# We are going into space.



## Scifi fan (Jun 8, 2010)

The New York Times (NYT) recently has two articles on how private enterprise is going into space. The first talks of the Falcon 9 rocket successfully going into orbit, while the second talks of how a billionaire is preparing to put space habitats into orbit, to be leased for profit to other countries and companies. And everyone here of course knows of Virgin Galactic's preparation to send wealthy individuals into sub-orbit. 

Actually, the NYT says the Falcon 9 rocket is the first private rocket to reach orbit, but that's not true - Boeing's sea launch facilities have been sending satellites into orbit. 

All these make the trend clear - we are going into space, and we will settle the solar system. And this will settle a debate once and for all. Not too long ago, many on this forum said that going into space cannot solve our environmental problems, because the hurdles were too great. Does anyone still believe that? 

If they realize that space is our next frontier, then they will also realize that there are no limits to growth.


----------



## j d worthington (Jun 8, 2010)

I'm sorry, but this is very much a case of "don't count your chickens"....

We ain't there yet; so making any grandiose claims as to what this will or won't solve is more than slightly premature. I doubt it can hurt, but how much will it help? Only time will tell.

However, there are still numerous problems to overcome -- artificial habitats can only serve for a short period; humans (especially the pioneering kind) tend to get cabin fever rather quickly. Yet there are no natural environments out there suited to human life. That's a rather large problem to solve, and one which we have yet to make much progress on.

There's also the long-range effects (and I mean _really_ long-range effects) on the human physique of being out in space or in alien environments, about which we have only the very beginnings of information; and what we have points to a fair number of pitfalls.

And there is the fact that we as a species continue to grow at an increasing rate when it comes to population. A little over a century ago, the world had about 1-1/2 billion people. When I was in high school in the 1970s, it was just slightly over 3 billion (a little more than doubling in three-quarters of a century). Now it is approaching 7 billion (doubling in just over 30 years). People live longer; they require more resources; they make more waste; and in order to compete with more industrialized societies, more and more technological advances (along with the pollutants and the like that they produce) are becoming necessary merely to survive. These are also problems which must be solved, and by simple mathematics are unlikely to be with the limited number of people who will be able to get out into space, given the enormous costs, which must be covered in some way (unless we're talking indentured servitude being reinstated here -- not a particularly appealing option).

While I'm all in favor of our getting out there, and in fact feel that ultimately our survival depends on such, I also take a very jaundiced view of such optimistic claims until some very solid advances have been made in this arena. Being cautiously optimistic is a good idea, but having overblown conceptions of how this is going to solve so many problems tends to prevent us from seeing the very real related problems it doesn't solve, let alone those which are likely to be _created_ by such a change....


----------



## Pyan (Jun 8, 2010)

It's only three years until Zephram Cochrane is due to be born...

Hate to admit it, but I have to agree with J.D. here - I'm old enough to remember where I was  when  JFK was shot, and only six years later watch with amazement as Neil Armstrong stepped out onto the surface of the moon. I remember the feeling as a SF fan that _we were on our way_...and watched with sorrow as the impetus was lost, and NASA lost its way amid budget cuts and political ping-pong. I watched as the space program was proxmired into a ferry service to LEO. My dreams of one day in my lifetime, man would stand on Mars, or even on Ganymede, are long gone.

So you must forgive me if I don't jump up and down in glee at the latest announcements about private enterprise being the saviour of the trek to the stars. If it does happen, I'll gladly eat humble pie, with personal apologies for doubting. But I've been let down too often, and for too long to show any real enthusiasm, I'm afraid...


----------



## Scifi fan (Jun 8, 2010)

Will there be problems? Absolutely. And there will be setbacks, delays, disappointments, and, yes, deaths. But my point remains valid, that, if we can go into space, that will be the definitive answer to the idea that there are limits to growth. 

And, don't forget, the moon landings in the 1960's were run by government. This time, private enterprise is involved, and they have a better track record of getting things done.


----------



## Moonbat (Jun 8, 2010)

> if we can go into space, that will be the definitive answer to the idea that there are limits to growth.


 
Even space has boundaries, the universe isn't infinite, so why would that mean unlimited growth?

Do you see humans spreading out unimpeded across the stars, across the galaxies until we have filled every available corner of the universe, surely then (albeit millennia away) growth will be limited.


----------



## jojajihisc (Jun 8, 2010)

Moonbat said:


> Even space has boundaries, the universe isn't infinite, so why would that mean unlimited growth?
> 
> Do you see humans spreading out unimpeded across the stars, across the galaxies until we have filled every available corner of the universe, surely then (albeit millennia away) growth will be limited.



Unless of course we actually live in an infinite multiverse.


----------



## Scifi fan (Jun 8, 2010)

Well, if you really want to take things to extreme, then, yes, there are limits, because we will be extinct one day. But, for the time being, there are no limits to growth.


----------



## The Procrastinator (Jun 9, 2010)

Scifi fan you make me laugh. Sorry, but as things are now there are limits to growth. Why? Cuz we ain't off this planet yet! There's only so much water, so many minerals, so much vegetation, so many animals, so much arable land. 

Maybe one day our horizons will expand. I certainly hope so. Its good to have hope - just ask people who go to church - but its also good to be realistic. Like JD said, don't count your chickens just yet. Dreaming of unlimited growth is all very well, but the problems our growth rate is causing are many and complex and we don't look like solving them any time soon. And the problems involved with moving into space are many and complex and we don't look like solving them any time soon either. This is a great first step but its only a tincy wincy step. 

For the time being, we're stuck where we are, in the environment we're in, with the problems that we have and that are coming. I don't think we should declare season open on growth just yet.


----------



## Scifi fan (Jun 9, 2010)

Between the early 1900's, when the Wright Brothers flew, and 1969, when we landed on the moon, we managed to do quite a lot in just a few decades.

By the same token, between the early 2000's and 2069, we could have colonized the solar system and be sending our first probes to the nearest star system.


----------



## The Procrastinator (Jun 9, 2010)

Theoretically this is of course possible.
But here we are ten years into the century and what leaps and bounds have we made that correspond with the leaps and bounds in the 1900's? Refinements of what we already have. The rate of innovation is not a constant. Maybe we need a couple of world wars to help us along.  But seriously the world has changed in so many ways, so quickly, that's true; unfortunately one of the most striking changes is the number of self-created problems that now loom like thunderclouds. 
Pollution
Climate change
Global wealth inequities (not to mention nationally internal ones)
"Hiccups" with the capitalist/"free market" economic system
Water shortage
Energy
Overpopulation
These are just the tip of an iceberg of ramifications. We have a lot of potential as a species but we also have a huge propensity for short-sighted resource depletion and social inequity. There's a lot of sci-fi about humanity escaping a doomed earth. As far as I can see we're going to need all our ingenuity to weather the coming storms because escape won't be a reality for a long time. Between now and 2069 its very possible the face of the planet will change - physically, socially, economically, who knows how else? Space programs require vast resources over long periods of time. Like I say i'd love to see it - but looking at the big picture, I remain sceptical.


