The Space Exploration Debate

[Terring 6,476]

While I was sleeping, a debate took place in my status. Since I couldn't reply, and since using the status bar for debates is not recommend for obvious reasons, let me open this topic to discus it and reply to a few comments.

It's also a good excuse to open this debate

This has no effect on any of us, it doesn't make the world any better...

Any scientific and technological achievement have improved our lives and space exploration is not an exception. In fact, it gave us improved artificial limbs, anti-icing systems for the aircrafts, better firefighting and medical equipment, more efficient solar panels, joysticks for the game consoles, and the liquid crystals for the LCD monitors. Just to name a few of them.

As about what we will get by the Rosetta mission, it is hoped that it will result in better understanding of comets, the early Solar System, and the creation of our planet. Furthermore, will search for organic molecules, nucleic acids (the building blocks of DNA and RNA) and amino acids (the building blocks of proteins), helping assess the contribution comets made to the beginnings of life on Earth. Think the knowledge, the technologies, the breakthroughs we'll get after all of that. And who knows? Maybe it will help us to find better ways of diverting the orbits of incoming comets, so we'll not die in an apocalypse like the dinosaurs.

Meanwhile, back here on Earth - people are starving,...

I've been hearing this thesis since I was a kid and I still find it insulting for the mankind. It's like treating our species as primitive and unable for multiple tasks as a mono-celled organism like an amoeba. Wait a minute, even an amoeba can do more than one actions. Even a low-end computer can handle more than 2 tasks, let alone 7 billions of minds!

Everybody can help to better our world with her/his own way. Some people will explore our world to unlock the secrets of the Cosmos and use those new knowledge for better understanding and researching new technologies. Others will use any kind of art as the vehicle to express important ideas and statements, while inspiring everybody else to do the same. And others will get their butts out of their sofas and start feeding the starved and giving a house to the homeless. Non of the above will be sitting in front of a computer and complain for everything.

"Why you want to explore new lands, Columbus, while we have problems here? Do nothing, sit here and cry with us"

I think space exploration would be ideal if we could achieve a near Venus Project-like society before then.

Ah, the classic dilemma. Earth or Mars? Exploring the comets or giving water to everybody? Colonizing Mars or helping Earth? My answer is simple...

 

 

OK, enough from me. What about you? Is space exploration a worthless waste of money, or our fate is indeed to the stars?

"By exploring other worlds we safeguard this one. By itself, I think this fact more than justifies the money our species has spent in sending ships to other worlds. It is our fate to live during one of the most perilous and, at the same time, one of the most hopeful chapters in human history."

Carl Sagan

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

It is not only space exploration that helps along our technology.  The more we know, the more we can do. 

 

I support pure science and exploration of the unknown simply because of the foregoing.

 

Where would we been without earlier people like Prince Henry, the Navigator?  Sure his goal was to expand the Portuguese Empire, but in the long run, he expanded our knowledge of our planet.

 

To come closer to our time, what if the U.S. hadn't pushed forward the Manhattan Project?  How's your German?  Do you think the Third Reich would have continued research given their penchant for things that were only approved by Der Fuehrer?  Germany was very close to the A-Bomb before we destroyed their capability.  War is a horrible hell, but we didn't start that one, or did we?  We are too close to it and the jury of History is still out on the thirty years' war of the 20th century.  Has mankind grown up?  Current events show we are still capable of tantrums:  Just look at the mess-o-potamia (thanks W. it's a good phrase).

 

So, what else has grown out of pure research?  You only have to look at the Royal Society formed at the time of Newton and Hooke to see where we've been led by a few bright minds.

 

We haven't solved poverty and deprivation?  Yes, that is true, but philosophically "The poor we will always have with us".  You'll find that in almost all scriptures in any religious sense.  We haven't shed this crutch of religious beliefs as yet, but it is now in real trouble except, perhaps, in the non-Christian world, which is mostly due to ignorance. 

 

Where is poverty and starvation the highest?  Why in poorer countries that have failed to educate their people, and kept them in ignorance, tied to the land and superstition.  Can something be done about it?  Yes, but not in dribs and drabs that the civilized people of the world are able to do.  There isn't enough real money (specie) in the world to alleviate this.  There never will be.  Humanity is one of the few species where sex is a recreation rather than strictly for reproduction.  The side-effect of all this is an increase in population, mostly among the poor.  This adds mouths to feed without adding any resources.  You wonder why some peoples are poor?

 

So, let's continue with our pure scientific progress.  All that we can afford.  We might find the clue to cheap nourishment and solve this aching problem outlined above.  A well-fed people is a curious people.  If you aren't chasing calories down the street, you might as well chase knowledge.  Knowledge can be enriching.

[iLoveMusic 66]

Ok, let's dig into this.

 

Any scientific and technological achievement have improved our lives and space exploration is not an exception. In fact, it gave us improved artificial limbs, anti-icing systems for the aircrafts, better firefighting and medical equipment, more efficient solar panels, joysticks for the game consoles, and the liquid crystals for the LCD monitors. Just to name a few of them.

 

 

Those things are great, but you could say that these were developed for the space program, instead of actually in space or as a result of it. And better anti-icing systems? Video game joysticks? LCD screens that make people go "ooh" and "ahh"? This is the basis for man's so-called "great achievement"? Sounds like a poorly thought-out, egotistical joke. "Efficient" solar panels? Where are they? They must not be efficient enough. I'll give them credit if they can properly apply solar energy on a massive scale, without taking up thousands of acres of valuable land, potentially destroying those areas.

 

As about what we will get by the Rosetta mission, it is hoped that it will result in better understanding of comets, the early Solar System, and the creation of our planet. Furthermore, will search for organic molecules, nucleic acids (the building blocks of DNA and RNA) and amino acids (the building blocks of proteins), helping assess the contribution comets made to the beginnings of life on Earth. Think the knowledge, the technologies, the breakthroughs we'll get after all of that. And who knows? Maybe it will help us to find better ways of diverting the orbits of incoming comets, so we'll not die in an apocalypse like the dinosaurs. 

 

I like knowledge too - an ideal society would be a highly educated, responsible one (good luck with that). But our species has a horrible track record of how this knowledge is applied in nature and towards ourselves. And I know this isn't a popular opinion, but medical advancements could technically be seen as interfering with natural selection and the evolutionary process - which is actually not good for us humans. It's short-sighted. But I guess people figure that genetic engineering will solve this problem, but I don't believe it will.

 

 

I've been hearing this thesis since I was a kid and I still find it insulting for the mankind. It's like treating our species as primitive and unable for multiple tasks as a mono-celled organism like an amoeba. Wait a minute, even an amoeba can do more than one actions. Even a low-end computer can handle more than 2 tasks, let alone 7 billions of minds!

 

 

You're ignoring one problem in favor of what you think may be a solution, but I don't think you realize that we're using the same thinking we used when creating the former problems to try and solve them now. Don't confuse me with the type that are afraid of space exploration or outright against it - I'm not. But I believe this should be done responsibly, and right now it is not. It's not even on people's minds. One member a little while ago spoke out in support of mining the moon. This is old, counter-productive thinking. Listen to the lyrics of the Lynyrd Skynyrd song Things Goin' On, even more relevant today than it was when it came out back in 1973:

 

 

Lyrics

 

Everybody can help to better our world with her/his own way. Some people will explore our world to unlock the secrets of the Cosmos and use those new knowledge for better understanding and researching new technologies. Others will use any kind of art as the vehicle to express important ideas and statements, while inspiring everybody else to do the same. And others will get their butts out of their sofas and start feeding the starved and giving a house to the homeless. Non of the above will be sitting in front of a computer and complain for everything.

 

 

Helping the homeless, or helping anybody who's not rich for that matter - is becoming increasingly illegal. And as I stated earlier, the hype in new technologies may be in vain since military is always the first to call dibs on it. Everything, and I mean everything that comes out of R&D labs goes through military first, always. As for myself, I'm locally active in preserving things that most of us can agree are important (such as arable land and resources like water) for future generations. It's a little thing, but I'd like to think of it as an accomplishment and I'm proud of it. If I had any real musical talent, I'd make lots, and lots of music - because I have a ton of things that I'd like to say, without engaging in overt propaganda (The 1979 Clash album London Calling is a stellar example of this, along with music in general that I think can really be called one of man's greatest achievements). That is my voice, not some useless vote or a distant spacecraft that has nothing to do with me or anyone else.

 

"Why you want to explore new lands, Columbus, while we have problems here? Do nothing, sit here and cry with us"

 

 

And the Indians (who previously lived on this beautiful land in relative balance with themselves and nature) were mass-slaughtered, introduced to new-world diseases that wiped out 95% of them, were marched to their deaths, and we also fought with and stole land from the Mexicans. There has since been massive deforestation, reckless sprawling development, the construction of a consumer & materialism-based culture & economy that's basically taking over the world, and what was formerly an astonishingly beautiful country is slowly being turned into a coast-to-coast shopping mall, third-rate debtor nation full of poorly educated young people, overweight slobs who increasingly rely on automatic technology to do everything for them (Wall-E), an untouchable elite that spends billions annually in foreign wars and makes it illegal to help those in need of it, and old people who can't afford to buy medicine. Unforeseen consequences that had, and continue to have, a major effect. Don't get me wrong, I'm very happy to be here, living right now, here in this time - but Columbus sailing over here and the rest since has been no picnic for sure. There is more than just one way of looking at this.

 

Ah, the classic dilemma. Earth or Mars? Exploring the comets or giving water to everybody? Colonizing Mars or helping Earth? My answer is simple...

 

 

If we could do both, it would have either happened already or there would at least be some sort of plan. But there is no plan, other than just "winging it". And spending billions of dollars doing so, instead of putting that money towards programs that would actually help people here on Earth. You can't expect to solve our problems by pretending that the solutions are elsewhere, using the same thinking we used to create a lot of the problems we already have here right now. The thinking hasn't changed - we haven't learned anything.

 

OK, enough from me. What about you? Is space exploration a worthless waste of money, or our fate is indeed to the stars?

 

 

I think "No fate but what we make" is a useful quote here. But I urge you not to misinterpret it.

 

Here are some problems in desperate need of solutions that should be looked into. But they won't, of course. That would be smart. That's why they don't do it.

 

Great Pacific garbage patch

Ocean acidification

Resource depletion

Environmental impact of agriculture

Topsoil loss

Colony collapse disorder / Pollinator decline

Economic inequality

Increasing social malaise/discontent (Material wealth is not equal to life happiness)

Consumer culture / Economic materialism

Ethics of technology

Homogenization of cultures

National debt of the United States

Pensions crisis

Corporate fascism

Advertising & Marketing

GMO's

And more...

 

"By exploring other worlds we safeguard this one. By itself, I think this fact more than justifies the money our species has spent in sending ships to other worlds. It is our fate to live during one of the most perilous and, at the same time, one of the most hopeful chapters in human history."

