Why Space Exploration is Important

spacester · Jul 7, 2006

Our total information content is the sum of our atoms and moleculs, our DNA and our society. A society without technology is limited to the information it can store in its head. A society with technology is bounded only by the amount of information it can develop and store given its level of technology. That's cool. That whole post is cool, rogers_buck, I’m still processing that information <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />. I've read some stuff, don't remember many names right now, along those lines. Quantum Mechanics attempts to explain the massively parallel association network of possibilities and information which makes up our reality. Something like that, anyway. <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> I really need to get around to reading more Fred Alan Wolfe . . . <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

josh_simonson · Jul 7, 2006

>I’m thinking ‘evolution’ in a broad sense and along your lines of thinking is essentially equivalent to ‘civilization’ in my usage. Advancement of evolution is more pointed than the advancement of civilization. Paving a road through the rainforest is the advancement of civilization, but it is not evolution. />But it’s a politically loaded word in common usage so it doesn’t make the cut for the Marketing Answer. Some see the 'advancement' of civilization as the 'encroachment' of civilization, so either description can have negative connotations in certain people. Many people fear change, that makes space tech's ability to change the world a poor selling point. A good reason for the space program that's dumbed down for mass consumption is the old quote that "the dinosaurs aren't around because they didn't have a space program"

quasar2 · Jul 7, 2006

what if it`s the other way? they had it & left. there was an episode of ST:Voyager dealing w/that. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

rogers_buck · Jul 8, 2006

Biology all the way down to the mollecular level is the product of a massively parallel computation that runs for millions of years. The purpose of these myriad computations is to find the best solution of scope that preserves and propogates self. This is a process that both promotes and excludes. A plant needs hemoglobin in its roots, but because it was a plant and not a bacteria it never had the opportunity to develop the machinery to produce large amounts of hemoglobin efficiently. Unless it is visited by a lucky virus, it will have to make due for all eternity. That is the law of the physical jungle. We humans have developed our society to the point where the jungle has been virtualized. We can splice a bacterial hemoglobin gene into a plant and create a plant on steroids - faster growing, more chlorophyl, more of everything. If our changes are inside the nucleus, we have a new plant species that cheats the plant and bacterial history. The new virtual jungle is economic. A species is created by virute of its abstracted value and not its ability to survive. Apart from the common virus, evolution at the biological level is now irrelevent to our society. Evolution at the behavioural level is, however, a MAJOR factor. Just like the biochemical factors that drive evolution, behaviour is full of mutations, variations, and overall diversity. A trait that may save humanity during troubled times may be a trait that lands you in prison in the here and now. Without space we have little to look forward to other than a steady loss of our freedoms and diversity. This is a process analaous to the formation of multi-celled organisms from a collection of individuals. The price paid is diversity in exchange for a higher probability of survival. Our collective is a living thing in its own right. As our technology advances the pressures will be on for uniformity. Already we give our children ridlin and our adults prozak so

rfoshaug · Jul 8, 2006

Well, spacester, I'll have to admit that I'll have to rephrase the question slightly to get my answer to be only two words. You are correct that curiosity has something to do about it. So the question is: Why should we spend resources and risk lives on space exploration? My two-word answer: To learn! Knowledge is the key to the advancement of our civilization. Even if not all knowledge is immediately usable in everyday life (as with other types of science, such as quantum physics or astronomy), it does increase humankind's total knowledge - and might even become very useful one day. Why do we spend money on any kind of science or research where we don't necessarily expect an outcome that will change our lives for the better? Why did Newton or Galileo use expensive telescopes to watch the sky? Why did Columbus sail into the unknown? Why should we explore the deepest oceans and the highest mountains on Earth? Why do we build huge telescopes on mountain tops when the easiest option would be... not to? Why should we explore our solar system both with manned and unmanned machines, spending money and risking lives along the way? The answer: To learn. To know more after we do it than we did before If NASA goes back to the moon, it will not only be to learn about the moon, but also to learn how to get there in the safest and most efficient way possible. Yes, they did learn this in the 1960's, and having to start from scratch and do it again will be difficult. But because it is difficult, we will learn something on the way. So the reason we do these things is not because they are easy, but because they are hard. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> As long as we do something, and learn something from it, we have advanced as a civilization. Even through tragedies (or especially through tragedies, some will say), we learn. NASA learned a lot throug <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> ----------------------------------My minds have many opinions </div>