----------



## j d worthington (Jun 9, 2010)

Scifi fan said:


> Between the early 1900's, when the Wright Brothers flew, and 1969, when we landed on the moon, we managed to do quite a lot in just a few decades.
> 
> By the same token, between the early 2000's and 2069, we could have colonized the solar system and be sending our first probes to the nearest star system.


 
"Could", perhaps... but will? Highly unlikely. I'm afraid you're overlooking the fact that, even if private enterprise is behind any future space missions, costs are (if you'll pardon the phrase) astronomical. And that is only one minor problem to overcome. Resources are another. And pollutants produced by such flights are still another (I not only refer to those produced by the flight proper, but the various byproducts of producing the vehicles, fuel, suits, and other necessary equipment, etc.) This is only a beginning of the list of difficulties to be overcome.

And then there's the psychological factor to be considered. The zeitgeist (if one accepts such a concept) of the late nineteenth- and first half of the twentieth centuries was vastly different than it is today, in numerous ways. In many ways we are much less naïve about things than we were then; we've been forced to become aware of just what the impact of our actions are, on the environment and on ourselves. We have also come to realize that there are moral and ethical problems with the idea of terraforming; questions which are by no means resolved, and may never truly be, whatever we choose (and manage) to do. And, as I noted earlier, there is the very real and unavoidable problem of keeping human beings cooped up in a (relatively) small space for very lengthy periods. As history has proven more times than any of us can count, this is a recipe for disaster; and it will remain so until we have a genuinely solidly-based and workable understanding of and ability to manipulate human psychology. We are making some progress on that, with the combining of the various neurosciences and psychological theory, but we are only just dipping our toes into an ocean as vast as the universe itself here, and many times more difficult to pin down because of the variables involved in individual and group psychology.

Even Heinlein, great a supporter as he was of the idea of our getting out there, knew enough to acknowledge the difficulties of this aspect, as seen by the opening chapters of *Stranger in a Strange Land*. Frankly, though, I think J. G. Ballard's view in such collections as *Memories of the Space Age* is likely to be more accurate where this aspect is concerned.

And, again, there is the sheer physical impact on the human system of being out in space or in alien environments (where, for example, the atmosphere, if any, is less protection from both the sun's radiation as well as other types of radiation to be encountered... not to mention the effects of different gravitational conditions, adaptation to different tensities of light (which has a profound effect on human beings both psychologically and physically), etc., etc., etc.

These are only the ones I can think of right off the top of my head. There will be thousands, if not millions, more to consider.

So, no... I'm afraid the estimate of 2069 -- or even 2369 -- is ridiculously optimistic for us to manage such colonization (though we may well be putting unmanned probes out into neighboring, or even distant, systems well before then).

It's a nice dream, but that's _*all*_ it is... until we drop the starry-eyed view and start taking realities (physical, psychological-emotional, legal, societal, etc.) into account. Retain optimism about our overcoming such obstacles, by all means. But recognize the magnitude of the obstacles and the difficulties to be encountered in overcoming them, or promising possibilities such as this will very quickly turn into worse nightmares than any we have seen before. Recall that the aviation industry darned near didn't make it early on because of fatalities due to unrealistic approaches to flight and flight safety and all the other problems connected to going out into even such a mildly alien environment as the air above us. Going out into space is, if anything, a thousand times more loaded with risks than that, and if we don't want to see that suffer the fate that aviation managed to avoid, we'd better get our heads out of the stratosphere and start thinking on how to genuinely beat the problems listed above... and all the others yet unmentioned.

But in any event, the likelihood that we'll see a notable percentage of the population into space in either my lifetime or yours is, I fear, minuscule to the point of vanishing....


----------



## Scifi fan (Jun 9, 2010)

When the Wright brothers flew their plane at Kitty Hawk, did anyone think that, within 50 years, we'd be jetting all over the place? And that, ten years after that, we'd be landing on the moon?

In fact, in the 1960's, the Club of Rome predicted the end of the world by 1985, and Paul Ehrlich even said Britain would not exist by 2000. And guess what? We're at 2010, and Britain is still here. And the end of the world hasn't come yet.

So, to paraphrase Arthur C. Clarke, when someone says something can be done, he is almost certainly right; and, if someone says the end of the world is coming, he's almost certainly wrong.


----------



## Starbeast (Jun 9, 2010)

*We are going into space. For what?*

*BIG FRIGGEN CHICKEN DEAL*

I see absolutely no point in this endeavor to have billions of dollars spent only to have a bunch of rich people orbitting over our heads when all of the money used could help people who are suffering down here from starvation, disease, poverty, etc. I have yet to see any improvements here on Earth since the 1960's, humans are still spiralling downward, however high-tech weapons are constantly being improved and can kill more efficiently with greater casualty counts.


----------



## iansales (Jun 9, 2010)

The Apollo program brought money, jobs, education and healthcare to many areas in the US. It put twelve men on the Moon but it also improved things a great deal on Earth.


----------



## j d worthington (Jun 9, 2010)

Scifi fan said:


> When the Wright brothers flew their plane at Kitty Hawk, did anyone think that, within 50 years, we'd be jetting all over the place? And that, ten years after that, we'd be landing on the moon?
> 
> In fact, in the 1960's, the Club of Rome predicted the end of the world by 1985, and Paul Ehrlich even said Britain would not exist by 2000. And guess what? We're at 2010, and Britain is still here. And the end of the world hasn't come yet.
> 
> So, to paraphrase Arthur C. Clarke, when someone says something can be done, he is almost certainly right; and, if someone says the end of the world is coming, he's almost certainly wrong.


 
I note that in none of your posts have you addressed any of the issues brought up here. All you are doing is repeating the same (to reiterate what seems a very appropriate phrase) "starry-eyed optimism" about the whole thing. Now, while I'd really, really like to see us get off our butts and into space in a proper fashion, I repeat: until the realities are taken into account, all we will do is repeat the same mistakes which have been made before. We have to start taking account of these matters and addressing them properly, or going into space is simply not going to work!

You seem to forget that there's one hell of a difference between airflight _here on earth_, the environment where we evolved, and going into space, _which is a totally alien environment 100% unsuited to sustaining human (or just about any other type) of life, either physically or psychologically_. Solving the engineering problems and the cost problems would be the very least of it. It isn't the technological aspect I'm concerned about -- those things we can almost certainly beat. But the others are an entirely different matter; and glossing over them does not make them go away.... 

