Why Space Exploration is Important

spacester · Jun 29, 2006

"Could you PM your reasons perhaps?" I don't like doing the PM thing, I guess I'm weird that way. It just seems wrong to me for some reason. I'd rather digress where everyone can see it. The reason I like that answer has to do with the intellectual journey I've been on this year. First I reviewed the positions of certain landmark Philosophers - Plato, Thomas Aquinas, Rene Descartes, George Berkeley, Hume, Locke, Kant, even a bit of Marx. Then I discovered a very impressive fellow named Alfred North Whitehead, who has become my philosophical hero. The other guys look like simpletons and weirdoes in comparison, lol. I think he nailed it, and I think he would LOVE your answer. The other reason I like it is that I hadn't thought of it myself, and so you have facilitated my intellectual journey down whatever road I am on. It's going to be something I keep in mind as I go forward. Basically - as if one could sum up Whitehead in a sentence! - his explanation for the nature of reality itself seems to me closely akin to the concept of interactivity, although he died in the late 1940s at age 87 so our modern notion of the concept didn’t exist. IOW he would have loved the word and I would have loved reading his thoughts on it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

mental_avenger · Jun 30, 2006

Perhaps the only thing that Whitehead uttered that could be considered truly profound was his comment about the accomplishments of Darwin and Einstein. Essentially, their accomplishments were regarded as advances in science rather than bemoaned as the loss of the old ideas. That may not have been as obvious then as it now seems, so his comment contained a rather noteworthy insight. However, IMO, most of the rest of his ramblings were just that, ramblings. Often his comments were so entwined with his attempts to create a new vocabulary to express his ideas, and with his attempts to define non-intuitive concepts with expressive language, that it is easy to become so engrossed in analyzing the terms of the explanation that it is difficult to follow the thread of the thought behind the comment itself. Whitehead was not original in his contention that our senses define reality instead of the other way around. But in his pursuit of pinning down the precise nature of the interrelationship of man and his environment, he seems to have lost the requirement of man to use practical (rather than strictly accurate) means of defining the Universe we find ourselves in. Although the sweet scent of a rose is attributed to that rose by the sense of smell of man, the rose nevertheless does produce that scent in the form of a chemical it produces from raw materials. While it may be philosophically comforting to acknowledge the role of man in determining the quality of the scent produced by the rose, it is far more practical to acknowledge that the rose is really responsible for producing the scent, and we are merely enjoying it. The point is, if you want to sell roses, you don’t do so by convincing the buyers that our senses determine whether or not a rose smells sweet. You sell roses by convincing the buyer that your roses produce the most pleasing scent. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

spacester · Jun 30, 2006

Nice response. Hoo-boy, I'm faced with the prospect of discussing Philosophy with Mental_Avenger using 2-minute chunks of time during a crazy day at work. It took me 45 minutes on the clock to write this much, lol. Any Philosopher can be criticized, that's kinda the nature of the game. What I find with Whitehead is the first guy to successfully refute Berkeley's seemingly absurd subjective idealism, which pretty much dismisses the whole idea that matter even exists. You and I may think it's easy to refute but if you get down to the nitty gritty, it becomes very difficult. Locke, Hume, Kant all failed to refute Berkeley. Whitehead adored Plato and would be the first to admit that many of his ideas were not original. But that's not the standard I apply. Yes, he established his own vocabulary to express his ideas, but the nature of his philosophy pretty much required it. He thought that one of the main impediments to advancements in the field was the imprecision of language. It appears that he would have been able to get his ideas across in Greek. At any rate, all of this is off the track I would like to pursue here, and certainly tangential at best to the title subject. I would love to see something along these lines in a new thread. Does anyone disagree with my contention that mankind measures its worth by the degree to which it is civilized? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

webtaz99 · Jun 30, 2006

There are many religious sub-groups which judge themselves and "all mankind" on their/its degree of "godliness" (adherence to their religion). The definition of "civilization" varies greatly, much like that of "consciousness". <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

mental_avenger · Jun 30, 2006

“Civilized” is as subjective as many of the other criteria expressed here. It not only can mean different things to different people within a group, it can mean different things to different groups who are observing a subject group. While degree of technical advancement, or even acquisition of knowledge can be quantified and therefore gauged, degree of civilization cannot. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