 

Carl Sagan

 

 

But we haven't safeguarded this world at all. In fact, it may actually be more fragile now. Many of our day-to-day activities now rely on satellite-based communications (especially since the launch of the World Wide Web in 1990), which are constantly in peril from the tons of space debris (that man created) floating in the outer reaches of Earth's atmosphere, posing threats to critical satellites as well as the International Space Station (famously depicted in the recent film Gravity). This has to constantly be tracked and spacecraft must be adjusted accordingly to avoid deadly collisions. Such craft are also in danger from external forces that we have no control over whatsoever (electromagnetic storms, various space phenomena, solar flares, etc).

 

Also, see Militarisation of space.

 

My thoughts on space exploration, can be generally summarized in the video below.

 

[Duke87 1,070]

Let's not forget that space exploration really isn't that expensive in the greater scheme of things. NASA's budget is less than 1% of the money the US government spends, and that's only the federal government (state, county, and local governments do not fund space exploration). The money isn't really so much the issue. We've got the money to explore space and tackle lots of other issues.

 

 

As for what we get out of it, well, if nothing else, it is a matter of self-actualization for us as a species. Recently we landed a space probe on a comet. Why? Because we can. No other reason is necessary. Not everything in life needs to have a direct practical purpose. Sometimes doing something awesome just for fun is totally worth it. It's entertainment. It's a morale booster. It serves a very important symbolic purpose even if nothing practical comes of it - namely, that we are still looking to keep exploring and keep expanding our horizons. If we stop exploring, then we stop advancing. Simple as that.

[iLoveMusic 66]

Let's not forget that space exploration really isn't that expensive in the greater scheme of things. NASA's budget is less than 1% of the money the US government spends, and that's only the federal government (state, county, and local governments do not fund space exploration). The money isn't really so much the issue. We've got the money to explore space and tackle lots of other issues.

 

 

As for what we get out of it, well, if nothing else, it is a matter of self-actualization for us as a species. Recently we landed a space probe on a comet. Why? Because we can. No other reason is necessary. Not everything in life needs to have a direct practical purpose. Sometimes doing something awesome just for fun is totally worth it. It's entertainment. It's a morale booster. It serves a very important symbolic purpose even if nothing practical comes of it - namely, that we are still looking to keep exploring and keep expanding our horizons. If we stop exploring, then we stop advancing. Simple as that.

 

The US government has scaled down funding for NASA and related space programs since the end of the Cold War, this is true. But this wasn't NASA's project - this was the work of the European Space Agency.

 

And this corrupted use of the word "we" is bothering me. "We" didn't do anything. Most people didn't even know about this mission until two days ago, after it succeeded landing (remember that this mission was launched 10 years ago). I guarantee you that if this mission had failed, nobody would have said a word. "We" were sitting at our computers, on Facebook, or on "adult" websites, or watching the football game, shopping at the big-box superstores, grabbing a Starbucks, stuck in traffic, fighting with one another, calling each other names, screaming at the television, eyes glued to the "smart" phone, etc. "We" in America were thousands of miles away from the headquarters of the mission. "We" had nothing to do with the mission, "we" probably don't know anybody who knows anybody related to the mission, and the solid majority of "we" certainly don't have adequate knowledge of the mission at hand. All this "we" talk sounds like lots of people trying to take credit for the work of a small, distant group of actually intelligent individuals. If you support those individuals and their work, and even feel proud of them - that's fine. But don't try and take credit for their work, as if "we" actually had something to do with it.

 

Imagine this scenario: In a class of 30 students, 3 of them perform extremely well academically while the other 27 students perform between average and far below average. The teacher announces grades at the end of the semester, and when the success of the three students is made known to the rest of the class - they all suddenly crowd around the three students, cheering and knocking heads, claiming that "we" as a class, did it. When in actuality, the majority of those 27 students threw paper wads at each other, sipped on a Gatorade and ate Doritos, texted each other silly faces on our phones under the table, or just blankly stared at the ceiling - largely unaware of the three student's presence in the classroom. This "we" logic could be applied anywhere and it would make just as much (non)sense.

 

 

And I can't emphasize this enough - I'm not against space exploration. I believe that human civilization and society has not kept up with the technology it keeps spawning. Look at the current state of the world. It's completely out of balance. Off-sync. India has recently made significant efforts to show off their space potential, and they're spending a lot of money doing it. This is occurring, while they will not give their poor population sanitary living conditions. A bit of a more extreme example than the US, but relevant nonetheless. And I don't believe that these things should be done simply "because we can". That further proves my point earlier about our total aimlessness in space, and makes it more likely that this will turn into the militarization of space. And I certainly don't believe that our species is advancing toward some futurist-utopian society that some people hold as a fantasy - it goes against human nature. Humans won't let that happen, or we'd already be there. In regards to symbolism - man successfully landed on the moon in 1969. Planted a couple of flags, took a picture, and left a whole lot of garbage. There's some symbolism, right there. It wasn't enough that we trash our own planet, but to spread that far and wide throughout the universe? James Cameron's 2010 film Avatar accurately depicts (in my opinion) what man would do with space, and everything he comes into contact with there. I urge you to take a closer look at the relationship between man, nature, and technology.

[Huston 5,799]

Imagine this scenario: In a class of 30 students, 3 of them perform extremely well academically while the other 27 students perform between average and far below average. The teacher announces grades at the end of the semester, and when the success of the three students is made known to the rest of the class - they all suddenly crowd around the three students, cheering and knocking heads, claiming that "we" as a class, did it. When in actuality, the majority of those 27 students threw paper wads at each other, sipped on a Gatorade and ate Doritos, texted each other silly faces on our phones under the table, or just blankly stared at the ceiling - largely unaware of the three student's presence in the classroom. This "we" logic could be applied anywhere and it would make just as much (non)sense.

Though I get the point you're trying to convey, I still find it on a level, irrelevant. My point is, in the grander scheme of things, this lander reaching the comet is an achievement made by man; humanity. People who were involved in the initial development, launch and maintained surveillance and tracking of the probe may even have wanted people to appreciate this, as an achievement by humanity as a whole, advancing as we find our footing in the universe. There's never really any harm or anything wrong in the sense of feeling pride in something that has been done and achieved by us humans, akin to feeling pride in a nation and saying that "we did it" and such. It's a matter of pride, and from there I just don't see why stomping on this matter is really that necessary. Most people aren't even out to try and credit work, no one ever did say "I take credit" for anything. I hardly think that many people would be all too bothered by this, but we all have our own opinions so there's never really a wrong answer to this. This just happens to be how I see it.

 

One member a little while ago spoke out in support of mining the moon.

May be said member just happens to like the idea? It does happen to be an intriguing thing to be going into.

 

 

And I can't emphasize this enough - I'm not against space exploration. I believe that human civilization and society has not kept up with the technology it keeps spawning. Look at the current state of the world. It's completely out of balance. Off-sync. India has recently made significant efforts to show off their space potential, and they're spending a lot of money doing it. This is occurring, while they will not give their poor population sanitary living conditions. A bit of a more extreme example than the US, but relevant nonetheless. And I don't believe that these things should be done simply "because we can". That further proves my point earlier about our total aimlessness in space, and makes it more likely that this will turn into the militarization of space. And I certainly don't believe that our species is advancing toward some futurist-utopian society that some people hold as a fantasy - it goes against human nature. Humans won't let that happen, or we'd already be there. In regards to symbolism - man successfully landed on the moon in 1969. Planted a couple of flags, took a picture, and left a whole lot of garbage. There's some symbolism, right there. It wasn't enough that we trash our own planet, but to spread that far and wide throughout the universe? James Cameron's 2010 film Avatar accurately depicts (in my opinion) what man would do with space, and everything he comes into contact with there. I urge you to take a closer look at the relationship between man, nature, and technology.

 

Unfortunately, we can't have everything, nor everything we want to implement to happen all at once. While it's pretty much true, or high likely that India is ignoring the pleas of its people simply for the sake of flaunting it's new technological prowess and it's status as a rising global superpower, in the long-run, the missions it takes up could better humanity and while I understand that you see it as more of a similar situation to how we resolve such issues in the past, there isn't a perfect system and right now, we don't have a choice. It's the best option handed to us and in way anyway, the situation cannot directly be comparable. The real issue in our exploitation of Earth is the fact that we exploit it in a disgusting manner (as you've said before), and that little regard is made towards our own environment that we share with the rest of the animal and plant kingdom (the only world and biospheres we have and know). We're damaging it and it's why (as well as material shortage) we're being pushed further to go and look for resources in space.

 

Although you talk about humans spreading our garbage out in space, it hardly makes a difference later when eventually, these will decay long after humans die out. Unless space-junk accumulates to the point where the world is constantly being bombarded at dangerously high levels that threaten the existence of any landbased, waterbased creature, no harm will come to the Earth and it's biosphere. If an asteroid that hit the Earth millions of years ago, or a lack of greenhouse which froze the world over didn't kill off life, humans with our technology floating out in space certainly isn't.

 

On the other hand, I still don't understand why you think exploitation of solar system is such a bad idea. I've read through your points, but there not exactly all that convincing. We leave artificial material on the moon, chances that it will never end up being seen by anything else after we die off. It might just end up being wiped once our Solar System dies along with any trace that anything ever existed on Earth besides the mounds of rock and dust that'll be left over. The significance of anything we do will hardly impact on anything later on, but within times of human existence, sure, but it's most likely going to mitigated (you make seem like once people get on the moon or Mars, that all the garbage we have on Earth is gonna be dumped on to it, while we hollow it from the inside out. We're at least decently aware of the implications of our actions, there are going to be measures that take place as to not make a vastly damaging impact to our existence, life on Earth etc etc.). We're not damaging eco-systems, we're not destroying anything severely important to the existence of life on Earth, or the existence of the Universe, we're not out dismantle the fabric of a culture that lives on the Moon, Mars or some other world in our system. There's no real reason we should hold our breath, leave ourselves to swim in death, or even wait for us to reach a utopia or equilibrium in society (our species really just isn't wired for that kind of system - given time, may be, but from here on it just seems so vague and distant) before we could explore a world beyond our own, and may be even help those less fortunate on Earth, with our more bountiful access to resources.

 

I mean, there aren't all negatives to the expansion of human access to resources on a societal level. I mean in our day and age, we've connected our society, helped each other to understand ourselves, each other, and our world. A lot of people comparably are living longer lives, higher living standards, of course, with the population expansion in the 20th century, it doesn't seem that way. And again, your reference to Avatar assumes we come into contact with a planet that has a biosphere to destroy and a culture to ruin, with a people to look down on with a firm colonialist attitude. That may only be one way we look at it, there's never a sure way to say that we will destroy that culture as dictation of what humans have done in the past. Human civilization as really only existed for the last 10,000 years and it's a spat in the time-span of the universe. For 8000 of those years, we hardly new a life beyond living simple nomadic lives, while the last 1800 years humans tried to find their footing. in the last 200 years we've been overwhelmed with new discoveries, ground-breaking technology,  and massive clash of cultures that are only just getting along in what would be quite a short amount of time in history. Atrocities committed in history occur a lot less in our century, and saying that there has been little change in our mentality is rather forward considering that there has been significant change in the last 200 years. Give humanity 100 more years, and there could be a significant bout of change from there.