What I am seeing with that sort of thing is very much the same type of thinking that flat-earthers use: a refusal to acknowledge the evidence in favor of a wish-fulfillment fantasy. In this case, the wish-fulfillment can (at least to some degree) possibly be fulfilled; but _not_ by ignoring the evidence and the difficulties. Instead, they must be met head-on and given _*at least*_ as much attention and intelligent, imaginative approach to solutions as we expend on the technological aspects....

(This is not meant to insult. It is meant to encourage you to address the issues raised; put forth some thought on them, how they might be tackled, what some of the solutions might be....)


----------



## Urien (Jun 9, 2010)

To solve something you generally have to expect to solve it, by naming something insurmountable before the attempt is even made is virtually certain to guarantee failure. Optimism is almost a given if any new venture is ever to succeed, for without it the attempt would not even be made. 

All new business ventures are an attempt to fulfill somebody's wish. Most fail. But not all. If you don't even try then failure is guaranteed.


----------



## Starbeast (Jun 9, 2010)

iansales said:


> The Apollo program brought money, jobs, education and healthcare to many areas in the US. It put twelve men on the Moon but it also improved things a great deal on Earth.


 

I try so hard to be optimistic, but even NASA is cutting back on jobs and sucking more money from my pocket. Meanwhile schools, police forces, firemen, teachers, farmers etc. are also loosing income and jobs here in the U.S. I see it every sad day.


----------



## iansales (Jun 9, 2010)

NASA uses a trivial amount of the budget compared to the war in Iraq. You should complain about that before you complain about space exploration.


----------



## Scifi fan (Jun 9, 2010)

> I note that in none of your posts have you addressed any of the issues brought up here.



Agreed, but I'm not qualified to talk about it. I can say, however, that, given the trends, we will be in space in a major way over the next half century. 

For example, most people don't know the first thing about computers, but they could safely say computing power will double every 18 months or so (Moore's Law), and they can also safely say computers will play an ever increasingly role in our lives. They don't have to know engineering or software programming to discern the trends. 


I may not know anything about engineering, but I do know quite a bit about economics, and it's simply not true to say there's been no improvement over the last few decades. Infant mortality rates have fallen, life expectancy has risen, and real incomes have risen all over the world, except Africa. But, even in Africa, as I said, infant mortality rates have fallen and life expectancy has risen. Last, but perhaps not least, we have wiped out smallpox.


----------



## j d worthington (Jun 9, 2010)

Urien said:


> To solve something you generally have to expect to solve it, by naming something insurmountable before the attempt is even made is virtually certain to guarantee failure. Optimism is almost a given if any new venture is ever to succeed, for without it the attempt would not even be made.
> 
> All new business ventures are an attempt to fulfill somebody's wish. Most fail. But not all. If you don't even try then failure is guaranteed.


 


Scifi fan said:


> Agreed, but I'm not qualified to talk about it. I can say, however, that, given the trends, we will be in space in a major way over the next half century.
> 
> For example, most people don't know the first thing about computers, but they could safely say computing power will double every 18 months or so (Moore's Law), and they can also safely say computers will play an ever increasingly role in our lives. They don't have to know engineering or software programming to discern the trends.
> 
> ...


 
All right, now we're getting a discussion going! Excellent!

First: Urien, I don't think anyone is saying "don't try". Certainly I wasn't, which should be obvious given my posts, where I reiterated time and again that I not only want to see this happen, but believe our survival as a species ultimately depends on it. But I do object to overinflated ideas of how these things work, without regard to the very complex issues involved. If a business succeeds, it is because it takes as many of those things into account as possible before getting rolling, and takes on board more of them as those who run the business become aware of them. It does not ignore them or simply chant a "we're going to do X" mantra over and over again. Faith with thought, consideration, deliberation, and action, is a fine thing; without those things, it isn't worth a hill of beans -- or a single bean, for that matter.

Scifi Fan: You don't have to know the technical points of any of these fields to be able to speculate upon possible approaches to the problems. Take what you do know about the parameters of the problem, do a extrapolation on what the ramifications of the problems are, what impact this or that aspect of space flight of this type might have, and then look for what you think might be ways to overcome that difficulty (or those difficulties, should you choose to tackle more than one). Solutions to problems don't just come from the specialists. They can also come from others making suggestions, inspiring new approaches that the specialists may not have thought about, or which help make a creative spark that the specialists are missing. The solution you come up with may or may not be workable in itself, but it may suggest something which _is_.

And yes, our involvement in space has had incalculable benefits in many fields, both technological, medical, and pure scientific learning. It also furnished numerous jobs and provided excellent training in the sciences and engineering for people who would otherwise not likely have had such. And, for a time at least, it brought out a new type of pioneering image and a new dream for us to realize. That dream isn't dead yet, but it is seriously moribund, and the reasons for that are, again, many and complex. Some of them are based on misconceptions or cognitive errors; some of them are very solidly based on concerns about the issues I've raised above (as well as others). All of this is going to have to be addressed to have truly successful space exploration and colonization on a large scale. (The problems with a truly small scale, of course, involve survival factors for the colonists, from assured replacement of necessary supplies which are unavailable or unreproducible in their colonial environment, to problems with not having a wide enough gene pool to draw from.)

I am curious, though, why you say "given the trends"... what "trends"? The few instances you brought in at the beginning of this thread are hardly enough to establish a "trend". They may be an indicator, yes; but that's a far cry from a trend. At present, there are grave concerns about our (the West's) continuing involvement in space, while other countries do seem willing to step up to the bat. Whether they will succeed or not remains to be seen, but at the moment their achievements remain relatively humble; and, with the economic situation as it is, it may be very difficult to change that for some time. (This, again, does not address the psychological factors, including public support for such ventures. And no one has yet addressed the problems with long-term exposure to such an environment -- or range of environments -- on human beings, physically and/or psychologically. This is something which absolutely must be considered and accommodated if we wish to make such an attempt succeed.)

Basically, I'd say the true "trends" are away from manned involvement in space and aimed almost entirely on mechanical probes and the like. The problem with having wealthy people actually go out into space is that the majority of them are simply not aware of the difficulties and risks involved, and are therefore likely to also be seeing things with that "pie in the sky" view... until fatalities start to mount up. Then there is likely to be a very nasty reaction against the entire idea. This, too, is a problem which needs addressing. You also are going to need specially-trained people for numerous fields, if you're going to colonize; and few of these sorts of people will have the training necessary. And you will need those who will be risk-takers in ways that the wealthy may not be (some of them, of course, will; but many will be more cautious in their thinking in various ways, which can be a fatal flaw when facing a near-unknown environment and the unforeseen hazards posed by such).

