interstellar travel
Blank Family
Progress is the entire purpose of science itself. Without progress
science is a tool without a purpose. Interstellar travel is an
inevitable result of space exploration. And I believe it will not be to
exploit planets we find, but to expand our horizons. To find something
better than our Earthly home.
mar...@bbs.infosquare.it
In article <32C77F...@ibm.net>,True.
Without progress
> science is a tool without a purpose.
Interstellar travel is an
> inevitable result of space exploration. And I believe it will not be to
> exploit planets we find, but to expand our horizons.
To find something
> better than our Earthly home.
Don't say better.I think just to find something.Different, better or worst it
doesn't matter.We have only to disover,to find ,to explore,it is not becuse we
need something better but only because we have to do it to understand more and
more.We explore stars and the universe not to find something better but just to
understand where we are.Progress is a consequence of science and evolution.I
don't think that scientists do their job because they want something better.They
want to understand and find something different,maybe better.They want to create
and often the result is not better but different.Can you say that all the
progress that we have now after the industrial revolution is better than
before?Not for the
Earth and not for a lot of people.It is in human nature.To create,to travel,to
discover.Columbus and the first explorators didn't do that just to find
something better.
Happy new year.
Stefano
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
The Old Wolf
mar...@bbs.infosquare.it wrote:
>
> In article <32C77F...@ibm.net>,
> Blank Family <sbl...@ibm.net> wrote:
> >
> > Progress is the entire purpose of science itself.
> True.
>
> Without progress
> > science is a tool without a purpose.
> Interstellar travel is an
> > inevitable result of space exploration. And I believe it will not be to
> > exploit planets we find, but to expand our horizons.
> To find something
> > better than our Earthly home.
> Don't say better.I think just to find something.Different, better or worst it
Just wanted to add my own two cents,
I think Robert Heinlen had the best explanation for the need to explore
and expand into space. Paraphrased, we are, at the base level, animals.
We always have been and always will be, for an animal to survive it must
compete and expand, if it does not, then other animals, more willing to
do so, will expand into it's habitat and push it out, much as we have
done to many animals on our planet now. Barring some alien race deciding
our solar system looks comfy, I think the greatest threat right now is
ourselves, population pressure leads to war and nasty outbreaks of
disease. My personal opinion on the matter is that we should have and
could have been interplanetary by 1970-80 using Nuclear Propulsion. At
any rate, without grabbing Starship Troopers and quoting the whole damn
thing, I think thats one of the best reasons for exploration I've
heard/read.
Just my two cents worth.
Kane
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
UNIX: We get more done on one command line then most OS's do all day
---------------------------------------------------------------------
http://users.accesscomm.net/~kane
Paul F. Dietz
The Old Wolf <ka...@accesscomm.net> wrote:
>Just wanted to add my own two cents,
> I think Robert Heinlen had the best explanation for the need to explore
>and expand into space. Paraphrased, we are, at the base level, animals.
>We always have been and always will be, for an animal to survive it must
>compete and expand, if it does not, then other animals, more willing to
>do so, will expand into it's habitat and push it out, much as we have
>done to many animals on our planet now.
Which shows that it's a good thing Heinlein earned his money writing
fiction rather than doing science.
Animals go to great lengths to avoid competition. Successful animals
would much rather stay put, if possible; more reproductive success
that way, typically. Often the animals that move to new environments
are surplus animals, typically young males, that could not breed in
their former environment. This also reminds me of Space Fans --
socially marginal males, mostly.
Human society shows no innate urge to colonize. Most humans live and
die within a small distance of their birthplace (the invention of
the bicycle has increased the distance a bit.)
The argument also hopelessly confuses species and individuals;
it's not clear that a species "needs" anything, or that this
concept can even be defined, nor is it clear what individual
behavior is motivated by species survival (likely, very little;
evolution would select against such genes.)
All in all, this kind of argument is more a facile rationalization
than a coherent reason for space colonization.
Paul
Waddell Robey
Yes, those are good points, but the search for value is what convinced the Spanish crown to pay for Columbus's trip. Although unmanned explorations have significant value and justification, the marketability of MAN in space helps capture the vital exploration dollars. We seem to be doing a better job lately of balancing both needs, ala Galileo and the Mars expeditions. NASA and the voter (through Congress) also saved the space station. This is the vital staging point for both further manned explorations and even more cost efficient unmanned explorations.
Happy New Year.