 

But humanity doing nothing now isn't going to solve anything, just because we don't want our ego's to go ahead.

[iLoveMusic 66]

May be said member just happens to like the idea? It does happen to be an intriguing thing to be going into. 

 

But what I've been saying is that, that's the kind of thinking that has gotten us into resource troubles here on Earth - also making it more difficult for our future generations. Our thinking needs to change, if we ever hope to solve the problems we created with the old thinking.

 

Unfortunately, we can't have everything, nor everything we want to implement to happen all at once. While it's pretty much true, or high likely that India is ignoring the pleas of its people simply for the sake of flaunting it's new technological prowess and it's status as a rising global superpower, in the long-run, the missions it takes up could better humanity and while I understand that you see it as more of a similar situation to how we resolve such issues in the past, there isn't a perfect system and right now, we don't have a choice. It's the best option handed to us and in way anyway, the situation cannot directly be comparable. The real issue in our exploitation of Earth is the fact that we exploit it in a disgusting manner (as you've said before), and that little regard is made towards our own environment that we share with the rest of the animal and plant kingdom (the only world and biospheres we have and know). We're damaging it and it's why (as well as material shortage) we're being pushed further to go and look for resources in space.

 

 

But we don't know that these missions will ever better humanity, because we're still using the old troublesome thinking of the past, like I said above. Our economic engine is still based entirely upon consumption, consumption, and more consumption. This reminds me of an old Beatles cartoon I saw once, I think from 1968 - anyway, at one point in this bizarre cartoon, the four Beatles are in a yellow submarine trying to get away from a large "monster vacuum" that sucks up absolutely everything around it. The vacuum consumes and sucks up everything on the screen, and eventually the submarine (which disappears for a little while), and after there is nothing left for the vacuum to consume, it turns on itself and it sucks itself up - turning the screen into a black, completely empty void for a few seconds, before the Beatles' submarine re-appears. It was rather disturbing (and that's saying something for this already bizarre cartoon), since it was also suddenly dead silent during this scene. I feel like our society is that vacuum. 

 

On the other hand, I still don't understand why you think exploitation of solar system is such a bad idea. I've read through your points, but there not exactly all that convincing. We leave artificial material on the moon, chances that it will never end up being seen by anything else after we die off. It might just end up being wiped once our Solar System dies along with any trace that anything ever existed on Earth besides the mounds of rock and dust that'll be left over. The significance of anything we do will hardly impact on anything later on, but within times of human existence, sure, but it's most likely going to mitigated (you make seem like once people get on the moon or Mars, that all the garbage we have on Earth is gonna be dumped on to it, while we hollow it from the inside out. We're at least decently aware of the implications of our actions, there are going to be measures that take place as to not make a vastly damaging impact to our existence, life on Earth etc etc.). We're not damaging eco-systems, we're not destroying anything severely important to the existence of life on Earth, or the existence of the Universe, we're not out dismantle the fabric of a culture that lives on the Moon, Mars or some other world in our system. There's no real reason we should hold our breath, leave ourselves to swim in death, or even wait for us to reach a utopia or equilibrium in society (our species really just isn't wired for that kind of system - given time, may be, but from here on it just seems so vague and distant) before we could explore a world beyond our own, and may be even help those less fortunate on Earth, with our more bountiful access to resources.

 

 

Exploitation of the solar system, or anything we come into contact with really - that's old thinking. Thinking that created problems we have now. The best that can do, that we've seen - is create short-term gratification for some humans, but make a mess out of things for everyone in the long run. And since us humans are the only ones (that we know of) who can see and know about this garbage, then why shouldn't we be the ones who judge it and ourselves? Most of us can agree that garbage is garbage, since we don't see any extraterrestrial civilizations stopping by and thanking us for it. I don't think it's a good idea to travel from planet to planet, moon to asteroid, etc. to leave them ravaged and used, continuing this process until humans either run out of places to exploit for resources or somehow lose the means of doing so.

 

Historically on Earth, humans (especially in Asian cultures) have looked to the Moon to represent balance in nature and physics. This has scientific merit as well, since the weak gravitational influence of the Moon is responsible for the movement of the ocean tides on Earth. 

 

I mean, there aren't all negatives to the expansion of human access to resources on a societal level. I mean in our day and age, we've connected our society, helped each other to understand ourselves, each other, and our world. A lot of people comparably are living longer lives, higher living standards, of course, with the population expansion in the 20th century, it doesn't seem that way. And again, your reference to Avatar assumes we come into contact with a planet that has a biosphere to destroy and a culture to ruin, with a people to look down on with a firm colonialist attitude. That may only be one way we look at it, there's never a sure way to say that we will destroy that culture as dictation of what humans have done in the past. Human civilization as really only existed for the last 10,000 years and it's a spat in the time-span of the universe. For 8000 of those years, we hardly new a life beyond living simple nomadic lives, while the last 1800 years humans tried to find their footing. in the last 200 years we've been overwhelmed with new discoveries, ground-breaking technology,  and massive clash of cultures that are only just getting along in what would be quite a short amount of time in history. Atrocities committed in history occur a lot less in our century, and saying that there has been little change in our mentality is rather forward considering that there has been significant change in the last 200 years. Give humanity 100 more years, and there could be a significant bout of change from there.

 

 

I actually didn't even think of the colonialism problem. That's just another point, I suppose. In that film, those blue people (navi?) were just an obstacle to the humans, who came there for resources and would do anything to get them, even destroying everything in its path. And of course, the technology went towards primarily military use, at least from what we were shown in the film.

 

And this may seem a little off-topic, so I'll put it in a spoiler:

I find the notion of "higher living standards" to be relative - not everyone desires to live the same way. Before you might get me wrong here (I

like hot showers!), what I mean is: Not everybody must have a credit card, a new car, a bank account, a three-story house, a computer, a phone, material goods, etc. Of course, sanitary living conditions are preferred by most, that's a given. But not everyone wants to live on the technological-industrial grid. The people I have in mind are those who live very simple, happy lives, free from the bounds of materialism and living standards set by others - Buddhists come to mind. They have been around for a very long time, I find these to be some of the most respectful people on Earth, and I'm personally fascinated with the philosophy. They are not violent by any means (how often do you ever hear about angry Buddhists on the news?). Not the life for everyone, sure (most are quite poor by Western standards), but to me, that's advanced. It is the betterment of life and the awareness of living, wisdom, happiness, and spreading these principles to others (and not by using force or fear, it's a completely conscious decision - a rarity in religion!) They have a good word for everyone and everything. It's for the same reason that I often struggle with the terms "First-world/third-world country". But back to the main subject.

 

Giving humanity 100 more years, well by then it may be too late. What we're doing now certainly isn't helping matters for them. While I think the Venus Project has a lot of good ideas, it fails to address how in the world humans would even begin to transition to that sort of society, or how to deal with many current, urgent problems.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

With all the foregoing sophistry, it all boils down to man's curiosity.  There are only two real frontiers left to satisfy this lump of investigation:

The ocean deeps which seem to be getting quite a bit of attention and

Space which is also getting some attention, but we lack good technology for the purpose.

 

It will always be so.

 

Currently the space boys are having a little problem with their comet probe because it didn't behave as planned and wound up in the shade.  For a 10 year mission, even the partial results are amazing.

 

"Do you remember sweet Betsy from Pike

"Who crossed the White Mountains with her lover Ike

"With a bandy red rooster, and an old china hog

"A new covered waggon, and an old yeller dog."

-- Old Folk Song, origin unknown (to me).

[Fantozzi 4,068]

I feel so inexhaustible gratefull every day that mankind startet exploring space. Without this I wouldn't have Satellite-TV. And without Satellite-TV I wouldn't know what's the state of the world. And without knowledge what's going on on this planet most of the arguments against exploring space couldn't be validated.

 

So the arguments against spending money on exploring space whe have thanks to those who explored space.

 

Don't forget what we learned about earth thanks to space flight. We wouldn't even have precise forecasts which way hurricanes takes. 

 

Last week, when the german astronaut Alexander Gerst returned from the ISS, he said: "when you're up there and you see how thin the atmosphere seems to be and how much black there is around this little blue thing you begin to wonder why mankind is burnig those forests down they need to survive."

 

Thanks to spaceflight we changed our view on the planet were we live.
 

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

This blue marble is the only one we've got, so we need to treat it gently.  It will still be here when we are gone, and after a few millennia there will be no trace of us.

 

Meanwhile, let's see if we can find a new one to abuse.

[iLoveMusic 66]

I feel so inexhaustible gratefull every day that mankind startet exploring space. Without this I wouldn't have Satellite-TV. And without Satellite-TV I wouldn't know what's the state of the world. And without knowledge what's going on on this planet most of the arguments against exploring space couldn't be validated.

 

So the arguments against spending money on exploring space whe have thanks to those who explored space.

 

Don't forget what we learned about earth thanks to space flight. We wouldn't even have precise forecasts which way hurricanes takes. 

 

Last week, when the german astronaut Alexander Gerst returned from the ISS, he said: "when you're up there and you see how thin the atmosphere seems to be and how much black there is around this little blue thing you begin to wonder why mankind is burnig those forests down they need to survive."

 

Thanks to spaceflight we changed our view on the planet were we live.

 

 

A lot of what you said is not true. Cable television has been around since 1948, and while satellite television was first achieved in 1962, it did not begin to enjoy mainstream success until the late 1980's and 1990's. Also, I wasn't making an argument against space flight in general. Please read my posts again.

 

Also, spaceflight has not really changed our view on the planet where we live - that's an incredibly vague and naive statement. You don't need to go up into space to know that perhaps it isn't in our best interest to be destroying our home - all it takes is common sense. Satellite imagery has helped view large-scale environmental devastation of rainforests across the world (and other fragile environments), but very little to nothing continues to be done. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt - even then, why has nothing been done to help the situation here on Earth? Those views don't really mean anything unless action is applied to them, which isn't happening and there are currently no plans to do so. I'm not even sure exactly what points you are trying to make in your post, it's not very clear at all.

 

To add to my point that I have been demonstrating in this thread, I found the following under the Wikipedia article Anti-consumerism:

 

In an opinion segment of New Scientist magazine published in August 2009, reporter Andy Coghlan cited William Rees of the University of British Columbia and epidemiologist Warren Hern of the University of Colorado at Boulder, saying that human beings, despite considering themselves civilized thinkers, are "subconsciously still driven by an impulse for survival, domination and expansion... an impulse which now finds expression in the idea that inexorable economic growth is the answer to everything, and, given time, will redress all the world's existing inequalities."