 In order to have truly successful colonization attempts -- or, for that matter, long-term success in space exploration in general -- some form of governmental involvement is, I think, almost unavoidable. At least for a considerable period, the cost factors will so far outweigh the profits that it is likely to be something few businesses can successfully engage in without such. And, of course, as fatalities occur (inevitable, given the variables involved), the costs to the businesses, either monetary or in other forms, will mount. This, too, will have to be considered and allowed for.

But in any event, the major problem is the human factor itself, and we are a long, long, long way from even beginning to solve the headaches involved there. That is going to be the most difficult aspect, and I'd like to see some suggestions on how to tackle this part of the issue....


----------



## Pyan (Jun 9, 2010)

*Re: We are going into space. For what?*



Starbeast said:


> I see absolutely no point in this endeavor to have billions of dollars spent only to have a bunch of rich people orbitting over our heads when all of the money used could help people who are suffering down here from starvation, disease, poverty, etc.



I bet there were people in 15th century Europe who were saying 



> I see absolutely no point in this endeavour to have thousands of pounds/reals/livres spent only to have a bunch of rich people swanning off across the Atlantic to America when all of the money used could help people who are suffering over here from starvation, disease, poverty, etc


----------



## Starbeast (Jun 10, 2010)

*We are going into space. Sure why not, let's go!*



pyan said:


> I bet there were people in 15th century Europe who were saying why spend money for a bunch of rich people spanning off from the Atlantic to America when all the money could used to help people here.


 
They did, then they came over here to North America and pushed my native American ancestors over three mountain ranges to the other side of the continent. I still don't understand why the U.S. acknowledges Chris Columbus as a hero when he was only an evil slave-dealer.

And in modern times, we're giving jobs to Mexico (paying them one tenth of a paycheck) and to overseas (I have to talk to a guy in India to fix viruses in my computor) like China to make most of the products we buy here. Meanwhile the unimployment here increases daily and the media is told to make everything sound like we're doing better. Even our "so-called" Presidents (since John Kennedy) never do anything, they just talk.

It's all about Money, Power and Control......(sighs).....I've said enough, I'll go back to my gasoline powered car, drink water from petroleum made water bottle, stare at Lake Michigan and watch the dead fish wash up on shore. The seagulls have nothing to eat other than garbage scattered around the ground inland, and turn away 10 to 20 people day at my job who are looking for work. Hmm, I wonder how safe that nuclear power planet is in Israel that's been operating since the 1960's, the one in Russia had a melt down, and scientists are still monitoring the effects of the radioactivity in Europe and Asia since then.

I think we should push for space habitats off this world, it sounds like a great idea to invest in, it's safe and with our high-tech advancements we'll probablly have the program up and running within a decade or two. Ok, you people have talked me into it, let's go to space, book me on a flight with a window seat please I want one last look at Earth before we leave it, I'm going to miss "Old Blue".


----------



## Chinook (Jun 10, 2010)

*Re: We are going into space. For what?*



Starbeast said:


> *BIG FRIGGEN CHICKEN DEAL*
> 
> Originally Posted by *pyan*
> 
> ...



MY SENTIMENTS EXACTLY!!!!

HELLO... is anybody out there? (cyberspace, not outer space)

Is anybody paying attention?

Some statistics? 

Undernourished people in the world right now: 1,025,092,550.
People with no access to safe drinking water: 1,373,295,000.

Top 1 percent holds 40 percent of wealth.

50 % of world population lives on $2.00/day (US) or less.
80 % of world population lives on $10.00/day (US) or less.

(Source) <-This is a cool site.  


WE CAN'T TAKE CARE OF OUR OWN.

There is another argument that occurs often on the chrons:

Is there "intelligent" life out there? (300 billion stars in our galaxy alone).

I'd like to bring these two arguments together. How would we look to a reasonably benevolent, sentient alien species? 

Answer: LIKE SAVAGES.

Oh, I almost forgot. The "accidents". Chernobyl, Exxon Valdez, and now The huge major oil spill in the gulf of Mexico, that still isn't fixed after six weeks, and the untold damage that is going to cause economically environmentally, etc. Ad Nauseam.


----------



## Chinook (Jun 10, 2010)

Scifi fan said:


> For example, most people don't know the first thing about computers, but they could safely say computing power will double every 18 months or so (Moore's Law)...



Just in case you had not heard: 

Limit Reached. 

The problem is, this technology is waaaayyy out of reach of the common computer consumer's pocket book. Meanwhile silicon manufacturers are struggling to find ways around the  30 nano-meter limit on CMOS technology (What's in the common computer now.)


----------



## Urien (Jun 10, 2010)

A number of different themes are floating around here:

1. The last two posters (Chinook and Starbeast) appear to be asking for resources to be used to alleviate economic difficulties on Earth. Other posters (I include myself in this) would argue for some money to be spent on space exploration. 

2. A secondary theme appears to be whether we can do it, (expand into space) with (and I hope you think it is fair) Scifi fan most optimistic, and J.D. optimistic but concerned about practical difficulties.

On the first point I think it is important for the human race to expend effort and resource on projects that do not have a guaranteed return, this is blue sky exploration whether on drugs, psychology, physics, space, undersea, engineering and the rest. We do not know what we do not know, it is only by piercing the mists that technologies and discoveries that might improve the human condition can be found. These are nothing or huge payoffs for the species, fat tails or positive black swans.

I also support seeming trivial expenditure (sports, holidays, Ipods etc) all of which we could do without and send our money to poorer people. It's choice, we have a right to choose what we do with our resources. I extend this to the national scale where collectively a proportion of the electorate choose to have a space program or stage the Olympics. I accept that where we set the dial on this is a subjective matter.

I would also ask the less optimistic (state of society) posters to have a look at socio-economic and political systems 200 years ago, and really consider whether we as a species aren't much better off today.

On the second point as to whether we can do it; I honestly don't know. I am more inclined towards the Scifi camp which is dependent on a continuation of the exponential rate of technological advancement. Not only because of the increase in computing power over the last half century, but also because of the rise of India, China and other large nations. To increase the chance of technological advancement you need more reseachers, more connectivity and more diversity of thought. The rise of developing countries contributes all of that.


----------



## Chinook (Jun 10, 2010)

Okay. Let's assume SciFi's and Urien's position for a minute. (Half dressed, with boils and rashes, but somewhere to go.) 

Do you folks know how these things get decided?
Is there a voting process for people like us?
Is it decided by NASA's lobbyists pleading to a commission out of Washington D.C? 

Does NASA have lobbyists?

Are the top 1 percent rich enough to do it without the government's help?
Are the top 1 percent organized enough to do it at all? 

I watched a special on the Science Channel (US feed) 2 years ago that NASA was planning to do a manned mission to Mars by 2030. Has that been abandoned? (The expenditure to protect them from solar radiation was included.) 