quasar2 · Jul 8, 2006

ok so, would "we" continue unmanned efforts? if space wasn`t as important? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

mental_avenger · Jul 9, 2006

spacester says: M_A, you cannot be intellectually honest while deciding for yourself what is and is not relevant in the mind of your opponent. On that basis, no matter what I write, you can simply declare the inconvenient parts irrelevant and ‘win’! Again you misrepresent the situation. If I am responding to only one sentence in a paragraph, that is the only one I have to quote. While the rest of your paragraph expressed additional thoughts, they neither added, subtracted, nor modified in any way the content of the first (quoted) sentence. spacester says: On the contrary, those opinions which are responsive and intellectually honest are dialog and those that are not, are a waste of bandwidth, my time, everyone else’s time, even yours. Nonsense. My comments were quite responsive and relevant. As for your “intellectually honest” comment, that is one of the few comments that has been irrelevant to this discussion. Also, except for comments that are non sequiturs, all other comments that address the discussion are relevant. The only waste of bandwidth is taking up space complaining about other members not responding to your statements as you would like. spacester says: I repeat, this strategy of basing our case on the concept of advancement of civilization takes advantage of the multiplicity of definitions it naturally engenders. I repeat, the concept is too broad to be of any use in promoting space exploration to the general public, or ever to a diversity of scientists, politicians, or governments. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

gofer · Jul 9, 2006

I think there is no need for an all encompassing tag line to make the generalized "we" explore space. Traveling in space costs lots of money and some technology, yes? Who has the money and the tech? Individuals, certain groups of individuals, certain governments. Target them. On individual basis. Every person and every group should have their own reasons for space exploration/exploitation. We need multiplicity, not a one-size-fits-all reason. Moreover, the initiative and the reasons should preferably come from them naturally, although perhaps some think-tank that manufactures artificial rationales for space exploration could be useful to kick start the process. "advancement of civilization" is too broad, I agree. However, qualifying this as in "advancement of American (or whatever else nation can afford it and has machinery for it) civilization" hits much closer to the (taxpaying) target. Civilizations that don't emphasize technology and prefer to commune with mother Earth are not affected. Advancement of Musk's checking account is also as good reason as any (for Mr. Musk) " 'Cause I wanna" for some bored millionaire is also equally good. "To find me some platinum on asteroids for sale" for a crazy entrepreneur, sure, why not? "Creating jobs in Nth district", sure. "Investent in our future", go right ahead. More, more, more individual reasons... rather than one for everybody.

gofer · Jul 9, 2006

"I choose the Tibetan Monk over the TV Evangelist preacher ..." Trust me, even pure thought (how do you know? There is the Zhuanshan festival when a goat is sacrificed "to mothers", do the TV evangelists cut some poor animal's throat to "please" gods?) politically correct Tibetan monks prefer running water and eyeglasses to bathing in feces and to blindness, when offered. Level of technology *is* a required and defining facet of civilization, just not the only one.

blackened27 · Jul 9, 2006

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr /> I think there is no need for an all encompassing tag line to make the generalized "we" explore space <hr /></blockquote> Agreed. Space exploration is a public issue, but at it's heart it's also a very private one. Everyone has their own personal motivations for exploring space or not. The key here is to teach the benefits of space exploration. Show individuals who follow the old "we should be taking care of people at home first" line of thought exactly why exploring space is a necessary and important step. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr /> However, qualifying this as in "advancement of American (or whatever else nation can afford it and has machinery for it) civilization" hits much closer to the (taxpaying) target. <hr /></blockquote> Agreed once again. National pride has a way of motivating people, and it would be foolish not to make use of this. Without national pride and the cold war space race, one has to wonder exactly how far along the US or indeed any space program would have advanced. Likely not very far, and almost certainly not to the moon. Any concept of mankind as a whole exploring space together is largely a fallacy anyway, at least at this point.