[Terring 6,476]

Dismissing the space exploration as an expensive diversion from our problems on Earth is as illogical as rejecting the vaccines as the source of autism and considering the doctors as killers. The only thing they can do such oversimple opinions is covering our eyes, tying our legs, and providing us with cheap excuses to do nothing more than act ungratefully. Space exploration is not a useless money eater. In fact, there are many good reasons why we have to keep space exploration alive.

Reason number 1: To improve our daily life

 

Many of the technological equipment we use everyday has been invented in space, sometimes based on astronomical data we received from probes and others on the inventions required to build and the run the probes. For instance...

• Image stabilizing technology used in cameras and cell phones was developed to help cameras monitoring space shuttle launches to stay focused, despite the quaking ground beneath them.
• Micro-spheres are tiny latex spheres, measuring just o.o1mm across. They were manufactured aboard a space shuttle in 1982 and were the first commercial products to be made in space. Their main use is calibrating high-performance microscopes, and everybody knows how vital they are in medicine.
• "Memory foam" is a polyurethane-based product that allows your mattress to shape itself around you. It was developed by NASA to use it to ease the pressure on astronauts during space shuttle take off.
• The joystick we use in aircrafts, game consoles, and wheelchairs, uses technology developed for the Apollo Program.
• Virtual reality originated in "telepresence" techniques, which are used to control tools on space shuttles.
• The satellite dish was invented by U.S. engineer Grote Reber in 1937, but at first its only use was in radio astronomy. The launch of the Soviet satellite Sputnik 1 changed that, when the concerned West realized that large enough radio dishes could be used to track satellites. Soon, NASA has established a network of large dishes for communication to and from orbit. The satellite dish is now a commonplace, with many houses receiving satellite TV.
• Because of the finite speed of light, communication times to probes across the Solar System is so long that making instant reactions is impossible. As a result, spacecraft engineers have developed increasingly smart artificial intelligence systems, so the robotic explorers can make decisions autonomously without the need for human input. Now you can find this technology in factories and laboratories, and very soon in cars and houses.
• Solar panels have been around since the late 19th century and their usefulness on Earth was recognized before the Space Age. But space is one of the few places where solar power is a must. Because of it, space scientists have been at the forefront of improving the efficiency, lightness, and cost of photovoltaic cells.
• Tiny heart pumps have been developed using technology taken from space shuttle fuel pumps. Furthermore, a NASA computer, which usually models the flow of fluids through a rocket, was used to simulate blood flow through the pump, minimizing any disadvantages and improving the artificial heart.
• Lightweight thermal blankets were originally developed to protect spacecrafts from the harsh extremes of the space vacuum. Now they're widely used by everyone, from marathon runners to catastrophe recovery teams... and maybe from you too!
• Thicker insulation, used to withstand the heat of re-entering Earth's atmosphere, is now used in high-performance aircrafts and racing cars.
• Engineering analysis tools, designed by NASA to study and predict the stresses experienced during launch and spaceflight, are now applied to other fields of manufacturing, including vehicle design and machine tooling.
• Crewed spaceflights were soon followed by the first case of spacesickness caused by the lack of weight. Space medicine has developed drugs and techniques to counter this problem, as long as other problems of prolonged weightless. And guess what. Some of these solutions can also be applied to Earth-based ailments, including seasickness.
• Away from the distorting effects of gravity, space stations such as the I.S.S. can grow crystals quickly and perfectly. The results are far superior to those made on Earth, especially when we're talking about protein crystals. On Earth, those crystals form a mass of confusing folds and links that makes it impossible to read their chemical components. Protein crystals made in space, on the other hand, are easier to analyze for potential uses in drugs and other therapies.
• NASA's research into the nest generation of spaceplane technologies will have wide-reaching implications. Smart materials,, that remember their original shape after being deformed or react in specific ways to certain situations, are being developed. They could lead to the development of improved prosthetic limbs and earthquake-proof buildings, just to name a few examples.
• The fire and smoke alarm detectors, now found in every home, were first developed by NASA contractors for use aboard the Skylab space station in the 70s.
• Non-invasive sensors, used to monitor your pulse rate and other aspects of your health, are the direct descendants of similar devices used to monitor astronauts.
• Combining hydrogen and oxygen to produce water and electricity, fuel cells were just a scientific curiosity... until NASA licensed and developed the technology for use on Gemini and later spacecrafts. Today they're one of the world's great hopes for cleaner power in vehicles and homes.
• It's true that the first integrated circuit etched into a semiconductor was made by Jack Kilby of Texas Instruments, but it was NASA's demand for circuits for its computers that spurred the development of the microchip and mass-production methods. This meant that microchip prices plunged through the 60's, allowing the pocket calculator and later the computer to become a reality. And what an irony. Today we use those computers to claim how worthless the space exploration is.
• And do I really have to mention the importance of space technology in cell phones network, allowing you to stay in touch with the rest of the world even if you're in the most secluded places?
• And what about the G.P.S., that prevents you from getting lost?
• What about weather forecasts, that saved many lives from hurricanes? Do you still think that space activities are a waste of money and time?
• And what about the comsats, that have transformed our society by increasing our awareness of global events even from the most remote parts of the world, bringing education to remote communities through satellites broadcasting, and ultimately bringing the world closer together by turning it into an awesome global village?

And the above examples are just a few of the practical applications of space exploration in our lives.

Reason number 2: Curiosity!

Yes, curiosity!! Just normal, everyday, no question about it, simple, ordinary, unembellished, unmistakable, crystal clear, as frank as Frankenstein, as blunt as an atom bomb, pure, single, awesome curiosity!!! Many other animals have a sense of curiosity, but ours sent us to the Moon. We can't do otherwise. It's in our genetic code, like it or not. Curiosity keeps your brain and the society alive. In the past, we were asking. What's behind this mountain? What's across the sea? What's inside this forest? Are there people living on this island? Today, we still ask. What's orbiting around this star? What's going on in this galaxy? What's inside this nebula? Are there intelligent lifeforms living on this planet? Curiosity drives us to unlock the secrets of the Cosmos, life, and ourself. We'll never stop exploring. That's our nature. We'll never stop challenging ourselves to go even further than before. Space is huge and there are so many wonders to be discovered, so many worlds to be explored, and so many stories to be read.

We all live in the Universe, and the Universe lives in us. We're all made by star stuff. The oxygen we breath, the carbon on which life on Earth is based, the nitrogen in the atmosphere, the silicon in rocks and our computers, everything has been made in the interior of the stars. We are their children. Every time we explore space, we explore ourselves. As Carl Sagan said, we are a way for the Cosmos to know itself.

Furthermore, space exploration can give us answers to ancient and recent questions. Here are a few examples...

• Precise clocks carried on satellites orbiting around Earth have proved that Einstein's theories of relativity are correct. Gravity really does bend space and time around it, and time really does slow down for satellites traveling at high speed.
• Lunar rocks brought back by the Apollo missions finally pinned down the Moon's violent origin. Our beloved moon is the child of a big crash, when a Mars-sized planet smashed on Earth.
• US military satellites, originally launched in the late 60's to monitor nuclear tests, discovered the first gamma-ray bursts ever recorded. Those bursts are the most violent explosions ever observed and are now thought to herald the birth of black holes.
• The Hubble Space Telescope was launched in 1990, providing images from the depths of the Cosmos and revealed informations about planets outside our Solar System.
• As our space telescopes look out into the space, they're also looking back in time. The Hubble Space Telescope has seen the first galaxies forming shortly after the Big Bang, while the COBE and WMAP microwave telescopes have mapped faint radiation from the Big Bang itself.
• Believe it or not, satellites can also show lost landscapes created or altered by humans. They have peered though the dense jungles around the Cambodian city of Angkor Wat, found hidden pyramids in the Peruvian jungle, mapped buried sections of the Great Wall of China, and even found the fabled lost city of Ubar beneath the sands of the Arabian Desert.
• Astronomers have been able to see objects that emit visible light since the invention of the telescope. But they had no idea what the sky looked like at invisible wavelengths, until the space age. Thanks to X-rays, we've now seen the violent areas around black holes. Ultraviolet telescopes have shown us super hot stars and nebulae, while infrared scans, have revealed faint dwarf stars and disks of dust in which other solar systems are forming.
• The robotic descendants of Columbus and Magellan have visited all the mayor planets of the Solar System, many of the mayor moons and several minor worlds, proving that we live in a system of wonders. Radar mappers have pierced the veil of cloud around Venus to reveal the hellish world below, teaching us why we should take the global warming into consideration. Rovers on Mars have found clinching evidence for a warm, wet past. Some space probes have revealed the turbulent atmosphere of Jupiter, the violent volcanoes of Io, the structure of Saturn's rings, the eerie frozen landscapes of Titan, and the obscure personalities of Uranus and Neptune. Others have explored the asteroids and the comets, and in some cases they even came close and personal to them.

For once again, just a few examples. And don't forget that curiosity brings knowledge, knowledge brings wisdom, wisdom brings understanding, and understanding brings responsibility. And new technologies.

Reason number 3: To preserve our Mother

And by "Mother" I mean Earth. As I said before, when we explore the Cosmos, we explore ourselves too. When we study a planet, we compare it with our own. This comparison can unlock more knowledge for both us and this world. The example of Venus that I have mentioned it's not the only one. Mars lacks of ozone layer, leaving its surface exposed to deadly radiations and teaching us why we should protect the ozone layer of Earth.

Speaking about Mars, NASA recruited British scientist James Lovelock in 1961 to help search for signs of live on the Red Planet. Lovelock suggested that the presence of of life would create a complex system of dynamic change in a planet's atmosphere. Mars failed the test, with a mix of gases that is static and unchanging. But Lovelock went on to formulate the Gaia hypothesis. This theory proposes that the living organisms interact with their inorganic surroundings on Earth, forming a self-regulating system that contributes to maintaining the conditions for life on the planet. We're part of this system too, so we have to keep this in our mind before it's too late.

Sometimes, the best (and only) way to see a problem is by making a step back and get the big picture. This is what happened in this case, thanks to the space program. Humanity's first view of our home was sent back by the crew of Apollo 8, during their loop around the Moon in 1968. An oasis of life in the black desert of space.

 

A similar photograph taken from Apollo 17, the last Apollo mission, in 1972 is reputedly the most reprinted image in history.

 

In 1990, Voyager 1 took a picture of our planet from the distance of about 6 billion kilometers. In the photograph, Earth is shown as a fraction of a pixel (0.12 pixel in size) against the vastness of space.

 

It's pictures of our fragile home floating alone in space like the above that demolished man's megalomania and slapped his insignificance in his face. It's pictures like the above that makes you think globally and consider yourself as a cosmic citizen. It's pictures like the above that makes you realize how small you are, how unique is Earth and how fool you have to be if you still support the current greedy systems that are raping our Mother in the name of money and power.