How much would that cost? 

More than what it's going to cost to finish the "war" with the Taliban in Afghanistan? 
More than what it's going to cost to finish whatever the H##L we are doing in Iraq?

More than it's going to cost BP to clean up their mess in the gulf? 

What would the manned mission to Mars buy us? (other than some new jobs for the technocratic elite?)

Some new rocks to look at? 

Whether there is some water in some of the coldest places on Mars?

How much will it cost to convert that water into breathable air, and drinkable water? How much will it cost to provide the power and structure to support a colony of 50 people on Mars? 

Will I get a room with a view?

Aren't there places here on earth that are much more beautiful, and worth saving? 

Challenge:

Name me five major forms of Technology that haven't turned around and become nightmares (at some point).


----------



## iansales (Jun 10, 2010)

First of all, money not spent on space exploration has never been spent on alleviating poverty, health care or anything else. It's not an either/or scenario. Further, I can't understand how you begrudge the small amount spent on space exploration, yet say nothing of the huge amounts spent on Iraq or Afghanistan. The Vietnam war cost more per year than the entire Apollo programme cost. And without Apollo, you wouldn't have a computer at home - NASA ordered millions of integrated circuits and kickstarted the semiconductor industry. It's likely any mission to Mars will also result in similar tangible secondary benefits. For example, research into closed loop environment systems for a Mars ship could lead to cheap and efficient waste recycling systems for poor communities.


----------



## Stephen Palmer (Jun 10, 2010)

Not to mention the "you know they didn't actually land on Mars" conspiracy theories...


----------



## Urien (Jun 10, 2010)

Chinook,

An interesting but in my view irrelevant list of questions. The debate is twofold: First, the initial question, could we get substantively into space, that's a technical question. The dispute is about the degree of difficulty. 

Second should we go into space, an entirely subjective matter. I believe you think no, some of us think yes. It is a matter of choice. I respect your right to not want to spend any tax dollars/pounds on space exploration.

And finally, unless you would prefer to live in a stone age environment, the "challenge" seems to me spurious and irrelevant to the topic under discussion.


----------



## j d worthington (Jun 10, 2010)

Chinook: You may want to take a look here:

NASAsolutions: Benefits of the Space Program

NASA spinoffs, space benefits, space history, NASA space spinoffs, NASA technology products

The US Space Program Benefits

How does the Space Program benefit us? | Bradley Robertson

And, for simply a _list_ of _some_ of the benefits:

SPACE PROGRAM SPINOFFS


----------



## Ursa major (Jun 10, 2010)

Scifi fan said:


> This time, private enterprise is involved, and they have a better track record of getting things done.


And heaven help them if any of their larger equipment drops on the US after an accident. Expect the fines and lawyers fees to be astronomical, even if little else proves to be.


----------



## iansales (Jun 10, 2010)

I wasn't aware private enterprise had been to the Moon, or put a space station in Low Earth Orbit, or even sent robot explorers to other planets... So what "track record"?


----------



## Starbeast (Jun 10, 2010)

*We are going into space. Sure why not, let's go!*



iansales said:


> Yet you say nothing of the huge amounts spent on Iraq or Afghanistan.


 

Ok, I didn't want to get into that. So here's info about it, I don't feel like typing it, it sickens me.​ 







 



Like I said, it's all about Money, Power and Control. Notice how they always call the Middle Eastern people who defend themselves and fight back "terriorists" all the time (always in the movies and on tv, just like Native Americans were called "savages"). The asian people were friendly at the beginning, but other countries saw this as a sign of weakness and entered like trustworthy "sheep", but were really "wolves" in disguise with hidden agendas.​ 
There are many alternatives for energy other than OIL, how many more people from around the world have to die for it?​ 
Billions of dollars are given from the U.S. to Israel every year, why? Oil companies boast at times about huge profits, why? Hmm, let me think..........oh yes, I believe it was...MONEY, POWER & CONTROL.​


----------



## Scifi fan (Jun 10, 2010)

iansales said:


> I wasn't aware private enterprise had been to the Moon, or put a space station in Low Earth Orbit, or even sent robot explorers to other planets... So what "track record"?



But they did come up with cars for many people, plumbing fixtures, convenience stores, clothing, medical high tech, pharmaceutical high tech, cell phones, personal computers, movies, TV, cartoons, comics, processed foods, and who knows what else.

As for landing on the moon, there was no money in it (then) and so private industry didn't do it. Now, however, the situation may be different, thanks to technological advances, so private industry is going to go there. If there's gold in them thar hills ...


----------



## Chinook (Jun 10, 2010)

Iansales, Urien, and J.D. - Are you saying you don't want to look at the horrible condition the world is in? Are you saying it doesn't matter? Why can't you even answer a single one of my questions? Some of them were related to the difficulty level, and processes involved in going into space. 

And by the way I did mention Iraq, and Afghanistan, and I know how computers got started, and we did not need Apollo to make them a household item. It was simply some clever (and questionable) manuevering by a person who is now one of the top richest people in the world. I asked him (Gates) for help, and they said "Sorry we're only helping people in the Pacific Northwest." (As if_ they_ were the ones that need the most help!) 

As for NASA's benefits - Most of them only help people who are already well off. There was mention of water purification. So why is it that there are still 1,373,295,000 people with no access to safe drinking water? There was mention of air purification. Why are we facing a global climate change crisis? There was mention of golf ball aerodynamics. Great. That ought to feed the starving billions. 

There was no mention of education that I saw. That is what these third world countries need. But they can't listen to a teacher when they're starving to death! 

I know very well that not spending on space exploration doesn't automatically feed hungry people, but you seem to be missing the simple straightforward point, that getting a system of equality going for the people of the world should be a much bigger priority than going into space.

Going into space isn't going to feed them either. So, I asked you - how do they decide these things, and you couldn't give me a straight answer. Please pay attention.


----------



## iansales (Jun 10, 2010)

The topic is space exploration. You claimed money spent on space exploration was wasted. I am trying to show that it's not. Also, twelve men landed on the Moon because of the work done by NASA. That's a US organisation. It was not a global objective, but a national one. Us Brits had nothing to do with it. In fact, our record is space is pretty dismal, and I for one am embarrassed about that.

World poverty is an entirely different matter. Yes, there is a great deal of inequality. Yes, the bulk of the world's riches are owned by a tiny minority. Yes, capitalism is an unfair system. But that has nothing to do with space exploration. That's another discussion all together, and any solution has nothing to do with space exploration or space colonisation, public or private sector.


----------



## Chinook (Jun 10, 2010)

Scifi fan said:


> ... many on this forum said that going into space cannot solve our environmental problems, because the hurdles were too great. Does anyone still believe that?
> 
> If they realize that space is our next frontier, then they will also realize that there are no limits to growth.