crossovermaniac · Jul 9, 2006

The question is - profit for whom? Humans have sometimes colonized simply to have more freedom or resources, at the expense of profit (in the short term, of course). Aw, but the people who was seeking freedom were only able to do so either by investors financing their trip because they needed workers that would make them money (as indentured servants who would work for the person who paid for their trip for seven years) or because the technology was developed by those seeking profits (Columbus came before the Pilgrims).

spacester · Jul 9, 2006

spacester says: M_A, you cannot be intellectually honest while deciding for yourself what is and is not relevant in the mind of your opponent. On that basis, no matter what I write, you can simply declare the inconvenient parts irrelevant and 'win'! Again you misrepresent the situation. If I am responding to only one sentence in a paragraph, that is the only one I have to quote. While the rest of your paragraph expressed additional thoughts, they neither added, subtracted, nor modified in any way the content of the first (quoted) sentence. spacester says: As little as possible. You gotta be kidding me. I will not respond to this absurdity in more detail than needed to defend my position and re-state what I am sure is obvious to most people. I'm going to do two things. First, I appeal to folks on this thread for a little backup here. My point is that if you are responding to one sentence and *completely ignore* the rest of the paragraph, that is flat-out intellectually dishonest. That is cherry-picking, that is attack dog, that is flunking the first midterm in Reading Comprehension 101. letters -- /> words --> Sentences --> Paragraphs --> Sections --> Chapters --> Volumes M_A seems unwilling or unable to get past the third arrow. He claims the right to sever the author's intended connection between the units of the first level of communication above words. No thoughts which cannot be encapsulated in a single sentence are capable of being processed on that basis. IMO he's doing this so that he can attack fragments at will and always finish up by declaring the whole invalid. It is as intellectually dishonest a mode as I've ever seen. (self-edit note: deleted a prohibited sentence here) I frequently quote a single sentence in lieu of the entire paragraph but I always try to pick the central thought, and my response tries to address the entire paragraph. In <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

spacester · Jul 9, 2006

Level of technology *is* a required and defining facet of civilization, just not the only one. Yup. Agreed. No doubt about it.

C.P. Snow observed The Two Cultures a long time ago and I think space advocates need to understand what that's all about and just as soon as they do, we'll get this space age into high gear. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

spacester · Jul 9, 2006

More, more, more individual reasons... rather than one for everybody. Yup, absolutely. I'm not looking for a one-size-fits-all unifying statement. As I've said, that is a fool's errand. What I present is the most broad-based philosophical foundation for answering the question at hand. A conceptual framework for formulating as many individual reasons as needed, letting each individual use their own vision to come up with an answer that works for them. Earlier in the thread we saw a link to an article in thespacereview about a whole bunch of high-level folks looking to answer the title question of this thread. I'm saying I've got the answer they're looking for. I've been working on it for years - this question has been asked and asked and asked here over the years, and in my mind - and others - it has never been successfully answered. The missing ingredient is missing because of C.P. Snow's Two Cultures thing. Scientists, y'all have been doing this integration thing lately, after a long time of increasing specialization. Is it time to let the Philosophers sit at the same table? <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

j05h · Jul 9, 2006

Josh: >> You gloss over both types of people so much that analysis is impossible. Just Mental_Avenger: />That was merely an example using extremes, quite a valid procedure. It was not practical to include all the possible combinations or levels. But your example doesn't hold water. You would be hard pressed to find any "primitives" that don't have something special to offer. You would also have trouble finding a technological culture without some beauty. The "live in harmony with nature" thing is a product of natures shows on TV not historical accuracy. It's similar to how everybody claims to have an "indian princess" in their bloodline, quite hard in cultures without heirarchy. > Getting way off track there. Coexisting successfully nature would hardly include such wasteful practices. My comment was not intended to target a race or a society, it was a generalized hypothetical example, the parameters of which were indicated. Your response indicates an unwarranted hostility. Not really. You claimed primitive societies lived in harmony with nature, I gave you a specific example of how that is untrue and can cite it from Krech. I use ancient American peoples as examples because that is what I know. Along with not living in harmony with nature, American Indians devised radical new crops (maize, potato) and made huge advances in natural medicines, land-use and metallurgy (mostly decorative, except some copper/iron weapons). The modern concept of "living in harmony with nature" is what tribal peoples would refer to as "starving". Sorry if my previous post was a little flame-tastic. Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center">We need a first generation of pioneers. </div> </div>