"You develop an instant global consciousness, a people orientation, an intense dissatisfaction with the state of the world, and a compulsion to do something about it. From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, ‘Look at that, you son of a &!*(#'."

- Edgar Mitchell, describing his experience of seeing the Earth from the Moon

Space exploration slapped our real size in our face, but it also gave us the tools we need to study our planet much better. Since the 70's, "remote sensing" satellites have studied every aspect of the land, sea and air, helping us to understand and monitor problems such as deforestation, ozone depletion and global warming. Improved understanding has forced governments into actions, leading to carbon-reduction treaties and decisions such as the banning of ozone-destroying aerosols.

We can also preserve our Mother by an other way. By expanding our activities into space. Space is huge and there are a lot of resources to use. In the future we will build power plants, factories and farms to provide the people of the Earth with anything they need without damaging the environment. We will also build mines on the Moon and asteroids to get rare natural resources, such as helium-3, without destroying the Terran ecosystems. And why we stop there? How about colonies on the Moon, Ganymede and beyond? How about terraforming Mars, from a cold desert to a second Earth? How about orbital colonies, autonomous space stations that can provide houses to thousands and even millions of people?

Something like this...

Now that's the future I want to live.

Reason number 4: To preserve peace

The space race led to the development of highly catastrophic weapons. The superpowers were armed with powerful nuclear missiles that could exterminate life on Earth. However, many historians believe that the "balance of terror" helped prevent the Cold War to be a nuclear one. Another reason why we're still here and not buried under the rubles of radiated cities was the space race between USA and USSR, which encouraged the superpowers to demonstrate their technology and national superiority in a peaceful context. Not to mention the Apollo–Soyuz Test Project and the I.S.S. Furthermore, information from spy satellites has helped many times to defuse tense situations and avoid potentially catastrophic misunderstandings.

Space exploration (like music and anything nice) brings the nations come together. How about a global agenda for re-visiting the Moon, terraforming Mars, and colonizing Alpha Centauri? If the nations co-operate for something good for everybody, they will have no reasons to fight. And keep in mind that space is huge (way larger than Earth) and plentiful of resources, so nobody will have any reason to fight. And I'm not even sure if star wars are possible at all...

Reason number 5: To explore our spiritual and cultural frontiers

Every form of exploration has its own art and Space exploration is not an exception. It has inspired some fantastic films and TV shows, such as "2001", "Star Trek", "Apollo 13" and "Interstellar". It has also a huge influence on artists in all fields, including the lava lamps, the Space Needle in Seattle, the Pierre Cardin's catsuits and the spacesynth music. So try to imagine the impact of space colonization on arts. Space has a unique charm that will never let the artists relax.

And here is my personal reason why the humanity must spread to the stars. To explore new spiritual frontiers. To escape from Earth and find a new world to set up a new society, a new way of life. In my city journal Eden: The New Frontier I had described a peaceful spiritual revolution on Mars, with more and more colonists to refuse the values of the Earth and set up their own rules, their own philosophy, their own way of thinking. Space can be the canvas of new ideas, new values, new societies, and new adventures.

Reason number 6: To stay alive!!

We have finally established the Venus Project. We have finally achieved a sustainable new global civilization, a society based on science and kindness, where everybody lives in beautiful dynamic cities, technology has liberated us for the pursuit of higher aspirations in human achievement, and money are useless thanks to the resource-based economy. We have finally managed to be intelligent. We've build a CIVILIZATION. This will ensure our survival, right? Well, we need something else. Being a spacefaring civilization. We can't have too many eggs in one basket, especially if it's floating around a hostile Universe full of asteroids and supernova explosions. Stephen Hawking has warned us. We will not survive another 1,000 years if we isolate ourselves on a single planet.

In a long run, we have to expand our civilization into space... if we don't want to have the same fate with the dinosaurs.

"The Earth is the cradle of humanity, but mankind cannot stay in the cradle forever."

- Konstantin Tsiolkovsky

[TekindusT 3,809]

I'm 80% agree with Terring's long post, but there are some affirmations... Maybe I'm just more "down to Earth" than you (pun intended).

 

 

Reason number 1: To improve our daily life

 

And the above examples are just a few of the practical applications of space exploration in our lives.

Well, the NASA is not an NGO thinking exclusively on the well of mankind. These inventions were researched up there, somebody paid the patent to manufacture them and they came into the market; making profits out of it.

I studied mechanical engineering and currently work in a research field. This way, I can look at science on its both sides: the side trying to satisfy curiosity and the side trying to make a living of it by generating profits in a long-term. No research is done if both sides aren't satisfied.

 

Reason number 2: Curiosity!

• US military satellites, originally launched in the late 60's to monitor nuclear tests, discovered the first gamma-ray bursts ever recorded. Those bursts are the most violent explosions ever observed and are now thought to herald the birth of black holes.

This clearly sounds like a military purpose to me, which later found a civil application. It is not the only time we will stumble with the relevance of the military-industrial complex when talking about aerospace research.

 

• The robotic descendants of Columbus and Magellan have visited all the mayor planets of the Solar System, many of the mayor moons and several minor worlds, proving that we live in a system of wonders. Radar mappers have pierced the veil of cloud around Venus to reveal the hellish world below, teaching us why we should take the global warming into consideration. Rovers on Mars have found clinching evidence for a warm, wet past. Some space probes have revealed the turbulent atmosphere of Jupiter, the violent volcanoes of Io, the structure of Saturn's rings, the eerie frozen landscapes of Titan, and the obscure personalities of Uranus and Neptune. Others have explored the asteroids and the comets, and in some cases they even came close and personal to them.

I would say these discoveries are "just" the outcome of exploring new planets to go to when the Earth becomes inhabitable. You can disguise it as curiosity, I would talk about survival.

 

"You develop an instant global consciousness, a people orientation, an intense dissatisfaction with the state of the world, and a compulsion to do something about it. From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, ‘Look at that, you son of a &!*(#'."

- Edgar Mitchell, describing his experience of seeing the Earth from the Moon

I want to drag several politicians by the scruff without never having been on outer space...

No kidding. If you're tired with the state of the world, remember "think globally, act locally". We all do it a bit in our own way.

 

We will also build mines on the Moon and asteroids to get rare natural resources, such as helium-3, without destroying the Terran ecosystems. And why we stop there? How about colonies on the Moon, Ganymede and beyond?

Mining in the moon looks to me against the thesis you're defending down in your post. If you mine there, this means you're putting a price tag on it. And if you put a price tag, there is somebody willing to pay for it and for its property. And for sure, the profits obtained from it would never repercute on the middle and working classes, don't worry. I would rather keep the Moon without an ownership, but that's just a personal opinion.

 

Reason number 4: To preserve peace

The space race led to the development of highly catastrophic weapons. The superpowers were armed with powerful nuclear missiles that could exterminate life on Earth. However, many historians believe that the "balance of terror" helped prevent the Cold War to be a nuclear one.

If the US and the USSR didn't nuke themselves during the Cold War, it was exclusively to avoid the risk of a World War III while both nations were booming (especially the US). Imagine if you nuked one country. You would have the rest of the planet against you! Imagine all the US products produced during the Cold War period blocked or boycotted in the whole world... I would say this balance of peace was very profitable for both nations (again, especially the US).

 

Space exploration (like music and anything nice) brings the nations come together. How about a global agenda for re-visiting the Moon, terraforming Mars, and colonizing Alpha Centauri? If the nations co-operate for something good for everybody, they will have no reasons to fight. And keep in mind that space is huge (way larger than Earth) and plentiful of resources, so nobody will have any reason to fight. And I'm not even sure if star wars are possible at all...

Nations are fighting currently for resourceful but unclaimed areas like the Arctic. Don't even imagine they would behave with "global conciousness" if serious amounts of resources were discovered in Mars, the Moon...

As said, I agree the rest of you post.

[iLoveMusic 66]

Dismissing the space exploration as an expensive diversion from our problems on Earth is as illogical as rejecting the vaccines as the source of autism and considering the doctors as killers. The only thing they can do such oversimple opinions is covering our eyes, tying our legs, and providing us with cheap excuses to do nothing more than act ungratefully. Space exploration is not a useless money eater. In fact, there are many good reasons why we have to keep space exploration alive.

Reason number 1: To improve our daily life

 

Many of the technological equipment we use everyday has been invented in space, sometimes based on astronomical data we received from probes and others on the inventions required to build and the run the probes. For instance...

<snip>

 

Please don't take this the wrong way - but did you read any of my posts? It took you a few days to respond, and now that you have, it looks to me like you're simply reiterating all that you've said in the first post of this topic, only adding a few more examples and quotes. I have already addressed nearly everything you posted, I feel like I'm about to repeat everything I've stated in this thread already. You have yet to tackle any of the points I have made in this thread, as a response to yours. I'm especially doubtful that you read my posts since you are still accusing me of being completely against space exploration and that it was a waste - I never made such claims. On the contrary, I said the following statement in underlined bold italics in an earlier post: "I can't emphasize this enough - I'm not against space exploration."

 

 

And I've never used GPS, as I've known how to read a map since I was a little kid. It's not hard. Nobody should rely exclusively on something like GPS, because it might not always be there for them. I also look at satellite imagery every day, I have them pinned to my Bookmarks (GOES-15 satellite imagery for weather pattern observation here on the West Coast, as well as for Water Vapor, visible imagery, and Infrared), since meteorology is a strong interest of mine. I've addressed the medical and technological aspects of space exploration (and its influences) in posts above. One thing I forgot to mention, however, is that the high-quality medical technology is primarily available to the wealthy, while most others either don't have access to it at all or it drives them into bankruptcy. It, along with the industrial and agricultural revolutions, has contributed to this:

 

 

 

And what about the comsats, that have transformed our society by increasing our awareness of global events even from the most remote parts of the world, bringing education to remote communities through satellites broadcasting, and ultimately bringing the world closer together by turning it into an awesome global village?

 

"Awesome global village"...I thinking you're failing to look at all sides to this. First - that's completely against human nature. The wars, genocides, mass killings, deception, religious fanaticism, terrorism, inequality, and materialism, all demonstrate this very clearly. You can't cherry-pick the parts of human nature that you like just to support your views - there are ugly sides to it as well, and they're just as apparent and real. And second, I've already addressed my criticisms of globalization and homogenization of all cultures. While proper education I support, this is heavily polluted by advertising & marketing, as well as consumerism in general - they tell the whole world that you must live this way, want these possessions, and join the rat race for the endless, unfulfilling pursuit of more. You hear it in commercials all the time: "You need to upgrade your lifestyle, buy our products". It's bad, self-destructive thinking. And that thinking isn't changing. Humans aren't just suddenly going to become enlightened and wise, and fix all the world's problems - certainly not in space either, or this would already be happening. It isn't. 

 

 

Reason number 2: Curiosity!