quasar2 · Jun 30, 2006

I`m wondering what a modern agrarian society would be like. I can`t really get a good view w/the Amish around here in the Ozarks. Partly because the buggies often travel on pavement. & other compromises. & @ Rainbow Gatherings many things are in the way, i`ve become disillusioned w/ that society. So i`ve some compromised examples of attempted return. What we gotta understand is that w/our modern comforts come penalties. Better Health equals Higher Population. Hemp Prohibitions equal Tree-Cutting. Rv`s are more Economical, but... I personally don`t like 18-wheelers but can fully understand why others do. I guess they simply aren`t gonna suddenly go away. I don`t like 2-lane Roads either. One can`t walk or ride a bike on many of them. The State of Oregon has the greatest idea of alltime regarding this. Pullovers. Every so often one can pullover to allow faster drivers to pass. i`m personally a slowdriver unless employed or tired. So actually i`m constantly bombarded by a somewhat hatred of @least what the US has become. But on the otherhand many things have been provided by this. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

mental_avenger · Jul 1, 2006

Any group or society measures its worth by its perception of its place in the Universe. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

j05h · Jul 1, 2006

For an example of a modern agrarian society, I would offer the Khmer Rouge government in Cambodia. 2+ million dead (intellectuals, teachers, the educated and bourgious) and everyone else forced onto communal farms. It's the only way to do it on a large scale. Agrarianism is dangerous, hard living and you have no guarantee that you won't be on the killing end of the machete. Obviously, I'm against enforced social engineering. josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center">We need a first generation of pioneers. </div> </div>

spacester · Jul 4, 2006

Any group or society measures its worth by its perception of its place in the Universe. Nice! Agreed. Yours is a deeper, more universal, and even more over-arching answer to my question. I like it from a philosophical standpoint, I like it a lot. Well done, sir. But in my mind it takes the abstract thinking one step too far to be useful. Also, it’s ‘skipping ahead’ in my desired dialog. <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> I sought an Intellectual Answer and took it on faith that it would lead to a Marketable Answer, or a least a marketing strategy. Only for marketing reasons do I think we should back up one level of abstraction and focus on the concept of Civilization over the concepts in your answer. No doubt your 754 page dissertation clarifies <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> but I can make a six-word answer ending in ‘civilization’. <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> “Civilized” is as subjective as many of the other criteria expressed here. No doubt. Yet we can try to find an objective basis, can't we? Of the definitions found on Dictionary.com, the ones I'm thinking of here are: 'Having a highly developed society and culture.' and 'Showing evidence of moral and intellectual advancement; humane, ethical, and reasonable' It seems that any definition of the concept will likely be self-referential - e.g. the second definition presupposes the concept of humaneness, yet how can you have one without the other? This slipperiness of definition should not be surprising when you undertake to discuss such a broad concept. It is just for this broadness in scope that I chose it as the one word which encompasses all the other reasons I’ve ever heard for why we should go into space. Going back to the article that started this thread, in fact <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

spacester · Jul 4, 2006

OK this is where I grab snippets of posts from this thread and maybe try to see what they might add up to. But in this case, also as a check: is it true that all of the following thoughts are expressions of the concept of civilization? * holmec: Perhaps doing exploration with friends and sharing them in making new friends is a more powerful force than politics. BarryKirk: . . . teach us things about the universe that can improve the human condition, baktothemoon: Exploration, discovery, and asking questions is the only thing that has ever done anything good for Earth. Exploration puts everything else in perspective by showing the world virgin territory and prompting the populace to wake up out of mediocrity and ask why their own lives can't be better. tomnackid: Wanderlust is in our blood. JO5H: A more poignant question might be "Why NOT space?" BountyHawk: What if life is a game, a game of beating extinction . . . and we were made and programmed to think that our greatest fear is extinction, and we may not know it, our . . .WanderLust is our source of making us want to go to the stars to seek life offsprey5: In terms of space exploration, we are apparently in three separate camps: O'Neilians- who state we must do it ourselves, this represents the id Von Braunians- who state we will do it for you, this represents the ego Saganites- who state we must not touch, this represents the superego. The point is space exploration, like any other endeavor, will be served by a fusion of all three camps and will, to be truly successful, satisfy all parts of mankind ultimately, if not immediately. It's important because it's one of the few things today that can satisfy all of man's psyche. In doing that, it can truly be part of his future well-being. In essence, we need each other to be successful in this. holmec: What better thing is it than to eat and drink and say your work is <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

spacester · Jul 4, 2006

Mental_Avenger: While degree of technical advancement or even acquisition of knowledge can be quantified and therefore gauged, degree of civilization cannot. Hmmm . . I fear you may be correct . . . could you expand on why you think so? Are you just saying that the term ‘degree of’ is incompatible with a concept with subjective content, or is there more to your point? Allow me plunge forward meanwhile on the assumption that ‘degree to which’ is operative in some sense . . . If Mankind measures its worth in terms of the degree to which it is civilized, and if we take as a given a moral imperative to increase our self-worth, then we individual humans perform our highest, best works when we support the ‘cause’ of civilization. Agreed? IOW and oversimplifying, who out there disagrees with the proposition that civilization is a good thing? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