 

This is what I'm responding to, and no, I don't believe that going into space can solve our environmental problems. But I don't believe the hurdles are too great toward going into space, I just think we need to straighten out our priorities. Our next frontier should be to preserve the one we've already got before we go mess up more planetoids. Get our act together here first before we go trudging accross some barren wastelands to accomplish what? I certainly don't beleive cluttering up the Earth's orbit with rich people is going to help solve environmental problems.

I'm also curious SciFiFan - what debate did you think this would settle once and for all?


----------



## j d worthington (Jun 10, 2010)

Arrrrrgh! I just spent nearly an hour posting a reply to Chinook's posts... and the whole thing has gone up in smoke! *grumble, grumble, grumble*

*sigh* Well, I'll attempt to get back to this either tonight or tomorrow... but I do have some responses to your points... I'm just frustrated that I've spent so much time on it today with no bloody result! Faugh!


----------



## Ursa major (Jun 10, 2010)

So it was the effort of trying to take in what may have been one of your longer posts, JD, that made the Chrons become rather unresponsive (at least for me) a few minutes back, was it?




(That's what comes of trying to put too much into (Chrons) space in one go, I suppose. )


----------



## j d worthington (Jun 11, 2010)

Ursa major said:


> So it was the effort of trying to take in what may have been one of your longer posts, JD, that made the Chrons become rather unresponsive (at least for me) a few minutes back, was it?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
LOL... ummm, I plead the Fifth.....

Working on getting as much of that post back together as possible, but time is limited today, so it may have to be posted tomorrow.....


----------



## j d worthington (Jun 11, 2010)

All right, this is going to take a few posts... sorry for the sequential posting, but it was the only way to do this, I'm afraid:

First, I'd suggest we pull back and take a deep breath, as insults and abusive phrasing are both unnecessary and undesirable. Keep the posts respectful and to the point -- that is, the other person's argument; leave personalities out of it.

Now, Chinook, you also posed a challenge, a question, if you will:



> Name me five major forms of Technology that haven't turned around and become nightmares (at some point).


 
Now, leaving aside the angle that that final qualification leaves anything open to charges of "becoming a nightmare" ("it just hasn't happened _yet_"), I did respond to that specific question and, by implication (based on many of the benefits listed in those links) several others. However, from the comment that "most of [these benefits] only help people who are already well off", it appears you didn't really look at the list very well, as such a statement is demonstrably false. I suggest you check out that list again:

http://www.look-to-the-skies.com/space_program_spinoffs.htm

Now, just on that very _short _list (out of a listing of several thousand) there are a number of "spin-offs" which benefit numbers of people of varying socioeconomic status and will continue to do so, none of which have "become nightmares". As you asked for five, here goes:

"Kevlar": obviously this has saved a number of lives over the years, including a large number of law-enforcement officers. I don't know about you, but the majority of such that I've known come from medium- to very low income families... many more than the "well-to-do".

Long-lasting and rechargeable pacemaker batteries -- again, while expensive, these have been used to aid people of all levels socially, depending on availability and many other factors. The rich may be more able to afford them, but the poor get them as well, sometimes _gratis_.

Breathing systems -- not only for mountain climbers, but scuba divers and firefighters... the latter two of which also perform rescue missions and the like; and again, come from a wide variety of socioeconomic backgrounds.

MRI scanners -- surely you don't need me to tell you the benefits to all levels of society from these? How many lives they've saved? How much they have been of assistance to us in many other ways, including preserving cultural artifacts while allowing us to "dissect" them (something which benefits just about everyone in the end).

Weather satellites, which allow us to track severe weather conditions well in advance and give warning; something which has saved countless lives... again, of all levels of society.

And then there are the things which aren't listed on that short list, such as some types of artificial heart valves, the technologies for which would simply not have been around were it not for the space program (I knew someone who helped develop such a device, and he was quite frank in his indebtedness to NASA).

The list simply goes on, and on, and on.... In fact, a few years ago, I recall seeing a congressional hearing on the matter of budgeting for the space program. One of the congressmen read excerpts from a listing of benefits resulting from said program... a listing which was a bit larger than an old New York City telephone directory... giving something of the idea of the scope of benefits we have seen from "going into space".

However, to take your posts in order:



> Some statistics?
> 
> Undernourished people in the world right now: 1,025,092,550.
> People with no access to safe drinking water: 1,373,295,000.
> ...


 
While these statistics (which I would actually feel are, in some cases, probably on the conservative side) are indeed horrific, as others have pointed out this has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. You are drawing connections which, simply, are not there, or at very least are extremely tenuous. Until you can demonstrate a direct causal link between spending on the space program (which, note, makes up _less than one tenth of one percent_ of the U.S. federal budget) and problems with poverty, lack of food, etc., then you are dragging in totally irrelevant matters which have absolutely no bearing on the discussion.

That said, I will nonetheless do my best to address some of the points you raise as we go along.



> There is another argument that occurs often on the chrons:
> 
> Is there "intelligent" life out there? (300 billion stars in our galaxy alone).
> 
> ...


 
First: that statement is an unfounded assertion; a statement of personal opinion unsupported by any sort of evidence or even logical reasoning. It is entirely emotional bias. It may be correct... but there is no reason to _assume_ that it is so. On the other hand, there is every bit as much (or more) likelihood that any species which has reached the point of actual interstellar travel will also have developed enough of an understanding of biology to understand much about evolution. (For reasons too complex to go into here, the likelhood of any sentient species not studying its own biology and being curious about origins is extremely slight.) That being the case, it is much more likely that they would recognize these things as unavoidable stages of development during the long process of evolution, powered as they are by the deepest-rooted and most powerful aspects of mental life: instincts of acquisitiveness, combativeness, fear, and loyalty to one's own (whether that be family, tribe, nation, or -- ultimately -- species). Such an awareness may have them viewing us as "savages", but shorn of the patent moral condemnation exhibited by your contextual use of the phrase.


----------



## j d worthington (Jun 11, 2010)

> Do you folks know how these things get decided?
> Is there a voting process for people like us?
> Is it decided by NASA's lobbyists pleading to a commission out of Washington D.C?
> 
> Does NASA have lobbyists?


 
Yes, NASA has "lobbyists" (though not really that many). And yes, a fair amount of these decisions are made by congressional or senate hearings, or direct presidential action. And yes, the public has input on such, in the same way we have on most issues: voting, writing to our representatives, "grass-roots" movements for change, and all the other avenues which exist for the person in the street to voice their opinions/beliefs on the matter. This does not mean you or I will get what we want, but neither does it mean our voices are ignored.



> Are the top 1 percent rich enough to do it without the government's help?
> Are the top 1 percent organized enough to do it at all?