Waddell Robey
wfr...@sealight.com
mar...@bbs.infosquare.it wrote in message <8520378...@dejanews.com>:
>In article <32C77F...@ibm.net>,
> Blank Family <sbl...@ibm.net> wrote:
>>
>> Progress is the entire purpose of science itself.
>True.
>
> Without progress
>> science is a tool without a purpose.
>Interstellar travel is an
>> inevitable result of space exploration. And I believe it will not be to
>> exploit planets we find, but to expand our horizons.
> To find something
>> better than our Earthly home.
>Don't say better.I think just to find something.Different, better or worst it
>doesn't matter.We have only to disover,to find ,to explore,it is not becuse we
>need something better but only because we have to do it to understand more and
>more.We explore stars and the universe not to find something better but just to
>understand where we are.Progress is a consequence of science and evolution.I
>don't think that scientists do their job because they want something better.They
>want to understand and find something different,maybe better.They want to create
>and often the result is not better but different.Can you say that all the
>progress that we have now after the industrial revolution is better than
>before?Not for the
>Earth and not for a lot of people.It is in human nature.To create,to travel,to
>discover.Columbus and the first explorators didn't do that just to find
>something better.
>Happy new year.
>Stefano
>-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
>
>
--
wfr...@sealight.com
A Celebration of Lights:Chesapeake Bay Lighthouses
http://www.sealight.com
TJ
Waddell Robey wrote:
>
> Yes, those are good points, but the search for value is what convinced the Spanish crown to pay for Columbus's trip.
Didn't it have something to do with Columbus diddling the Queen?
tj
Queen,n. A woman by whom the realm is ruled when there is a king, and
through whom it is ruled when there is not.
from The Devil's Dictionary
ka...@accesscomm.net
In article <5ads7a$m...@nntp.interaccess.com>,
di...@interaccess.com (Paul F. Dietz) wrote:
>
> The Old Wolf <ka...@accesscomm.net> wrote:
>
> >Just wanted to add my own two cents,
>
> Which shows that it's a good thing Heinlein earned his money writing
> fiction rather than doing science.
Sorry to post through DejaNews,
Had to look back here to find a reply to my earlier noise =)
> Animals go to great lengths to avoid competition. Successful animals
> would much rather stay put, if possible; more reproductive success
> that way, typically. Often the animals that move to new environments
> are surplus animals, typically young males, that could not breed in
> their former environment. This also reminds me of Space Fans --
> socially marginal males, mostly.
Going through great lengths to avoid competition and not competing at all are
not the same.Population pressure is created specifically because of this desire
to "stay put" providing a competition for resources. Though I do not disagree
with you on the point of _who_ leaves.
>
> Human society shows no innate urge to colonize. Most humans live and
> die within a small distance of their birthplace (the invention of
> the bicycle has increased the distance a bit.)
I did not claim an innate urge to colonize, but rather a _need_ to do so. Again,
desires and needs do not go hand in hand. Also, the invention of the train and
later the airplane changed a great deal of the live and die locations, mostly in
how far we go to seek partners. (If you like I'll see if I can dig up the
reference on that, think it may have been either first year sociology or
psychology text.)(no snipe intended)
> The argument also hopelessly confuses species and individuals;
> it's not clear that a species "needs" anything, or that this
> concept can even be defined, nor is it clear what individual
> behavior is motivated by species survival (likely, very little;
> evolution would select against such genes.)
I haven't made such a claim, however, whether or not an individuals actions are
for the good of the species INTENTIONALLY or not is irrelevant, what is relevant
is whether or not the _end result_ is good for the species. I think this is
evidenced through evolution.
> All in all, this kind of argument is more a facile rationalization
> than a coherent reason for space colonization.
>
> Paul
I disagree. =)
Dan
lam...@nospam.washington.edu
di...@interaccess.com (Paul F. Dietz) writes:
>Which shows that it's a good thing Heinlein earned his money writing
>fiction rather than doing science.
Agreed.
>Animals go to great lengths to avoid competition. [..etc...]
Agreed.
>Human society shows no innate urge to colonize. Most humans live and
>die within a small distance of their birthplace (the invention of
>the bicycle has increased the distance a bit.)
Agreed.
>The argument also hopelessly confuses species and individuals;
>it's not clear that a species "needs" anything, or that this
>concept can even be defined, nor is it clear what individual
>behavior is motivated by species survival (likely, very little;
>evolution would select against such genes.)
Wrongola. Evolution selects against individual survival and in favor
of "group" survival all the time -- runt genes are an obvious case.
Individual survival is only *necessarily* selected for when there is no
other genetic material with competing interests.
