Anyone is free to travel anywhere, as long as they don't trespass on another's property rights, but this principle does not mean that the undertaking the journey is wise and worth the resources used in it, or indeed, whether the undertaking is a good use of time. These considerations are especially significant if the journey is very expensive and/or if it is dangerous to life. If the latter consideration is the case, we must ask whether the risk is worthwhile.
Now, space travel inherently dangerous because it involves humans operating in the most hostile of environments, using technology sometimes, nay oft-times, at its limit and working in an environment for which humans have not evolved to cope, for we evolved to dwell in the protective ambience of a wonderful planet, Earth.
So is leaving Earth wise? Well, we send sophisticated robots to the planets, and there is no harm in this, and we have visited the moon, though, let's consider this cautionary, no one seems urgent to return, there being no pressing economic and/or political or social need to send a manned crew there. But is there need to send crewed ships deep into space? It seems ironic that while society is busy replacing workers with robots we are considering sending a human-crewed craft into an area where robots have already done a good job.
So what is the purpose of space travel? Science for science's sake? A good idea, but does it justify massive resources that could be used more beneficially elsewhere, and how much risk to human life can be justified in the cause of science? Science should benefit all humans, and so the gains from scientific progress must be weighed against losses to humans. The advance of science should not unnecessarily risk human life. Undertaking space flight is a great adventure, but humankind's great adventures of exploration always had a serious purpose. The adventure was a side effect of a journey of scientific discovery or economic enterprise.
There must therefore be an economic and/or social purpose for space travel commensurate with the risks and sacrifices that it involves. Finding a new home for humankind is not such a purpose, as only a tiny minority of humans could inhabit Mars, which is the only vaguely inhabitable planet other than Earth. Earth is our home and it is up to us to make the most of it, not ruin it then find somewhere else to ruin.
Comments
Veronica has on occasion bought me some, Dan Dare..are materials as a a present
Your introduction acquaints us with Dan Dare of the Eagle comics.
English Wikipedia enumerates published sequels and film, game, radio and television adaptations.
Amazon includes a 5-book Kindle edition and, from 2019, a graphic novel.
Might you be acquainted with these spinoffs and their competitive success -- such as apparently the radio version -- or non-competitive failures?
Your research is of commendable quality.
Yesterday my searches brought up a comparison of Matthew 28:20 in Eurasian and European languages.
The Vulgate describes ad consummationem saeculi, but the other languages offer at least two versions each, one translatable as until the end of days or until the end of time and one translatable as until the end of the world.
My searches today did not draw up that page. They drew up what is Pope Francis' rendering, I am with you always, to the end of the age, in the article I Am with You Always on Catholic Culture, from Libreria Editrice Vaticana 2017 and itemized as number 11552 through Catholic Culture.
True. The gospels are written in koine Greek, which was a colloquial Greek with several dialects. I have some facility with Greek, but by no means am I expert at it. But Jesus originally spoke in Aramaic, which I do not know. Not all theologians know Aramaic, so the job of identifying the precise original meaning of the word would be performed by an expert Bible scholar.
Always, we must remember Jesus did not speak in English. Translations are difficult, and connotations of the original words were important. So, what is meant by world first must address the word as used in the language of the day, and how it might be translated retaining the entire meaning. I am not familiar with the original words, nor what they might translate to in English, that would require a theologian skilled to read the original texts. Metaphors and idioms are especially problematic when translated, and Jesus used metaphors freely, so we need a skilled theologian to answer here.
What did Jesus mean when he used the term world? We don't know, but did he feel the need to speak in a scientifically precise way? I doubt it. Wittgenstein, writing in the Tractatus, says that the world is everything that there is. Did Jesus mean it in this sense?
Heaven can mean "up in the sky" but it can also mean the abode of the blessed, and we must not mix the two meanings.
You all's comments are much appreciated and so helpful. They made me ponder -- and I don't mean this facetiously -- whether Christ Jesus ever spoke of space or of the universe.
Perhaps two comments -- both of which are among my favoritest -- relate. He said what one binds on Earth one binds in Heaven (space- and universe-related if outer space has room enough for Heaven and hell, the latter more or less in Stephen Hawking's words).
Jesus Christ also said, I will be with you all always even until the end of the world.
Why would Jesus not have said even until after the end of the world?
Quite true. We don't know the religious status of beings on other planets, should there be any. In the past we talked about God's bringing the world to its conclusion, but our theological imaginations were limited by the small size of the universe known then. But theology has to broaden its imagination to encompass a whole universe. So maybe the end is far further away than we have thought.
The reason for studying exoplanets is to seek the answer to are we alone, or is there a place with other beings. This is not contradictory to theology, although some would say it is. That issue depends on the beliefs of one's religion. My understanding is if we accept creation we are not confined to Earth as the only place God placed life, but others would disagree. The problem is we can find thousands of lifeless planets and prove nothing, but finding just one with life would prove life exists elsewhere.