Why Space Exploration is Important

spacester · Jun 19, 2006

Well you can try the divide and conquer strategy but I reject it. My discussion of groupthink is of a whole; the paragraphs go together to express a certain theme. Try again BTW you missed #5

BTW2 thanks for the vocabulary lesson. I am in the habit of looking up words I do not recognize, but only for those posters that do not habitually leave a lot of typos. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

arobie · Jun 19, 2006

Does mankind have value? As always, there are different perspectives from which to look at this. I specifically think of two: The universal perspective; and the egotistic perspective of humanity. Looking at the question through the universal perspective, the answer is a "No, not really" which stems from the fact that, in the end, nothing we do will really matter in the grand scheme of things. The grand goal being survival, well we just can't accomplish that. Eventually the universe will grow cold, run out of energy, drift apart into nothing, or collapse back into itself. Eventually, we'll be gone and forgotten. This is a very depressing way of looking at things, but I'm just being realistic here. Also, 'value' is a human concept. The universe is not living and is definitely not human. Therefore, we have no value to it. I see it as we'll just have to adopt a different goal from survival. Our new goal will be to survive as long as is humanly, or post-humanly, possible. There's nothing we can do about the end of a human supporting universe, we'll just have to accept that fact and move on. From the egotistic perspective, damn right we have value! Survival is our largest instinct. I value my life and as a whole, we as humanity value our existence as well. We try our hardest to preserve our existence and lives, even if some of our actions are backwards to this goal and we have invented a net of politics and (scarcity) mentality which appear to be self-defeating. None-the-less survival is our largest instinct because we value ourselves. Value being a human concept, we are the only judges of value, and since we value our survival tremendously and we value ourselves, we do indeed, as mankind, have value. As egotistical as we are with survival being of such high value to us, there is no way we can't have value if we are the only judges of it. Does mankind have value? Yes, in

spacester · Jun 19, 2006

webtaz99 · Jun 19, 2006

1) We DO NOT know what the fate of the universe is. {Talk about egotism <img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" />} 2) "Mankind" will continue to evolve, and even to control that evolution. We have the potential to become something "better than human". 3) Given a cosmic time scale, "humanity" could morph into a type of being that is not dependent on our current physical "universe". We just migh escape into a parallel dimension or some other "brane". Does mankind have value? Does anything? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

scottb50 · Jun 19, 2006

2. True, except that what you call control might be interfering with. 3. Sure, whatever. Does mankind have value? Does anything? Everything has some value, maybe not equal but there is something to learn in anything, even if it is it's wrong. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

spacester · Jun 20, 2006

That's a very nice start! *** One of the hallmarks of free thinkers, IMO, is the ability and desire to philosophize about things. One of the hallmarks of status quo types, IMO, is an unfamiliarity with philosophizing about things. I wonder if any of the people here with the funny colored names are going to contribute to the philosophizing about things? *** Before continuing, I'm waiting for holmec to respond . . . . no rush, we all have our busy schedules . . . (edit: note that I usually just post to the bottom of the flat post list, IOW this was not solely in response to scott. <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" />) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

JonClarke · Jun 20, 2006

JC: Please provide evidence for these assertions by links to specific posts. Should be easy for someone of superior intellect. Without these facts then you are just sounding off. Nyarlathotep: Further evidence isn't required, you've just provided it for him in the above posting. Asking for spacester to produce facts proves his assertions of bias and suppression? Right...... <img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /> Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars Arthur Clarke </div>

JonClarke · Jun 20, 2006

JC "I always do. " S I beg to differ. It seems to me that you will take the time to do so only when goaded into it by whatever means. I can either stroke your ego or piss you off, otherwise, you come across as too elite to respond. Sorry you feel this way. It is not my philosophy to stroke egos, piss people off, or be to elite to respond. You know this already. JC "I don't know of anybody here who thinks this. " S Read your own post earlier in the thread . . . Link please, and quote. I have made a number of posts in this thread. And then you launch into the old "prove it" technique (as perfected by mental_avenger). Sheer evasiveness. I don't play games and I don't evade issues. It is you who are evading a reasonable request to back your assertions up with specific evidence. Once you provide that specific evidence then your specific claims of immorality, suppression etc. by "those with funny labels" can be assessed. JC Which policies? S The "off to Phenomena if we don't like it" policy OK, this is the beginning of some fact based statements. This is what i am after. Which particular threads do you think were moved to Phenomena unjustly? The utter refusal to let us in on any of the details of the banning of members policy. Wrong. Summary reasons are provided. More information is supplied on request, as when you asked about Mike Lorrey. The utter refusal to include those outside the inner circle in deliberations as to future policies policy. Complain tothe administrators then, they are the ones who set policy, not me. Then you try to get me to name names whilst cautioning me against ad hominems. I invoke the immortal words of General Akbar: "It's a trap!" I'm not going there. I don't set traps. Saying which people you don't think are fit and proper persons to wear a "coloure <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars Arthur Clarke </div>

