Once upon a time, that might've been out future. Now, not a chance. Can you imagine the lawsuits every environmentalist group would file to block any potential terra-forming project, on the assumption that there MIGHT be some yet-to-be-discovered alien bug that could be adversely impacted? (BTW, great images.)

Fantastic images! Corrie

amazing picture

Magnificent work, a very convincing and realistic transition, and also an interesting take on our place in the world.

blue Mars.... sweet! well done, bud!

Very well done, especially that last one.

Great work.

Sarsifus correctly identifies and characterizes the arbitrary postulate oft posed. You should ask yourself (in an objective manner) what the consequence is, i.e. “What is the consequence of the existence of say, colonies of micro-organisms, left undisturbed by man for all of time?” The mystics of Subjectivism would claim the consequence of this unknown is of literally infinite value – and thus the objective goals of man must be set aside. Consider the absurdity: the “unknown consequence” granted such a special, literally infinite, value. Objectively the unknown is merely that, it has no particular value. What is the consequence if these colonies of micro-organisms are wiped out by some side effect of mans activity? By the radiation of a solar flare? By a near-by super-nova event? By an asteroid impact?” In all cases of being wiped out the consequence is the same, the micro-organisms cease to exist and the impact is exactly zero. Here is where the mystics would pose the “what if” which is merely another means to grant a particular value, properties, or identity, to a thing which does not physically exist at all – meaning no one could have any sensory knowledge of it at all. It should be alarming and bizarre to you, the idea that an “unknown” of which you can have no evidence of, could be considered of sufficient cause, as a mere postulate, to prevent any endeavor and beneficial result. How did we arrive at this situation, where otherwise sane and rational men, might pose such absurdity? Ayn Rand describes the cause thus: If you trace the roots of all our current philosophies — you will find they all devolve from Kant. ”Immanuel Kant is the man who banished reason from philosophy. Kant believed that the “world” is not real: reality, Kant said, as perceived by man’s mind, is a distortion. Kant believed the distorting mechanism is man’s conceptual faculty (his mind) therefore, Kant claimed, mans consciousness is not valid; man is blind, because he has eyes—deaf, because he has ears—deluded, because he has a mind—and the things he perceives do not exist, because he perceives them. Kant’s expressly stated purpose was to save the morality of self-abnegation and self-sacrifice. He knew that it could not survive without a mystic base—and what it had to be saved from was reason. The implicit, but unadmitted premise of the neo-mystics of modern philosophy is the notion that “true” knowledge has to be causeless, i.e., acquired without any means of cognition.” The eco-alarmists would claim that “nature seeks” equilibrium – that mans successes represent an “unnatural thwarting” of that equilibrium. The claim is absurd – it is mysticism which rests on no existent, no observation, therefore it is not knowledge. Rand states that “Knowledge” is . . . a mental grasp of a fact(s) of reality, reached either by perceptual observation or by a process of reason based on perceptual observation. The argument posed by environmentalists is mere slight-of-hand of the sort mystics and con-men perform on a regular basis. One can observe that there is no “preservation” of any species against the predations of another in nature. Nature “seeks” no equilibrium limiting the predation of one species and preserving the population of another. No force, no entity, rises up to enforce equilibrium when the anteaters advance to consume entire populations, just as no force rises up to prevent entire worlds from being devastated when a near-by star goes nova. What can be observed in the Universe is only cause, and effect which is in consequence, all in accordance to the identifiable properties of the Universe. To assert that nature “seeks” equilibrium is to assert the absurd. It is to establish mysticism as the measure of reality to the exclusion of science – it is to reject all knowledge and submit your mind to the irrational, the absurd. Only a conscious mind can hold values, make choices, and take action. Nature, meaning “the Universe” possesses no conscious mind with which to favor or assert any particular outcome over another – to claim it “seeks equilibrium” is to gift the Universe with the identity and attributes of a conscious being and claim it has “desires.” It is notable that a duty of “activism” has been inspired in many generations of youth – a youth not equipped to sort that which is “knowledge” from that which is not … But then a youth equipped with the tools of cognition and an understanding of their proper use … might not exhibit the unrestrained frenzied emotive response “they” (meaning the modern day mystics) are counting on. Subjectivism is the toxin which has infected our culture – wielded with intent by some, practiced in ignorance by others. The situation we presently find ourselves in is not without hope – but it is dire. Ayn Rand describes the problem and states its solution thus: “Ever since Kant divorced reason from reality, his intellectual descendants have been diligently widening the breach. In the name of reason, Pragmatism established a range-of-the-moment view as an enlightened perspective on life, context-dropping as a rule of epistemology, expediency as a principle of morality, and collective subjectivism as a substitute for metaphysics. Logical Positivism carried it farther and, in the name of reason, elevated the immemorial psycho-epistemology of shyster-lawyers to the status of a scientific epistemological system—by proclaiming that knowledge consists of linguistic manipulations. Modern philosophers agree that the ultimate standard of ethics is whim (they call it “arbitrary postulate” or “subjective choice” or “emotional commitment”)—and the battle is only over the question of whose whim: one’s own or societies or the dictator’s or God’s. Whatever else they may disagree about, today’s moralists agree that ethics is a subjective issue and that the three things barred from its field are: reason—mind—reality. If you wonder why the world is now collapsing to a lower and ever lower rung of hell, this is the reason. If you want to save civilization, it is this premise of modern ethics—and of all ethical history—that you must challenge.”

In regards to ecology/environmentalism One benefit of infusing my future history with rational values and philosophy is the opportunity to expose the currently fashionable conservation/environmentalist movement for the intellectually perverted, morally and ethically corrupt philosophically poisoned abomination it is. To elucidate: Human existence and indeed all human endeavors – most certainly endeavor to acquire and consume resources for the purpose of survival, to engage in scientific and technological advancement, to engage in commerce and trade, all to the end of enriching the quality and conditions of life – these are most certainly, and without question, moral and just. Humans are in fact a product of nature. Our achievements, our successes, and indeed even our successes which change alter and modify nature, are not an imposition on nature – they are a testament to nature. Nature- i.e.: The Universe – is not a museum, it is not an exhibit which must not be disturbed, it is not static and changeless (to the contrary change is the major constant). Nature possesses no “purity” which human actions contaminate … our actions arise from our nature: a sentient, tool using, problem-solving, aggressively successful species, and these are qualities worthy of reverence. Arguments of conservation based on the notion that human existence is as a pestilence on nature are in fact anti-human, anti-life, anti-existence, and indeed are anti-nature. Such arguments seek to overturn the order of nature itself – that order being that successful exploitation of the environment equals a successful species. A species which dooms itself through misguided self-imposed limitations on its own survival and achievement is nothing other than a failure. Freeman Dyson said we should do these things (speaking in regards to using Orion to explore (and possibly settle) the solar system) to the end of enlarging the sphere of life. Life has the most remarkable quality of being able to adapt itself to almost any conditions – because life confined to this one small world, doesn’t allow us to face near so many challenges as we are capable of facing.

You always have amazed me with your work it is so real. Well Done 5+ and a Favourite. Karl