--
Lamont Granquist (lamontg @ u.washington.edu) ICBM: 47 39'23"N 122 18'19"W
"First consider a spherical chicken..."
unsolicited commercial e-mail->contacting your ISP to remove your net.access
Paul F. Dietz
lam...@nospam.washington.edu wrote:
>Wrongola. Evolution selects against individual survival and in favor
>of "group" survival all the time -- runt genes are an obvious case.
>Individual survival is only *necessarily* selected for when there is no
>other genetic material with competing interests.
Evolution selects at the gene (and perhaps gene group) level. This
is *not* the same as species selection; indeed, it's almost the exact
opposite. It's biologically illiterate to explain behavior of
organisms as "for the good of the species." And disingenuous to
explain that we have to colonize space because of some supposed innate
biological urge (anyway, if there really is such an urge, why is the
microminority of space fans having such a hard time getting anyone
to agree with them?)
Paul
Michael Martin-Smith
Paul
I hope you had a good Christmas and have a happy New Year
1/ Yes, Evolution does select primarily at gene/gene group level
2/ However, we humans have, for better or worse, evolved
consciousness/mind, which allows us to consider "the good of the
species", although I grant only a micro-minority of us ever do so!
3/ It may be that one of the ultimate ends of the advent of mind is to
allow for faster development by "guided evolution". If the advent of
Mind has no end as people say, maybe we and mind are a mistake; that is
to an extent up to us!
4/ one possible effect of this could be the idea of colonising space
which has, existed for quite a long time in the minds of a
microminority, as you say. The betterment or enhancement of the human
race is one of the goals of space enthusiasts, surely not an ignoble
one, and does not require a dictatorship like most other ideologies.This
is, I entirely agree , a quasi religious concept; but religious feelings
can hardly be described as the affliction of a microminority! Particular
religious manifestations may be artificially /culturally determined ,
but I find it hard to believe that the basic religious drive is not, to
a degree, innate, and can accept that space colonization, like
nationalism, environmentalism, feminism as an ideology, fascism, or
communism to name but a few, is in part an attempt to satisfy such
promptings without recourse to traditional ideas such as personal
gods/trinities , in accordance with contemporary concerns.
5/ a previous posting comparing displaced surplus males to space fans
also contains a grain of truth, although many space active associations
contain a significant number of highly talented women in positions of
rank, and I could not conceivably class myself as a misfit male with
poor access to females, being a long established physician with a
successful marriage and two children. The misfit/surplus males referred
to were usually "accomodated" in days past by emigration or warfare ,
neither of which is now feasible. Adolf Hitler found that the only
virgin territory available for his chosen Germans was, in his words in
Mein Kampf, "occupied by other inferior peoples, and had to be taken
from them by force if need be". As we know, force was never in short
supply
6/ Given the above, maybe those with a distaste for space colonisation
as an idea may care to consider that unlike the others I have mentioned
it is harmless, can yield exciting and useful by products and
discoveries, and occupy talented people who might otherwise find more
nefarious uses for their energies in a dangerous world; in short, it is
by far the lesser of many evils!
If people really think that a world without idealists at all is
realistic, I can only beg to differ. Idealists , by their nature,
usually end up calling many shots over more passive folk, and so have to
be reckoned with somehow.
7/ true, space fans have a hard time getting popular followings; part of
the reason is simple - cost, which I would agree is outrageous, makes it
hard to credit. I have usually found that many ordinary people find "my"
ideas quite attractive, if the cost/reliability can be reduced . I am
not vain enough to believe this is due to my blue eyes, or, at only 64
inches tall, my non-existent good looks!!
--
Michael Martin-Smith
Paul F. Dietz
Michael Martin-Smith <mar...@miff.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Paul
> I hope you had a good Christmas and have a happy New Year
>1/ Yes, Evolution does select primarily at gene/gene group level
>2/ However, we humans have, for better or worse, evolved
>consciousness/mind, which allows us to consider "the good of the
>species", although I grant only a micro-minority of us ever do so!
Yes, but this isn't what was being argued! The argument (that I was
objecting to) was that there was some sort of biological imperative to
space colonization.
>3/ It may be that one of the ultimate ends of the advent of mind is to
>allow for faster development by "guided evolution".
Whoa, you've just left of science and gone into teleology.
Evolutionary biology says there is no such thing as the purpose of an
organism, or an "ultimate end".
>This
>is, I entirely agree , a quasi religious concept; but religious feelings
>can hardly be described as the affliction of a microminority!
Yes, it is religious. Can the space fans now be honest about this
and stop using specious biological arguments?
Paul