frodo1008 · Jun 20, 2006

I am terribly sorry, I did you an injustice here, it WAS somebody else with "space" in their moniker (he had enough of an attititude that either he has left these boards, or was banned). I think it was you that started his own apce advocacy site. How is that going? As for the current discussion, it seems to have gotten totally out of the practical realm and into the almost metaphysical! I don't object to this, but could you actually come up with information we can deal with here? I believe that we are both for the same thing in the short and long run of things. So I do promise not to be derrogatory towards any ideas you may have. But I would really like to have something more practical than "mankind has value". Of course mankind has value, I am a part of aren't I? Do I have value? Well to me and my many crediters I have! If you don't wish the information brought out on a public forum like this, then please feel free to PM me! If it is your wish, I too promise not to tell! At any Rate, Have A Great Day!

JonClarke · Jun 20, 2006

Well you can try the divide and conquer strategy but I reject it. My discussion of groupthink is of a whole; the paragraphs go together to express a certain theme. Try again In other words you have no evidence to back them up. It's just your opinion. Without evidence you are just blowing off steam. Thanks for the edit comment, I have fixed it. Glad I have increased your volcabuary. Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars Arthur Clarke </div>

baktothemoon · Jun 20, 2006

Does mankind have value? To answer that you need to look at the nature of life in comparison the the universe. The Universe is great, complex, and vast. It is filled with imense forces of creation and destruction that shape it's life. It is indifferent, powerful, but predictable. The life of the universe is a cycle of birth, death, renewal, creation, and destruction. It does not care if Life is destroyed or created. A star is not even aware of the life on it's planets. The universe is powerful and majestic on it's own but it cannot comprehend itself and if there is not Life to view the majesty then the universe achieves nothing because it has only continued it's own life without any control or awareness of itself. Life is chaotic and the pattern is a web, not a cycle, of it's lifespan. However, unlike the universee it is constantly changing and evolving. It has to cope with many external conditions, the universe only copes with itself. Life is forced to adapt and evolve to survive. Life seeks ever greater complexity and can expand and change the environment. And through evolution has come mankind, the pinnacle of evolution. We have accomplished what nothing else ever has. We have the ability to comprehend the Universe, Life, the world, we seek the highest power of our species possible. We do not live to merely exist as does the Universe and lesser Life. We live with a purpose. Everything in the Universe has been building up to us. The Universe created Life that bettered itself to the level of comprehension. The whole Universe has built up to a species that finally has the ability to understand it, to be the master of all life and to expand into the universe. The Universe's purpose was to be able to find a way to understand itself. We are the purpose of everything. The Universe can exist without us and we are dependent on it, but without us then everything lacks identity because there is no observer to see it. I say, if mankind does not h

Versus · Jun 21, 2006

There is one initial mistake in the discussion about space exploration and that is comparing it with exploring Earth in the past. Those things are not the same. Exploring Earth in past, was motivated by European endangered economy. The economy was in danger because natural resources that were important for functional economy at that era, were nearly depleted. The resources that were most important are silver and gold and Europe was lacking it. Europeans could not go to Russia for it, they couldn’t go to the Middle East for it since the Ottoman empire was strong. They were virtually cornered. Ruling elites, the Monarchies and the Church, found themselves in a bit of a trouble since they were the ruling power and were in charge of population. Something had to be done that would ease things a little bit. A Change… Cornered in the European lands, from Russia and Ottomans on one side and the Great Sea from another, Europeans turned to exploration. Soon, small ships with bold and fierce crew went on voyages that will change history of the humankind. For ones they brought salvation for the others they brought doom. In either way, they set the world in motion. Soon the discoveries emerged and everyone was amazed by the size the diversity of our Blue planet. After learning the size of the world, Europeans went on a conquest of that world. Carrying the king’s seal and a flag, they landed on shores of Africa, America, Australia…Managing the new territories required new technologies and work force, new skills and tools, increasing the speed of Change. Although the Change was so overwhelming and diverse, it did not change the basic structure of hierarchical society. Elites of that society, found themselves in trouble that they could not solve with their power. For so many centuries, elites became rigid in their role as undisputable rulers of everything that has breathe, exploiting unawareness and lack of knowledge of their subjects. They