 
That is part of the ongoing discussion. Frankly, I think that technologically, they may indeed be able to do so. The question for me is, are they up to handling the other factors I've noted above? And on that aspect, I am rather less sanguine.



> I watched a special on the Science Channel (US feed) 2 years ago that NASA was planning to do a manned mission to Mars by 2030. Has that been abandoned? (The expenditure to protect them from solar radiation was included.)
> 
> How much would that cost?
> 
> ...


 
The amount of cost remains, of course, somewhat uncertain... though there is a relatively good estimate at this point, given the factors as they stand now. And the percentage, as noted above, is minuscule compared to many other programs. But the returns are likely to be considerably higher.



> More than it's going to cost BP to clean up their mess in the gulf?


 
Again, irrelevant to the discussion. The two have nothing whatsoever in common other than the fact that each will cost money. Period. 



> What would the manned mission to Mars buy us? (other than some new jobs for the technocratic elite?)


 
That comment about the "technocratic elite" is simply foolish and pointless. It betrays a bias so deep that I cannot help but question your willingness to genuinely consider any evidence. However...

What will it "buy" us? Well, the prior benefits are some indicators. Other likely benefits are: Advances in agronomy; geophysical knowledge (at least by analogy: the proper term here would likely be areophysical); a better understanding of the birth, life, and death of planets (resulting in a better understanding of how our own little mudball works, something which cannot help but give us a better grounding upon which to base our future interaction with the environment); advances in metallurgy, gravitational sciences; aerodynamics under varying conditions, weather systems, human physiology, evolutionary biology (thus, again, medicine and related fields)... and so on.

Not to mention something we are increasingly going to need: _Lebensraum_.



> How much will it cost to convert that water into breathable air, and drinkable water? How much will it cost to provide the power and structure to support a colony of 50 people on Mars?


 
Again, that will vary depending on factors beyond our knowledge at this point; but such an operation, once rolling, will tend to find ways to be self-supporting _by necessity_, thus alleviating costs. And fifty is simply an unsupportable number. The limited gene-pool would become a major problem within a very short time. Fifty would have to be the very beginning; the first pioneers, nothing more. Hence added incentive to find ways to be self-supporting... resulting in entirely new technologies with untold benefits.



> Will I get a room with a view?


 
A pointless question.



> Aren't there places here on earth that are much more beautiful, and worth saving?


 
Again, completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. However, you are taking the stance that this is an "either/or" situation, when there is absolutely no reason to assume such. As others have pointed out, monies devoted to space exploration would not likely otherwise be spent on the matters you raise; whereas what we learn from space exploration and our understanding of other environments is likely to increase our ability to make better decisions about interacting with our own here on earth.


----------



## j d worthington (Jun 11, 2010)

I've addressed your challenge above; so we'll go to the next post:



> Iansales, Urien, and J.D. - Are you saying you don't want to look at the horrible condition the world is in?


 
("Are you aware how much pain there is in the world?" -- note written (in a semiconscious state) by Harlan Ellison to himself, and a major theme in much of his work. See *Paingod and Other Delusions*.)

Several things are wrong with this formulation here. The first is an assumption (rather arrogant on your part, frankly) that we _don't_ look at this, and aren't concerned. If you've taken any cognizance of my posts on such matters elsewhere, you'll realize that is patently nonesense (and I will venture to say the same is true of Ian and Urien as well).

Second... however "horrible" you think the world is now, it was considerably worse in most ways a century ago, or even less. Infant mortality, death in childbirth, smallpox and numerous other now scarce (or eradicated) diseases, widespread malnutrition which dwarfed our current state, lack of availability of sanitary water conditions even in the more "progressive" or industrialized countries in many (if not most) areas.. the list goes on. There is still enormous work to be done; but the improvements are, compared to what existed through most of human history, staggering. This is not to minimize the horrors you point out, but to place them in perspective... and to point out that we have made and are making progress... and are likely to continue to do so.



> Are you saying it doesn't matter?


 
No one was saying these things don't matter, _save in relation to this particular discussion_. As evidenced by various of the benefits listed, the only connection there can be is improvements to the situation due to our engagment with space exploration, not the opposite.



> Why can't you even answer a single one of my questions? Some of them were related to the difficulty level, and processes involved in going into space.


 
Again, we have done so, and more than one. We have addressed several; but the fact is that you are so focused on this one subject (an assumption which I am basing on other debates with you in the past as well as here) that you cannot see the answers when they are plainly presented to you. Mind you, it is a worthy subject to be intensely concerned about, but I can't help but feel you need to pull back and start seeing both the forest and the individual trees, and recognizing the difference.



> [...]and I know how computers got started, and we did not need Apollo to make them a household item.


 
Er, well, yes we did. It was in fact the needs of the space program which fueled the research and development of the technologies making the modern computer possible. Without that involvement in the Apollo program, either these would not have come about at all, or they would have taken much, much longer, as there was simply no driving _need_ for them before.

As for the bit about Gates... again, this is a complete side-issue having absolutely no connection to the discussion at hand. (I personally think Gates is a b*******, but that has nothing to do with what we are talking about, in _any_ way whatsoever.)



> As for NASA's benefits - Most of them only help people who are already well off. There was mention of water purification. So why is it that there are still 1,373,295,000 people with no access to safe drinking water? There was mention of air purification. Why are we facing a global climate change crisis? There was mention of golf ball aerodynamics. Great. That ought to feed the starving billions.


 
Okay.. that last is simply silly. No one said all of the benefits were life-and-death. Many are relatively trivial. Yet even these are not to be despised, as they provide healthy exercise and entertainment for many, and the aerodynamics knowledge which went into this also has application in multiple other fields. As for the other points... what the devil does this have to do with anything connected to the space program? The point is that these technologies _were_ developed from that program; what happens _afterward_ is an entirely separate issue, and the reasons for their non-use or non-availability to many is a matter of politics, economics, traditional beliefs, graft, and corrupt regimes (among other things). But without the space program, these technologies (which _are_ in use in various areas and _have_ provided benefits accordingly) _*would not exist*_! Again, the causal connection you claim is totally lacking here, and the only one which exists _is in support of continuing space exploration_, not the reverse!



> There was no mention of education that I saw. That is what these third world countries need. But they can't listen to a teacher when they're starving to death!


 
This statement (or series of statements) simply makes no sense: you posit something which should have been mentioned as a benefit, put it forward as a necessary improvement, then deny that it would be of any use anyway because of conditions totally unconnected with the source which was supposed to be touting it in the first place!