 

Yes, curiosity!! Just normal, everyday, no question about it, simple, ordinary, unembellished, unmistakable, crystal clear, as frank as Frankenstein, as blunt as an atom bomb, pure, single, awesome curiosity!!! Many other animals have a sense of curiosity, but ours sent us to the Moon. We can't do otherwise. It's in our genetic code, like it or not. Curiosity keeps your brain and the society alive. In the past, we were asking. What's behind this mountain? What's across the sea? What's inside this forest? Are there people living on this island? Today, we still ask. What's orbiting around this star? What's going on in this galaxy? What's inside this nebula? Are there intelligent lifeforms living on this planet? Curiosity drives us to unlock the secrets of the Cosmos, life, and ourself. We'll never stop exploring. That's our nature. We'll never stop challenging ourselves to go even further than before. Space is huge and there are so many wonders to be discovered, so many worlds to be explored, and so many stories to be read.

 

We all live in the Universe, and the Universe lives in us. We're all made by star stuff. The oxygen we breath, the carbon on which life on Earth is based, the nitrogen in the atmosphere, the silicon in rocks and our computers, everything has been made in the interior of the stars. We are their children. Every time we explore space, we explore ourselves. As Carl Sagan said, we are a way for the Cosmos to know itself.

 

I actually agree with him. I said this earlier. But as I stated above, human nature does not have just one function. Our species has a tendency to make a mess out of everything, especially ourselves. I posted a video earlier showing others who see this as well, I don't think you watched it but please do so.

 

 

Furthermore, space exploration can give us answers to ancient and recent questions. Here are a few examples...

<snip>

 

Once again, I wasn't disputing this. I support responsible space exploration. There is currently no evidence to support that this is happening or will be in the future.

 

 

For once again, just a few examples. And don't forget that curiosity brings knowledge, knowledge brings wisdom, wisdom brings understanding, and understanding brings responsibility. And new technologies.

 

If only it were that simple. That statement may apply on smaller scales, but when facing an indisputably and inherently destructive species, the less desirable functions of human nature override any wisdom coming our way. Don't believe me? Observe the current state of the world. It is not improving in any way, shape or form. Looking at all the world's problems and basically saying "Problems? Throw some money & technology at it, and it will just go away." may solve a trivial problem or two, but then people ignore the many more problems it just created because they don't like that. 

 

 

Reason number 3: To preserve our Mother

 

And by "Mother" I mean Earth. As I said before, when we explore the Cosmos, we explore ourselves too. When we study a planet, we compare it with our own. This comparison can unlock more knowledge for both us and this world. The example of Venus that I have mentioned it's not the only one. Mars lacks of ozone layer, leaving its surface exposed to deadly radiations and teaching us why we should protect the ozone layer of Earth.

 

Speaking about Mars, NASA recruited British scientist James Lovelock in 1961 to help search for signs of live on the Red Planet. Lovelock suggested that the presence of of life would create a complex system of dynamic change in a planet's atmosphere. Mars failed the test, with a mix of gases that is static and unchanging. But Lovelock went on to formulate the Gaia hypothesis. This theory proposes that the living organisms interact with their inorganic surroundings on Earth, forming a self-regulating system that contributes to maintaining the conditions for life on the planet. We're part of this system too, so we have to keep this in our mind before it's too late.

 

Umm we knew the dangers of an unprotected ozone layer before looking at Mars.   Volcanic eruptions here on Earth, and the subsequent massive bursts of greenhouse emissions, temporarily destroying the ozone layer in those regions made the effects (UV exposure, irregular global climate fluctuations) apparent for centuries, if not longer. The very weak "hole" in the ozone layer above Antarctica has contributed to faster rates of warming there, melting ice. Studying Mars may have helped understand this more thoroughly in very recent scientific history, but I don't buy it. 

 

I've read a bit on the Gaia hypothesis in the past, however some notable scientists (including Richard Dawkins, mentioned in your post) have criticized the theory for numerous reasons, including "lacking unambiguous observational support and having significant theoretical difficulties” (~Waltham, David. 2014) and "supported neither by evolutionary theory nor by the empirical evidence of the geological record” (~Cockell, Charles. 2008). A new proposed hypothesis is the Medea hypothesis, although I admit, I am skeptical of it at the moment and need to look into it further. Coined by paleontologist Peter Ward only five years ago in 2009, it is labeled as an anti-Gaian hypothesis. I'm not saying that we should just stay here stuck on Earth and kill ourselves (although that appears to be what we're doing anyway). Worth looking into, at least.

 

 

Sometimes, the best (and only) way to see a problem is by making a step back and get the big picture. This is what happened in this case, thanks to the space program. Humanity's first view of our home was sent back by the crew of Apollo 8, during their loop around the Moon in 1968. An oasis of life in the black desert of space.

 

 

 

A similar photograph taken from Apollo 17, the last Apollo mission, in 1972 is reputedly the most reprinted image in history.

 

 

 

In 1990, Voyager 1 took a picture of our planet from the distance of about 6 billion kilometers. In the photograph, Earth is shown as a fraction of a pixel (0.12 pixel in size) against the vastness of space.

 

 

 

It's pictures of our fragile home floating alone in space like the above that demolished man's megalomania and slapped his insignificance in his face. It's pictures like the above that makes you think globally and consider yourself as a cosmic citizen. It's pictures like the above that makes you realize how small you are, how unique is Earth and how fool you have to be if you still support the current greedy systems that are raping our Mother in the name of money and power.

 

"You develop an instant global consciousness, a people orientation, an intense dissatisfaction with the state of the world, and a compulsion to do something about it. From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, ‘Look at that, you son of a &!*(#'."

- Edgar Mitchell, describing his experience of seeing the Earth from the Moon

 

I agree with this part of your post, however I do not believe it has demolished man's megalomania at all. This is still very apparent in both religion (where man is said to have dominion over all other life forms on Earth, at least in Genesis) as well as in politics and culture - as brilliant as Stanley Kubrick's film 2001: A Space Odyessy is, I sense a sheer amount of megalomania there. And as TekindusT pointed out above this post - many people already want to grab politicians by the scruff of their necks, without even having been in space.   I'm sure seeing it all from the ISS makes it more obvious, though.

 

 

 

Space exploration slapped our real size in our face, but it also gave us the tools we need to study our planet much better. Since the 70's, "remote sensing" satellites have studied every aspect of the land, sea and air, helping us to understand and monitor problems such as deforestation, ozone depletion and global warming. Improved understanding has forced governments into actions, leading to carbon-reduction treaties and decisions such as the banning of ozone-destroying aerosols.

 

I'll say it again - this was already apparent. People could see deforestation from airplanes or the news was (more commonly) brought to them from journalists, ozone depletion and global warming having unavoidable effects on our homes, our health, and easily observable from analyzing climatology and weather records/archives. Satellite imagery has made this more obvious, I confirmed this earlier. I feel that carbon reduction treaties don't really do anything significant, and is an excuse for corporations and companies to cheat the carbon offsets system to make more money while not reducing pollution at all. Scrubbers (installed in power plants and smokestacks), on the other hand, are more effective in reducing extremely harmful/toxic chemicals from being released into the air (these began to be installed in the 1970's). But the pollution is still there and so is the resource consumption. I question the effectiveness of the Montreal Protocol, as it was implemented in 1989 (ratified by 196 states and the European Union), however the largest ozone "hole" over Antarctica was observed in September 2006. According to the most recent report from the Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion, while the total abundance of ozone-depleting material in the troposphere is slowly declining from a peak in 1992-94, the abundance of chlorine and bromine in the stratosphere is still increasing (optimistic estimates say it is "near or at a peak"). They are predicting a return to roughly 1980-era ozone levels by 2050. I guess we'll see.

 

 

We can also preserve our Mother by an other way. By expanding our activities into space. Space is huge and there are a lot of resources to use. In the future we will build power plants, factories and farms to provide the people of the Earth with anything they need without damaging the environment. We will also build mines on the Moon and asteroids to get rare natural resources, such as helium-3, without destroying the Terran ecosystems. And why we stop there? How about colonies on the Moon, Ganymede and beyond? How about terraforming Mars, from a cold desert to a second Earth? How about orbital colonies, autonomous space stations that can provide houses to thousands and even millions of people?

 

This goes against all of the following:

 

• Your idea of a "utopian" future
• Sustainable living
• Addressing any of the existing environmental problems on Earth
• Advancement of human thinking and problem-solving methods

You're using the same thinking that directly caused many of the existing problems on Earth. Factories? Colonization? Mines? Terraforming? Again, I addressed the problems with these methods in my earlier posts. It's old thinking, and problematic thinking. Your post recommends the mere expansion, prolongation, and further establishment of these problems instead of actually solving any of them. It has high potential to promote ignorance as well - shipping off some of our problems to the Moon, Mars and beyond, and then declaring them solved. Makes it easier for those here on Earth to ignore those problems, since they wouldn't be as apparent (they would be far, far away). These problems need to be tackled at the roots, not just putting it off or relocating them. Even your statement "We will also build mines on the Moon and asteroids to get rare natural resources, such as helium-3, without destroying the Terran ecosystems" highlights a serious error in the thinking logic being used here. "Rare natural resource" and "build mines" strongly suggest these these supposed resources are finite and non-renewable. And it also shows that the old, short-sighted way of thinking is still common - the resource will be exploited, the location of the resource recklessly pillaged, and the constant pursuit of more until nothing remains and we ultimately consume ourselves. In your defense, I suppose it could be argued that these planets/bodies do not have ecosystems since no evidence of life has been discovered there thus far, and therefore no ecosystems to destroy other than the natural body.

 

Regarding exploitation of resources in outer space - see Tragedy of the Commons.

Regarding problems with patent rights and use of technology, see Tragedy of the anticommons.

 

 

Reason number 4: To preserve peace

 

The space race led to the development of highly catastrophic weapons. The superpowers were armed with powerful nuclear missiles that could exterminate life on Earth. However, many historians believe that the "balance of terror" helped prevent the Cold War to be a nuclear one. Another reason why we're still here and not buried under the rubles of radiated cities was the space race between USA and USSR, which encouraged the superpowers to demonstrate their technology and national superiority in a peaceful context. Not to mention the Apollo–Soyuz Test Project and the I.S.S. Furthermore, information from spy satellites has helped many times to defuse tense situations and avoid potentially catastrophic misunderstandings.

 

Space exploration (like music and anything nice) brings the nations come together. How about a global agenda for re-visiting the Moon, terraforming Mars, and colonizing Alpha Centauri? If the nations co-operate for something good for everybody, they will have no reasons to fight. And keep in mind that space is huge (way larger than Earth) and plentiful of resources, so nobody will have any reason to fight. And I'm not even sure if star wars are possible at all...