spacester · Jul 4, 2006

Why is Space Exploration Important? To ________ the __________ of Civilization. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

j05h · Jul 4, 2006

> Why is Space Exploration Important? /> To ________ the __________ of Civilization. To Guarantee the Continuation of Civilization. Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center">We need a first generation of pioneers. </div> </div>

barrykirk · Jul 4, 2006

Well, today's launch gave me another reason why space exloration is important. Today, my 16 year old son who has no interest in space or technology watched the launch of STS-121... and much to my surprise he started asking questions. Intelligent well thought out questions... Good job NASA, thank you!!!!

quasar2 · Jul 4, 2006

what we really should be saying is what are alternatives to Space, if there were actually any real objection to it. i personally think it`s here to stay. & one of the advantages ofthis is the technical minds required to keep this industry going. in my opinion, technical minds can more oftenthan not be ever so slightly more perhaps survival-oriented. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

blackened27 · Jul 4, 2006

Another answer to your fill in the blank question would be To Expand the Boundries of Civilization. My reasoning for this is simply that, regardless of wether we have space travel or not, civilization on this planet will continue in one form or another until it becomes impossible, with each person following his own pursuit of happiness to bring sufficient ammenities and structure into his or her life. Civilization is more about the needs of each individual being fulfilled for me, rather than something that is brought about by a concept like a collective mankind. However, a trait that most share is the need to see new places, and inevitably expand into those places. This is the draw for most people. The science and advances allowed by space travel are largely lost on most people, but talk to them about the great adventure of space travel, and you'll see eyes light up and an increased level of excitement that hadn't existed previously. This is why public support will always be higher for missions that take people to an actual destination. So for the average person, space travel isn't unlike the old covered wagon trains heading out west. All those who are adventurous will want to go, and at some point in the future, civilization will be expanded out into space. It's simply a continuation of what man has always done, expand and explore.

spacester · Jul 5, 2006

To expand the boundaries? Yeah sure, that works. But I would anticipate the countering question: Is expansion necessarily good? And I might get bogged down in answering that question. I like it, I’m guessing most here do; we see the expansion as a good thing, but the Intellectual Answer also strives to be the Marketing Answer. I’m looking to fill in the blanks with very carefully chosen words. The logical presentation of my six words continues with the second blank, the fourth word – the word I have chosen is similar to ‘expansion’ but is more generalized. I’m hoping M_A returns because the point about ‘degree of civilization’ is well taken and is relevant here. My response to that invokes Time’s Arrow, in the form of this question: What is the current state of Civilization compared to 1000 years ago? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

blackened27 · Jul 5, 2006

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr /> But I would anticipate the countering question: Is expansion necessarily good? And I might get bogged down in answering that question. <hr /></blockquote> Asking wether expansion is good or not is something of a moot point for me, it's just simply inevitable. Expansion always brings a mixed bag of good and bad, but at no point in history have humans ever not gone into a new realm when they had the ability to do so. Space is no different, just a larger technical challenge. Another answer to your question could be To Further the Growth of Civilization. Civilization stagnates without opportunites for overcoming challenges, and space seems like the only great challenge remaining for mankind as a whole. It seems logical to conclude from this that without space exploration, our species is doomed to a slow stagnation. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr /> What is the current state of Civilization compared to 1000 years ago? <hr /></blockquote> An interesting question. The answer to this hinges on what it is that we want from civilization, and wether we as humans have achieved these goals. It's very difficult to answer, since civilization means different things to different people. One man's civilization is another man's hell. In my view, civilization is in something of a golden age compared to any timeframe in human history.

arobie · Jul 5, 2006

Why is Space Exploration Important? To ________ the __________ of Civilization. Space Exploration is important to Ensure the Advancement of Civilization.