spacester · Jul 9, 2006

To learn! That is a fabulous answer. I heartily endorse it and I wouldn't blame anyone for using it over my clunky old six-word answer. <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> Learning is good. Who is going to argue against that? Well done sir! Maybe we should we try to combine our answers. Maybe not, I dunno. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

mental_avenger · Jul 9, 2006

I am only going to do this once. I don’t have time for your deliberate derailing of this thread. Here is the sequence: Mental Avenger said:<ul type="square"> 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.</ul> Spacester responded: <ul type="square"> 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. </ul> Mental Avenger addressed the first sentence with this response: <ul type="square"> You have just equated the level of civilization of a race to the level of technology of that race. Where does that take us? </ul> Spacester retorts: <ul type="square"> No I didn’t. Your entire post is a non sequitur. Your incorrect statement can take you wherever you want, but don’t include the rest of us in your “us”. </ul> Mental Avenger <ul type="square"> Your exact words: 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. I did not make that comparison, YOU did. MY comparison, in</ul> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

mental_avenger · Jul 9, 2006

Josh says: But your example doesn't hold water. You would be hard pressed to find any "primitives" that don't have something special to offer. I am sorry that you cannot (or are unwilling to) understand the concept of a hypothetical example (in lieu of a variety of actual examples) The example was never intended to, nor should it have been expected to, embody all possible real life situations. Josh says: You would also have trouble finding a technological culture without some beauty. I don’t recall mentioning “beauty” as one of the criteria under examination. Josh says: The "live in harmony with nature" thing is a product of natures shows on TV not historical accuracy. Wrong, it was a parameter of my hypothetical example. Not really. You claimed primitive societies lived in harmony with nature No, I did not. I stated that (for the purposes of the comparison) the primitive society in my example did live in harmony with nature. Not really. You claimed primitive societies lived in harmony with nature Josh says: I gave you a specific example of how that is untrue and can cite it from Krech. I use ancient American peoples as examples because that is what I know. And there is your problem. You are attempting to modify my hypothetical model. Hypothetical models are used frequently in analyzing situations in order to eliminate complex variable that often make the analysis to complicated to discuss within the forum provided. Josh says: Along with not living in harmony with nature, American Indians devised radical new crops (maize, potato) and made huge advances in natural medicines, land-use and metallurgy (mostly decorative, except some copper/iron weapo <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

j05h · Jul 9, 2006

MA: The problem is that your hypothetical model stinks. I'm sick of arguing about it. Spacester : this is a great thread. I still like your basic answer to the header. Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center">We need a first generation of pioneers. </div> </div>

mental_avenger · Jul 9, 2006

What is your problem? It was my model, offered for a specific purpose. For its purpose it was quite valid. It was never intended to represent any specific tribe, race, or society. For it to do so would have limited it to the point where it would have been unable to be used for its intended purpose. If you wish to present your own model, then do so, but don’t try to alter my model to fit your perception. Apparently you still do not understand the concept of a hypothetical model. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

mental_avenger · Jul 9, 2006

Let me ask you this. You claim my hypothetical model stinks. Ok, why does it “stink”? What about it elicits that reaction from you? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

spacester · Jul 9, 2006

OK get ready for a mind-blowing concept. This is pretty advanced stuff here. I made two (2!) – that's twice as many as one! – judgments in the very same paragraph! And then I compared them to each other *in the very same paragraph*!! Wow! The mental dexterity required! Stop the presses! spacester has taken this whole literature thing to a whole new level! He is trying to juggle multiple definitions to the same word! <img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /> I compared them on purpose – my thesis here is that the geek squad (space advocate types) needs to look deeper into the human condition than just the technology. The rhetorical question posed gave me a perfect opportunity to compare two different answers to the definition of civilization. /* deleted */ Could it be that as soon as he read the first sentence he said "aha! Now I shall pounce!". /* deleted */ Enough enough enough already! I am done responding to M_A. Done done and done. Over with. /* deleted */ If you people want to keep putting up with this crap, you can have him. He can have the last word and claim an absurd victory, I don't give a darn anymore. I will be filing a stronger grievance due to this latest obstinacy. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