 

As evidenced by your own post, there would be no preservation of space. And as TekindusT pointed out above this post, the majority of space race technology went to military use. What kept the United States and U.S.S.R. from obliterating each other was M.A.D. (Mutual Assured Destruction), a form of Nash equilibrium. This is the same problem at also makes it extremely difficult for any nation, once armed with weapons of mass destruction, to disarm (this includes the United States and Russia today). Also, don't forget about the Norwegian rocket scare back on January 25th, 1995. The world was never closer to nuclear war than on that day, ironically almost four years after the end of the Cold War. Despite the deteriorating relations between Russia, the EU and USA, I don't believe nuclear war is quite as likely today.

 

Space exploration can bring the nation's educated scientists together, but I don't believe this applies to the general population just yet. And of course people will fight over resources, no matter where they are or how they are discovered. If they are finite and non-renewable, people will fight. Especially if money is to be made there, which is likely another reason why renewable energy is not being globally invested in. That kind of thinking needs to change if you expect any problems to be solved.

 

[From Terring's post]Reason number 5: To explore our spiritual and cultural frontiers

 

Every form of exploration has its own art and Space exploration is not an exception. It has inspired some fantastic films and TV shows, such as "2001", "Star Trek", "Apollo 13" and "Interstellar". It has also a huge influence on artists in all fields, including the lava lamps, the Space Needle in Seattle, the Pierre Cardin's catsuits and the spacesynth music. So try to imagine the impact of space colonization on arts. Space has a unique charm that will never let the artists relax.

 

And here is my personal reason why the humanity must spread to the stars. To explore new spiritual frontiers. To escape from Earth and find a new world to set up a new society, a new way of life. In my city journal Eden: The New Frontier I had described a peaceful spiritual revolution on Mars, with more and more colonists to refuse the values of the Earth and set up their own rules, their own philosophy, their own way of thinking. Space can be the canvas of new ideas, new values, new societies, and new adventures. [End Terring's post]

 

I encourage space-inspired arts. I like much of it myself. A lot of Twilight Zone (original series) episodes were also space-influenced, and along with Star Trek and many musicians since the late 1950's - offered social commentary and questioned the ethics of technology, space exploration and human psychology. Some of the most beautiful American cars and car designs ever produced (especially late 50's/early 60's) were inspired by the rocket designs and the space race. When it inspires the arts, it can be beautiful. But don't forget that social commentary can expose the harsher realities of topics like this, ones most people don't like to acknowledge. Here is another song with meaningful social commentary, and I believe it applies here perfectly:

 

 

Lyrics:

 

Up and down

These days are up and down

They call it elevated living

A faster future for a faster breed

Unforgiving, unfulfilling

The spirit's willing

but the mind is weak

I had an empty education

I want to speak

But when I try to speak

It doesn't help the situation

And some fly while others fall

And some walk while others crawl

It stops them feeling small

That's all

Shake your hand

They'll always shake your hand

without a moments hesitation

Burning bridges

and snapping strands

That support a generation

You want to climb

But when you try to climb

You see the ladder getting shorter

You want to drink

But when you try to drink

There's someone pissing in the water

Your soul is something they can buy

So softly, softly step inside

Says the spider to the fly

Nice try

And every day you're crucified

If you can't look them in the eye

Smile and wave goodbye

Nice try

Vices embraced in times of crisis

That's All

 

Regarding the establishment of new human societies in space - the chances of this being successful are incredibly slim, because even if you gave humans absolutely everything they needed and then some - they would still fight. Something that may interest you is the Biosphere 2 project, and not only the ecological limitations but psychological ones of terraformed biospheres as well. New societies, practically utopian as you have described them, are extremely unlikely if not impossible for humans. The very nature of our species won't allow that to happen. Proof of this is the old thinking demonstrated earlier in your post, as well as others'. 

 

 

[From Terring's post]: Reason number 6: To stay alive!!

 

We have finally established the Venus Project. We have finally achieved a sustainable new global civilization, a society based on science and kindness, where everybody lives in beautiful dynamic cities, technology has liberated us for the pursuit of higher aspirations in human achievement, and money are useless thanks to the resource-based economy. We have finally managed to be intelligent. We've build a CIVILIZATION. This will ensure our survival, right? Well, we need something else. Being a spacefaring civilization. We can't have too many eggs in one basket, especially if it's floating around a hostile Universe full of asteroids and supernova explosions. Stephen Hawking has warned us. We will not survive another 1,000 years if we isolate ourselves on a single planet.[end Terring's post]

 

I'm not sure why you're speaking in the past-tense or with a sense of inevitability. Man lives technology, it's not liberation nor is it neutral. So far, technology has heavily displayed our materialistic tendencies, and they keep calling it "higher living" (which is provably untrue). And I believe that no species can survive indefinitely. Humans, no matter how much technology they invent to try and stop it - cannot live forever. All species have an existential threshold. Even if man prolongs his own extinction via space travel, it won't do him any good. The Doomsday argument analyzes predictions of how many humans will ever live, in addition to how many have lived so far. Unlike my view, however, the Doomsday argument does not say that humans cannot or will not exist indefinitely.

 

I hope to hear a response from you very soon. You sound well-educated and I'd like to discuss this further, but I'd like it if you responded to some of the points I made in response to yours this time. I'm fascinated with space too, and I endorse higher education and responsible space exploration.

 

(I had to eliminate some of the quote boxes because it said I had too many in one post)

[Fantozzi 4,068]

A lot of what you said is not true. Cable television has been around since 1948, and while satellite television was first achieved in 1962, it did not begin to enjoy mainstream success until the late 1980's and 1990's. Also, I wasn't making an argument against space flight in general. Please read my posts again.

 

Also, spaceflight has not really changed our view on the planet where we live - that's an incredibly vague and naive statement. You don't need to go up into space to know that perhaps it isn't in our best interest to be destroying our home - all it takes is common sense. Satellite imagery has helped view large-scale environmental devastation of rainforests across the world (and other fragile environments), but very little to nothing continues to be done. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt - even then, why has nothing been done to help the situation here on Earth? Those views don't really mean anything unless action is applied to them, which isn't happening and there are currently no plans to do so. I'm not even sure exactly what points you are trying to make in your post, it's not very clear at all.

 

To add to my point that I have been demonstrating in this thread, I found the following under the Wikipedia article Anti-consumerism:

 

In an opinion segment of

New Scientist

magazine published in August 2009, reporter Andy Coghlan cited

William Rees

of the

University of British Columbia

and

epidemiologist

Warren Hern

of the

University of Colorado at Boulder

, saying that human beings, despite considering themselves civilized thinkers, are "subconsciously still driven by an impulse for survival, domination and expansion... an impulse which now finds expression in the idea that inexorable economic growth is the answer to everything, and, given time, will redress all the world's existing inequalities."

 

 

 

 

Thank you for your interest in my opinion.

 

There are countrys where is no kabel TV but satellite TV. I think it's the majority on this world.

 

When in 2009 world wildlife fund lauchend a press release that between the years 2003 and 2007 Borneo has lost 1,15 million hectare of its rainforests this data was based on satellite images.

 

Three days before Katrina reached american coasts there was a warning from the national weather service. This warning was based on a model. The model was feeded almost only with satellite data.

 

Edit

 

I'm not shure if my arguments and yours belong to each other. I didn't want to comment your post with mine.

 

For me, it is difficult to bring your arguments and mine together

 

For me this isn't an argument: What must be done on earth can't be done in space.

 

For me it's the same like: If you are hungry it doesn't help to take a shower.

 

For me that children are starving from hunger can't be an argument to stop cancer research.

 

Its an old fight. Between morale and science. Morale wants to judge science. Most of the times morale is an instrument to manipulate knowledge. To give knowledge a certain direction. Don't look if the world is round, look what is the meaning of god.

 

That's what I don't like. That morale is used to say what kind of knowledge we should gain.

 

(sorry if my argumentation seems to sound childish as my english is limited I operate with a limited vocabulary)

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

This has turned into another one of those 'wall of text' debates when the true reason for the exploration of space is that it is the next thing that man's curiosity has turned toward.  It doesn't matter what it costs, we will find the funds.  These funds are applied to create industries and jobs, and are not squandered on the ungrateful poor who learn nothing from charities unless the charity requires some effort on the part of the recipient.

 

"Give a man a fish

"Feed him for a day.

"Teach a man to fish

"Feed him for life."

Well known proverb.

[iLoveMusic 66]

 

 

Thank you for your interest in my opinion.

 

There are countrys where is no kabel TV but satellite TV. I think it's the majority on this world.

 

When in 2009 world wildlife fund lauchend a press release that between the years 2003 and 2007 Borneo has lost 1,15 million hectare of its rainforests this data was based on satellite images.

 

Three days before Katrina reached american coasts there was a warning from the national weather service. This warning was based on a model. The model was feeded almost only with satellite data.

 

Edit

 

I'm not shure if my arguments and yours belong to each other. I didn't want to comment your post with mine.

 

For me, it is difficult to bring your arguments and mine together

 

For me this isn't an argument: What must be done on earth can't be done in space.

 

For me it's the same like: If you are hungry it doesn't help to take a shower.

 

For me that children are starving from hunger can't be an argument to stop cancer research.

 

Its an old fight. Between morale and science. Morale wants to judge science. Most of the times morale is an instrument to manipulate knowledge. To give knowledge a certain direction. Don't look if the world is round, look what is the meaning of god.

 

That's what I don't like. That morale is used to say what kind of knowledge we should gain.

 

(sorry if my argumentation seems to sound childish as my english is limited I operate with a limited vocabulary)

 

 

Your argument is not childish by any means. But I find that I'm having to repeat myself a lot in this thread - I explicitly stated that human societies have become more dependent on satellite-based telecommunications infrastructure since 1990, in turn actually making these societies more fragile.

 

I'm not using morale to say what knowledge man should or shouldn't gain. In fact, I stated several times in my last post that I encourage higher education. The problem is how the knowledge is applied by man not only towards his surrounding environment, but himself. It's so easy for it to get corrupted. I cited Tragedy of the anticommons as an example of this earlier.

 

Regarding your argument examples:

 

 

 

For me this isn't an argument: What must be done on earth can't be done in space.

 

It's not that I don't believe tools can be developed later for Earth-use, it's the tendency for it to go to military applications and weaponization.

 

 

 

For me it's the same like: If you are hungry it doesn't help to take a shower.

 

Shower is considered part of basic hygiene (or baths). It's a cultural standard that has belonged to human societies for thousands of years. I don't quite understand the point you're trying to make with this one.

 

 

 

For me that children are starving from hunger can't be an argument to stop cancer research.

 

Cancer research has clearly defined goals (to not only cure existing cancers and stop premature deaths caused by it, but also prevent future cases). Space exploration has no clearly defined goals. Once again, this goes back to the tendency for military use and weaponization of all new technologies. Saving lives is not a priority here, unlike with cancer research. Some of these may find civilian application in the medical field, but I addressed this above.

[iLoveMusic 66]

This has turned into another one of those 'wall of text' debates when the true reason for the exploration of space is that it is the next thing that man's curiosity has turned toward.  It doesn't matter what it costs, we will find the funds.  These funds are applied to create industries and jobs, and are not squandered on the ungrateful poor who learn nothing from charities unless the charity requires some effort on the part of the recipient.