JonClarke · Jun 21, 2006

I read an article last year (I think it is at work so am relying from memory) called "The hostile frontier" that made the point that comparisons between space and most historical frontiers are specious because space is much more hostile than the Americas or Australasia or even Siberia. The space frontier has much more in common with the terrestrial poles, the high mountains about 5000 m, and the sea. We visit these places, gain inspiration from them, extract resources, use them for commerce, and establish research stations. But we do not settle them. Near earth space, whether you are talking about LEO, the Moon, Mars, or NEAs is at least as hostile as these environments and, while we can expect them to be places of adventure and inspiration, as sources of knowledge and commerical wealth. While I did not agree with everything in the article, it was very thought ptovoking, I thought, and made many important points. We may need to be cautious about expectations of large scale, permanant settlement, at least in the immediate future (next century or so). Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars Arthur Clarke </div>

tomnackid · Jun 21, 2006

Versus: Ummmm, Europeans were not the only ones to explore the world. Humans have been wandering around poking their noses into new place since Homo erectus!

Versus · Jun 21, 2006

Yup! That is true. However, I was addressing to European or Western civilization case for exploration and what gave the drive to it. I just do not think that the idea to sit and wait for China to become strong and take the lead in space exploration, just so that U.S. could have a worthy opponent to compete with. I am against any idea that includes any form of competition. We are talking about big steps in human history and those steps could be crucial for survival of humankind as a whole. I think that looking at those efforts, as they are some form of game, is, at least, wrong.

qso1 · Jun 22, 2006

offsprey5: Speaking of the topic at hand, check out this new article from the Space Review: What’s the value of space? Me: No suprise to me, especially the inflated budgets cited (The several percent of GDP quotes) the public seems to think NASA gets. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being:There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened. </div>

qso1 · Jun 22, 2006

Both excellent links, thanks offsprey5. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being:There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened. </div>

mental_avenger · Jun 22, 2006

The exploration of space and the eventual settlement of off-Earth places such as Mars, will be essential to the long term survival of mankind. It is something that we will do, sooner or later. It isn’t a question of whether we are worthy of doing so, or whether or not we are important to the Universe in general, or whether or not we are the only intelligent beings in existence. We will do so because we can, and because we will benefit from it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

Versus · Jun 22, 2006

I hope so

JonClarke · Jun 22, 2006

It may be biologically impossible to live off the planet for more than one generation. So I would not be so confident that we will. But we should certainly make the attempt to become a multi-planet species. Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars Arthur Clarke </div>

Versus · Jun 22, 2006

I agree with that. We should definitely try. It is the only way to know for sure is it possible or not for humans to settle worlds other than Earth -like ones.

spacester · Jun 22, 2006

While waiting for holmec, I feel obligated to respond at least a bit, but note that I'm saving my favorite stuff here for later comment. One sentence in particular was a great joy for me to read, more on that later. I like Mental_Avenger's answer. At the risk of giving a left-handed compliment, which is NOT my intent, it is a solid, safe answer and completely logically sound in my estimation. It is, however, limited in scope. I love all the talk about our relationship to the universe and I certainly don't hold it against a person for thinking in less grandiose terms. But it seems to me that those whose proclivities are more pragmatic ought to examine whether they are returning the favor and rejecting the philosophical stuff because it’s ‘different’. You don't have to agree with the philosophy and you don’t have to give up your pragmatism to appreciate and contribute to the philosophical stuff. I guess what I'm trying to say is that while I have sought, and believe have found, a more all-encompassing answer, one that moves things forward and one that the public will internalize, I totally respect the eminently pragmatic answers. But those answers are logically a sub-set of larger answers and so the pragmatists need to allow for the philosophers if we are going to answer the title question. I hope that makes sense. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

baktothemoon · Jun 22, 2006

It's good to see the old spacester back.

ldyaidan · Jun 22, 2006

I think space is important, and that we will expand into space, if for no other reason than our ever growing population will have to have someplace to go, and resources to support them. Maybe I'm just focused on my passion, but I simply don't see any other options, it is simply the logical progression. Rae

baktothemoon · Jun 22, 2006

I totally agree, exploration is the only thing that has always helped humanity. Space is just the next and possibily most challenging stage.

Why Space Exploration is Important

spacester

Guest

arobie

Guest

spacester

Guest

webtaz99

Guest

scottb50

Guest

spacester

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

frodo1008

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

baktothemoon

Guest

Versus

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

tomnackid

Guest

Versus

Guest

qso1

Guest

qso1

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

Versus

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

Versus

Guest

spacester

Guest

baktothemoon

Guest

ldyaidan

Guest

baktothemoon

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page