Yeah we'll compare.  Cheers!

Can you honestly say that the return on investment in Iraq will be worth the costs, considering what we are going to face over the next generation?

When you put it that way, almost nothing the US does to assist the poor and disenfranchised is worth the effort. We've spent about $40 Trillion dollars on various anti-poverty measures since the mid-60s, and for what? A 9% reduction in the amount of poor people -- the 1965 poverty rate was about 34%, the current rate is around 25%.

If you want to argue "those are Americans, not foreigners," fine -- but then you need to explain why your argument doesn't also apply to all other foreign aid. That grain could be converted to ethanol, and those AIDS drugs don't manufacture themselves. We're giving away cash and goods for... what? How does it help the US to keep a bunch of underfed AIDS-carrying Africans alive?

If you want to argue "those are Americans, not foreigners," fine -- but then you need to explain why your argument doesn't also apply to all other foreign aid. That grain could be converted to ethanol, and those AIDS drugs don't manufacture themselves. We're giving away cash and goods for... what? How does it help the US to keep a bunch of underfed AIDS-carrying Africans alive?

The cost of keeping your humanity, of trying to make the human condition better, and to value life decency and health are priceless.

In a nutshell you should do what you can to help your fellow man.  It is the higher calling for living as a moral human being, a higher creature.  You don't do all you can to eliminate the competition, kill, slaughter or ignore the needy so you can live in the lap of luxury and drive limosines.  Anyone of us could, at any given moment suddenly fall into poor health or hard times.  We could conceivably need some help from our neighbors.  The rich and the poor alike.  Sow the seeds of love and hope they come back to us in our time of need.  And in the sowing of these seeds we strive for a higher state of being.  

I honestly believe that many of the world's problems can be cured by decency.  Ending the war, using diplomacy, respecting human dignity, assisting the needy, and appealing to the nobler nature of men instead of engaging in the lowest forms of bloodshed and competition is the true way to change the world.  

You don't do all you can to eliminate the competition, kill, slaughter or ignore the needy so you can live in the lap of luxury and drive limosines.

If you believe this is what the US is doing in Iraq, you have a very disjointed view of who is causing harm to whom, nmiguy.

I honestly believe that many of the world's problems can be cured by decency.

I agree. And what of the problems which can't be cured by decency?

And what of the problems which can't be cured by decency?

Uh.  INdecency?  

No, seriously, some problems can't be solved.  

Clinton (Bill) did so much to strengthen the base of our economy, that it would take a lot more (and Bush II still certainly has time to do some damage but I just don't see him with the evil streak of Reaganomics) than raging budget deficits put the country in the kind of whole that Reagan did. We're down a peg on the world economy at the moment but we still have a much stronger place to come back from in 2007 than we did in 1987.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

I'm curious as to what specific acts of Bill Clinton you believe "strengthened the base of our economy." To me, crediting or blaming a President for the performance of the economy during  his tenure is similarly to crediting the bear patrol for keeping the bears out of Springfield.  Given the office's limited powers,  the acts of a president are far down in the list of actors who significantly effect the economy.

 I'm especially baffled as to how Clinton can be given much credit for the economy during his Presidency.  
His presidency was not notable for any significant reforms or changes in policy.  He certainly did not take any actions to roll back the Reagan's tax reforms.   His advocacy for the passage of f NAFTA was probably his most important act relative to the long term economy, and I don't think anyone argues that NAFTA has been a stabilizing influence.   It is true that he signed balanced budgets passed by Congress, but Congress deserves at least as much credit for balancing the budget as he does for signing it.  Plus, we now know that the balanced  budget was caused by an internet bubble and accounting shenanigans that necessitated the passing of Saarbanes Oxley.   How the internet bubble,  NAFTA and  Enron  "strengthened the base of our economy" is  beyond me.

I'm pretty big on results as opposed to the standard statistics so many internet spinners are wont to base their rants on. The fact of the matter is employment rose and crime fell in real terms under Clinton. Inner city residents were ready to riot and make like 1968 all over again at the drop of a hat after 12 years of Reagan-Bush policies. Just look at movies like "Do The Right Thing" or "Menace II Society." Shit was actually like that -- take the 1988 NYC riots in Tompkins Square Park, for example.

Under Clinton, people either went to jail or miraculously found jobs. Now, after almost 8 years of more Bushisms, we are ever so slightly beginning to near that brink again. Look at the massive numbers of murders in cities like Philadelphia. You don't find these things out by quoting stats on the internet. You find these things out by going on public work projects, talking with people at the bottom of the economic ladder and people who work closely with those at the bottom of the economic ladder and observing the general business that is conducted in your city.

I'm not going to "credit" Clinton with these things but I will take the educated guess that his gun control, tax, 3 strikes, childhood education, lack of fear-mongering, crackdown on gun running religious right organizations and welfare reform policies (just to name the 7 that came immediately to mind) had a great deal to do with it.

When you simply foster the concept that the world could end tomorrow, sometimes people begin to act like it. To look for a moment at the values conservatives tend to love in a President, Clinton exuded calm, confident, even leadership. Bush is babbling fucking monkey. Which is still better than Darth Reagan.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

It's not bait, this is a complex issue worthy of discussion. For example even some on the pro-abortion side think allowing to individuals to use genetic tests to selective abort is wrong in and of itself in the case of sex selective abortions, others on the pro-abortion side worry it will lead to broader eugenic measures. Where the line is drawn is far from self evident.