 

"Give a man a fish

"Feed him for a day.

"Teach a man to fish

"Feed him for life."

Well known proverb.

 

They do find the funds, war has proven to be the same way. Your statement about basically walking all over the "ungrateful poor" suggests that you advocate social darwinism. Charities have a difficult time even addressing the problem in the first place, using soulless euphemisms to describe the poor such as "the less fortunate" and "the economically disadvantaged". This sounds like white PC liberals trying to rid themselves of guilt to me, and make the problems sound less bad than they really are. How in the world does anyone expect to solve a problem if they can't even address it properly?

 

And effort on part of the recipient? Where is the social mobility ladder? The rungs are getting farther apart every day, and you're saying that it's the poor's fault. Doesn't seem right to me. Nobody is teaching the poor how to fish, metaphorically speaking. The increasing wealth & income gap is stunning, yet most people just ignore it. For there to be "winners" in a free-market economy, there must be a whole lot of "losers". What works for some may not work for all.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

That seems a little oversensitive to me.  I've always believed that gratitude is the sincerest form of hate.

 

Some people are poor through misadventure; some are poor because of lack of opportunity; but mostly in western civilizations it is lack of drive.  You have only to look at what happened to everybody in 1929 to see people separate into the tough, who got going, and the softer types who just sat and cried.

 

You have only to look at some of the recent college graduates who probably should never have gone to college in the first place.  Massive debt, living with Mom and Dad, unable to find work in their field so not looking elsewhere.  Don't let your heart bleed all over me, please.

[iLoveMusic 66]

That seems a little oversensitive to me.  I've always believed that gratitude is the sincerest form of hate.

 

Some people are poor through misadventure; some are poor because of lack of opportunity; but mostly in western civilizations it is lack of drive.  You have only to look at what happened to everybody in 1929 to see people separate into the tough, who got going, and the softer types who just sat and cried.

 

You have only to look at some of the recent college graduates who probably should never have gone to college in the first place.  Massive debt, living with Mom and Dad, unable to find work in their field so not looking elsewhere.  Don't let your heart bleed all over me, please.

 

I don't think it's lack of drive. The way our society is ordered to function just isn't compatible with all human beings. Some people can work menial, dregery-filled jobs full-time and be modestly content - for other people, that just drives them insane. You could give them all the money in the world, and they would still be utterly miserable at that job. I often feel like I fit into the latter myself. I had one job that was so horrible for me a while ago, where I saw multiple therapists (who all told me that the job was "toxic" for me and that I should seek alternative means), I had people close to me warn that they would contact the police because of things that I had said, and at one point I felt like putting a gun to my head. Some sweatshop workers in China jump off the roofs of their workplaces, mind you these are the same workers who make consumer electronics for Americans. I've been fired from every job I've had over the last four years. I go crazy at these menial jobs. If not for my supportive family, I know that I'd be homeless as well, or dead. It's not good for the human condition. The only occupational fields I could potentially do well in, and be happy doing it, both require college degrees, so that's what I'm doing.

[MushyMushy 3,618]

Maybe it wouldn't be that big of a deal if the US slashed pointless and stupid military expenses and funneled a tiny percentage of that into NASA. Maybe then we could start up the Space Shuttle Program again. We spend money on the military like we're in a global conflict or something. More money for the military industrial complex I guess.

 

I believe space junk came up earlier. Yes, rocket/satellite parts floating in space can be problematic sometimes, but it's not terrible. And what about actual garbage that's sitting down here on Earth stinking up the air and going nowhere (looking at you, Styrofoam)? Why not just stick it in a rock and land it on an asteroid? Nobody's gonna be there to complain and it'll reduce the waste on the planet.

 

And what about the population? The way we're headed, we really need to find other places for people to live (space colonies?), because jamming more and more people into cities just won't work. And don't say anything about building stuff out in rural (vacant) areas of places like the US. Try to imminent domain some hillbilly's property will get you a shotgun shell in the face most likely (pretty terrible). We're out of room. People either need to stop living in comically massive houses (suburbs) or we're gonna have a huge problem.

 

 

You have only to look at some of the recent college graduates who probably should never have gone to college in the first place.  Massive debt, living with Mom and Dad, unable to find work in their field so not looking elsewhere.  Don't let your heart bleed all over me, please.

 

Wouldn't be a problem if the owners of these private "educational facilities" (scam centers) weren't trying to make money like greedy CEO trash (college is not worth $30k-$65k a year). Ripping off millennials like there's no tomorrow is their favorite hobby. My fellow Gen Z-ers are up next. We're gonna get screwed over even worse. This country is gonna be in a hole in 20 years when the bulk of the younger workforce either never got a college education or is buried in debt.

[iLoveMusic 66]

Maybe it wouldn't be that big of a deal if the US slashed pointless and stupid military expenses and funneled a tiny percentage of that into NASA. Maybe then we could start up the Space Shuttle Program again. We spend money on the military like we're in a global conflict or something. More money for the military industrial complex I guess.

 

I believe space junk came up earlier. Yes, rocket/satellite parts floating in space can be problematic sometimes, but it's not terrible. And what about actual garbage that's sitting down here on Earth stinking up the air and going nowhere (looking at you, Styrofoam)? Why not just stick it in a rock and land it on an asteroid? Nobody's gonna be there to complain and it'll reduce the waste on the planet.

 

And what about the population? The way we're headed, we really need to find other places for people to live (space colonies?), because jamming more and more people into cities just won't work. And don't say anything about building stuff out in rural (vacant) areas of places like the US. Try to imminent domain some hillbilly's property will get you a shotgun shell in the face most likely (pretty terrible). We're out of room. People either need to stop living in comically massive houses (suburbs) or we're gonna have a huge problem.

 

What to do with the excessive waste and garbage on this planet actually came up in a conversation I had with a friend a few days ago. I say compact it, and launch it towards the sun. There's something worthwhile that the space program could do. But apparently the cost of such missions, including fuel, makes this proposal unfeasible (not to mention just hoping that other objects don't come into the path of the garbage capsule while on its way to the sun).

 

Space colonies are not yet feasible either - people are talking about it like it's going to happen tomorrow (sort of how like the news media has been constantly plugging self-driving cars since 1982). And even when/if space colonies ever becomes a reality - how will this solve any problems? A rapidly growing human population still needs resources, but now those would be spread a bit more thin. Also, what determines who gets to go to these space colonies and who doesn't? What will they do there? Will it even be a choice? The ethics and human psychology of such a massive project haven't been looked into, I think. Not to mention the cost of such expeditions and colony establishments. NASA still has a difficult time keeping the cost down on any of their projects, and NASA's poor safety record has been heavily criticized since the 1980's as well. It's just a lot of "We want what they have in the futuristic movies! Gimme gimme gimme!" gawking and posturing smugness.

 

Regarding suburbs - have a look at this. In the United States, there are about 18.6 million vacant homes in the country, while there are approximately 3.5 million homeless (many of them veterans). I'm practically speechless.

[TekindusT 3,809]

 

Maybe it wouldn't be that big of a deal if the US slashed pointless and stupid military expenses and funneled a tiny percentage of that into NASA. Maybe then we could start up the Space Shuttle Program again. We spend money on the military like we're in a global conflict or something. More money for the military industrial complex I guess.

 

I believe space junk came up earlier. Yes, rocket/satellite parts floating in space can be problematic sometimes, but it's not terrible. And what about actual garbage that's sitting down here on Earth stinking up the air and going nowhere (looking at you, Styrofoam)? Why not just stick it in a rock and land it on an asteroid? Nobody's gonna be there to complain and it'll reduce the waste on the planet.

 

And what about the population? The way we're headed, we really need to find other places for people to live (space colonies?), because jamming more and more people into cities just won't work. And don't say anything about building stuff out in rural (vacant) areas of places like the US. Try to imminent domain some hillbilly's property will get you a shotgun shell in the face most likely (pretty terrible). We're out of room. People either need to stop living in comically massive houses (suburbs) or we're gonna have a huge problem.

 

What to do with the excessive waste and garbage on this planet actually came up in a conversation I had with a friend a few days ago. I say compact it, and launch it towards the sun. There's something worthwhile that the space program could do. But apparently the cost of such missions, including fuel, makes this proposal unfeasible (not to mention just hoping that other objects don't come into the path of the garbage capsule while on its way to the sun).

 

Now tell that to the taxpayers. Somebody will have to pay for this expenditure, after all.

 

Remember that if trash is brought to the landfill it is because it is the cheapest solution, this is the solution that less tax money uses, because people (surprise surprise) don't like to pay taxes.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Let's all remember that tax is the price of government, and that governments are the invention of the people.

[MushyMushy 3,618]

Now tell that to the taxpayers. Somebody will have to pay for this expenditure, after all.

 

Remember that if trash is brought to the landfill it is because it is the cheapest solution, this is the solution that less tax money uses, because people (surprise surprise) don't like to pay taxes.

 

 

Maybe if they stopped gouging us for the "defense" (rich people interests) budget, this wouldn't be a problem.

Nobody ever said saving the planet would be cheap (at least at first).

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

 

<snip>

Maybe if they stopped gouging us for the "defense" (rich people interests) budget, this wouldn't be a problem.

Nobody ever said saving the planet would be cheap (at least at first) would be cheap.

 

The Roman Empire went broke trying to fund its large standing army.  It was the main cause of the fall of the whole shebang.  If you look at the history of the United States, there are many parallels.

[iLoveMusic 66]

 

 

<snip>

Maybe if they stopped gouging us for the "defense" (rich people interests) budget, this wouldn't be a problem.

Nobody ever said saving the planet would be cheap (at least at first) would be cheap.

 

The Roman Empire went broke trying to fund its large standing army.  It was the main cause of the fall of the whole shebang.  If you look at the history of the United States, there are many parallels.

 

 

This was one of the problems that broke the U.S.S.R. as well.

[MushyMushy 3,618]

 

 

 

<snip>

Maybe if they stopped gouging us for the "defense" (rich people interests) budget, this wouldn't be a problem.

Nobody ever said saving the planet would be cheap (at least at first) would be cheap.

 

The Roman Empire went broke trying to fund its large standing army.  It was the main cause of the fall of the whole shebang.  If you look at the history of the United States, there are many parallels.

 

 

This was one of the problems that broke the U.S.S.R. as well.

 

 

It's definitely somewhere on my list called Top 10 Reasons America will Crash and Burn.

[NMUSpidey 3,956]

This thread is for discussing space exploration, not The History of the Decline and Fall of the Ro- excuse me, of the United States of America.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

I think the good outweighs the bad no matter how you look at it.  Individual countries are often misguided in their efforts, and political goals do not belong in space anymore than they belong in Antarctica.

 

Interesting that India, one of the countries with the largest poor sector, found the money to send a probe to Mars, eh?