spacester · Jul 5, 2006

<img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> To Ensure the Advancement of Civilization Yes indeed, Arobie, you grok! Those are in fact the exact six words I have derived as the unifying answer. This is the answer that I believe all us space geeks need to use when trying to build public awareness and support. Not that it must be used verbatim or anything, but it’s a pretty good start to any presentation on any aspect of Man’s Future in Space. One can safely state that as our prowess in space grows, we advance our civilization. And opponents are going to be hard pressed to argue against civilization. Whatever aspect of space science / exploration / development you are most into can rest on the intellectual foundation of the advancement of civilization. But we haven’t discussed these two new words yet. Why ‘Advancement?’ – As noted, it is a dicey proposition at best to ‘measure’ the ‘degree’ of civilization. But I’m prepared to argue that the natural way to proceed is then to make subjective judgments as to the current trend. I contend that individual humans are well-prepared to subjectively determine if civilization is in advance or decline. Of course, the basis for these opinions will be all over the map, but in the end, it is a yes or no question. The tally of answers may not hold much sway – especially to those in the minority <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> – but the discussion itself should, because the yes/no nature provides structure to the discussion. Why “Ensure”? I’m going to hold off on discussing that and wait for reactions. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

j05h · Jul 5, 2006

I'll support that. Since this is a communal discussion, I'm assuming you want us to use the phrase? I will. I like it, it covers everything we discuss that is positive, without any of the potential negative/PC arguments (no "man", manifest destiny, etc, ad nauseum). Very hard to play semantics with it. Good job, spacester, and excellent thread! It's much more positive than my "Because robots can't breed" and other polemics. Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center">We need a first generation of pioneers. </div> </div>

mental_avenger · Jul 5, 2006

Who is more civilized? A primitive society that coexists successfully with nature, lives in harmony with other societies, and has no crime. Or A technologically advanced society that destroys the very planet it lives on, wars with other societies, and whose citizens commit so many crimes that entire industries are created to deal with the crimes. Who is more civilized? A typical Tibetan Monk. Or A typical TV Evangelist preacher. Civilization and “advancement” should separate us from the animals. Yet after a certain point, the more technologically advanced we have become, the more the Law-of-the-Jungle controls our society. Our “worth” is not an absolute. It isn’t even a quality. It is merely a perception. Further, the perception varies between societies and groups as well as within societies and groups. Now, if you want to sell space exploration to a particular group, you must appeal to the perception of the majority of that group. The more expensive the undertaking, the larger the group that must be appealed to, and therefore the more diverse the perception base. Concepts such as “worth of mankind” and “civilization” will hardly be the platforms required to appeal to larger groups. At least not in contemporary societies. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

scottb50 · Jul 5, 2006

To Ensure the Advancement of Civilization... I think that could be enterpreted in any number of ways. The Conquistodors, Romans were just trying to advance their civilizations too. To Ensure the Future of Civilization makes more sense. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

mental_avenger · Jul 5, 2006

If Mankind measures its worth in terms of the degree to which it is civilized And there’s your problem. Starting with a flawed assumption, everything else that you base on that assumption will also be flawed. and if we take as a given a moral imperative to increase our self-worth That is hardly a moral imperative. As pointed out earlier, “self-worth” is a variable perception, depending on time, circumstances, and viewpoint. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

spacester · Jul 5, 2006

Who is more civilized? My subjective judgment, combined with the definitions I referenced earlier, can be employed to answer your hypothetical questions. They are not imponderable questions. The absence of a uniform answer to a question does not render it unanswerable. We all have the capability of making subjective judgments, don’t we? I choose the “technologically advanced society that destroys . . .” over the “primitive society that coexists . . .” because the comparison is being made on the basis of level of technology, and one clearly scores higher in a rating of technology. At the same time, I choose the Tibetan Monk over the TV Evangelist preacher because the comparison is being made between modes of thought, presumably on the basis of purity of intent, and one clearly scores higher in a rating of that aspect of civilization. A comparison between the Monk’s modest cave and the TV studio is irrelevant here. . . . Yet after a certain point, the more technologically advanced we have become, the more the Law-of-the-Jungle controls our society. Well I’m not sure I agree with the observation but I’ll grant it provisionally. If true, there are two simple explanations. First, the technology side of civilization and the humanity side of civilization are going to progress at their own rates and it’s to be expected that one will get out ahead of the other and that may be all you’re seeing: our humanity is lagging behind our technology. The second explanation is simply that our civilization is in fact in decline and that’s why law of the jungle is making inroads. Our “worth” is not an absolute. It isn’t even a quality. It is merely a perception. Further, the perception varies between societies and groups as well as within societies and groups. Um, yeah, and so . . . um what was the point? Are you supposing that our “ <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

Why Space Exploration is Important

spacester

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

spacester

Guest

webtaz99

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

quasar2

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

j05h

Guest

spacester

Guest

spacester

Guest

spacester

Guest

spacester

Guest

j05h

Guest

barrykirk

Guest

quasar2

Guest

blackened27

Guest

spacester

Guest

blackened27

Guest

arobie

Guest

spacester

Guest

j05h

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

scottb50

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

spacester

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page