halman · Jul 10, 2006

Certainly, one of the greatest benefits of space exploration is the outward focus it gives us. The more inward our focus is, the more we concentrate on our differences. We need to be challenged to discover our weaknesses and shortcomings, so that we can correct them. And seeing ourselves as one people is essential if we are going to survive, because we all are going to have to make sacrifices. But to me, the most important thing about space exploration is that it makes it possible for us to learn to do things somewhere else besides here on Earth. Speciffically, our heavy industrial processes. So much of our technology requires generating high temperatures, such as smelting steel, refining aluminum, generating electiricity. Even if we can continue to find source of energy, releasing these concentrated forms of energy into the environment is going to have consequences. And such a small portion of the world's population is currently enjoying the rewards of all of this energy conversion. What will it be like when the majority of people on Earth are enjoying a standard of living equivilant to what the United States has today? Ultimately, space will be our heavy industry park, our source of raw materials, and where most of our energy is collected and used. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

frodo1008 · Jul 10, 2006

Thank you for putting this discussion back on a reasonable and realistic track. All this philosophic discussion doesn't really help in truly realistically explaining why we are going into space in the first place. If is far more simple that some others seem to think it is. For better or worse our civilization is a technological one. Even more than this, it is an economically driven one! So while the government programs do and should concentrate on providing exploration, and eventually even the infrastructure of space it is the industrial private interests that will take this and convert it into real economic profit in the long run. This has been the pattern since the beginning of human exploration, and I don't see any treason to think it will be any different with the solar system or beyond. Columbus was not funded by pure private interests, he was funding by the King and Queen of Spain, which was the government at the time. But look what his discovery eventually brought forth! The entire economic wealth of the American continents! Then there were two relatively great United States efforts over the last two centuries that even more illustrate this idea. One was the Lewis and Clark Expeditions to the then unknown western US, and the other was the original government funding of the Transcontinental Railway. Both of these programs were essential to opening up the western US. One to explore, and the other to exploit! The results of this were eventually wealth beyond the wildest dreams of those that originally sponsored such events! California alone is not only still the largest agricultural state in the US (at least by monetary value) but is also the sixth largest economy in the world! But all of this pales to insignificance when compared to the almost limitless material and energy contained just within our solar system alone! It IS all out there, we just need the courage and will to go and get it!

gofer · Jul 10, 2006

The economics and the profit/greed motif is a good angle. But the point is there is no single correct answer to the "why we are going into space in the first place" The question itself is meaningless as the "we", the "explore", and the "space" are open to interpretation. For example, none of the reasons you've listed make much sense to me. I am for space exploration though. But the reasons are all my own. I don't want to finance any Lewis and Clark to space, or remove some eggs from some basket. And it's alright. You are right, and I'm right. And the rest of the folks are right. Heck, some people think people should stay put on Earth. Are they wrong? No. They just haven't found their own private reason to think otherwise yet. BTW, if not for philosophic discussions back in the days, we wouldn't have Galileo and Sir Newton's Theory of Gravitation among other things. Did you know that Sir Newton was a Baconian? And Einstein - Kantian? Galileo Galilei, Kopernicus were philosophers first, scientists second. Their specific, practical research grew out of the attitudes towards the wolrd instilled by a specific philosophy. Heck, physics grew out of a (specific) Greek philosophy. So I wouldn't be so haughty and dismissive of what folks laid out here.

Why Space Exploration is Important

spacester

Guest

josh_simonson

Guest

quasar2

Guest

rogers_buck

Guest

rfoshaug

Guest

quasar2

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

gofer

Guest

gofer

Guest

blackened27

Guest

crossovermaniac

Guest

spacester

Guest

spacester

Guest

spacester

Guest

j05h

Guest

spacester

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

j05h

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

spacester

Guest

halman

Guest

frodo1008

Guest

gofer

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page