*sigh* Okay... again: the listing in those links is only the tiniest sliver of the tip of the iceberg. The actual benefits mount well into the thousands (if not hundreds of thousands). Education is certainly among them, as education in numerous fields has been impacted by the space program... from biology to engineering to our understanding of time. And yes, I agree that these countries do need such improved education, and are lacking. Again, though, that has nothing to do with NASA or any other space program, but with the political and social conditions of the countries themselves! And_ that_, my friend, will not be changed one iota by _not_ spending the money to explore space. Which brings us to:



> I know very well that not spending on space exploration doesn't automatically feed hungry people, but you seem to be missing the simple straightforward point, that getting a system of equality going for the people of the world should be a much bigger priority than going into space.
> 
> Going into space isn't going to feed them either.


 
Well, yes, it very well may. It certainly has already, as the technologies evolving from that have: improved agricultural methods, food preservation, food distribution, nutritional supplements, nutritional science in general, and many other things connected with the feeding of human beings near and far. It has also, not incidentally, given us a practical demonstration of just how tiny our planet is, how near neighbors we all are, and how interrelated and interdependent we are; raising consciousness of these issues in a way almost unimaginable to most people 50, or 100, or 200 years ago. This is one of the benefits which has not, so far, been addressed: its impact on how we see ourselves as a species rather than totally separate groups, and how this in turn has caused a vast upswing in humanitarian impulses toward those less fortunate.

As for your most recent post (as of this writing, anyway):



> [N]o, I don't believe that going into space can solve our environmental problems. But I don't believe the hurdles are too great toward going into space, I just think we need to straighten out our priorities. Our next frontier should be to preserve the one we've already got before we go mess up more planetoids. Get our act together here first before we go trudging accross some barren wastelands to accomplish what? I certainly don't beleive cluttering up the Earth's orbit with rich people is going to help solve environmental problems.


 
One heck of a lot of assumptions going on here... many of them quite unfounded. Actually, going into space has helped tremendously with our understanding of our impact on the environment, as it improved our understanding of weather conditions, the effects of pollution, unregulated deforestation, etc. (Nothing quite like being able to see the effects of our actions in a single sweep... something not possible before our going into space.) While it hasn't stopped any of those things, it has made people more aware, and put a spur or two into our efforts to find solutions and to make changes. And, once again, you are treating this as an "either/or" proposition, when it is in no way whatsoever. There is also the assumption that we will go "messing up other planetoids" (or planets?). While some impact is unavoidable (no living thing can avoid impacting its environment in some fashion), with the training those going out are likely to receive, the chances of thoughtless, careless behavior toward these environments are quite remote. The sheer necessity of having to conserve in order to survive day-to-day for a long period itself forms rather stern training to _not_ act in a wasteful manner... and any colony on any of the bodies of out solar system will have that to contend with for a very, very long time to come.

And I think all the above rather answers the answer concerning "accomplishing what?"



> I'm also curious SciFiFan - what debate did you think this would settle once and for all?


 
I don't want to answer for Scifi fan here (correct me if I'm wrong, SFF), but I don't think there was an intent to "settle' any debate "once and for all". I don't think such is possible; certainly with issues such as this. But a healthy exchange of ideas (via a technology made possible by the space program... again!) is quite another thing.

Again, my apologies for the length of the above, but it seemed the only way to adequately address some of the matters raised.


----------



## The Procrastinator (Jun 11, 2010)

To clarify my doomsaying:

I am for the space program. For the reasons JD has named - for the fact that pure science is worth pursuing - for the fact that ultimately I think (or rather hope) it is our destiny.

I am agin seeing the space program as our salvation and as a justification for Scifi fan's "unlimited growth". I think that the practical difficulties involved, physiologically and psychologically for us, and in terms of our understanding of biospheres (I'm thinking of "leaving the planet" scenarios here - we're going to need to take some form of our biosphere with us) are going to require technological and maybe even genetic advances we're not capable of yet, and that there is a vast difference between getting into orbit more cheaply and moving people wholesale into space.

While I don't want to predict the timescale of this, I think it is foolish to assume that the many problems we face (globally and nationally) have reached crisis point and its all going to be sunny from here on in, so that progress in the technologies required for real progress in the space program will be constant. I _fear_ we will need all our ingenuity to survive the next hundred years - if the predicted ocean rise becomes reality for instance, the displacement of coastal populations alone is going to be a huge issue. Globally. It will change the world. 

I think its wonderful there's interest in the space program again. But between now and 2069 I think we're going to be a bit busy to give it the attention it deserves. There's nothing wrong with optimism but there are other factors at play here, not all of them within our control, that are going to have a very real impact on our future.


----------



## iansales (Jun 11, 2010)

Scifi fan said:


> But they did come up with cars for many people, plumbing fixtures, convenience stores, clothing, medical high tech, pharmaceutical high tech, cell phones, personal computers, movies, TV, cartoons, comics, processed foods, and who knows what else.



And cars break down, mobile phones drop calls, drugs have side-effects, computers crash, TVs break... The Lunar modules were 100% reliable. They landed twelve men on the Moon - 250,000 miles away from any help if it should break - and brought them back. That's a reliability record no private sector company can match.


----------



## Urien (Jun 11, 2010)

I'd just like to commend J.D. for the comprehensive way in which he addressed this. That kind of dedication deserves recognition. Sir, I tip my hat to you.


----------



## Chinook (Jun 11, 2010)

Urien said:


> I'd just like to commend J.D. for the comprehensive way in which he addressed this. That kind of dedication deserves recognition. Sir, I tip my hat to you.


 
J.D. Obviously has a lot of time on his hands to carry out such lengthy and verbose arguments. I wish I had that kind of extra time, but I don't. 

Backwards through the posts:


> "Lunar modules were 100% reliable."


This is not true if you examine the record of Apollo 13, and I will give kudos to the men and women who saved that mission from disaster. 



> I am agin seeing the space program as our salvation and as a justification for Scifi fan's "unlimited growth". I think that the practical difficulties involved, physiologically and psychologically for us, and in terms of our understanding of biospheres (I'm thinking of "leaving the planet" scenarios here - we're going to need to take some form of our biosphere with us) are going to require technological and maybe even genetic advances we're not capable of yet, and that there is a vast difference between getting into orbit more cheaply and moving people wholesale into space.


 
Thank you Mr. Procrastinator, that is what has been going on in my head that I have failed to point out, thereby leading me to some of my outrageously one sided arguments.



> ... however "horrible" you think the world is now, it was considerably worse in most ways a century ago...


 - JD

I will simply disagree with you on numbers and percentages alone. 



> The first is an assumption (rather arrogant on your part, frankly) that we _don't_ look at this, and aren't concerned. If you've taken any cognizance of my posts on such matters elsewhere, you'll realize that is patently nonesense (and I will venture to say the same is true of Ian and Urien as well).


 - JD

Read this back to yourself and then tell me who is the arrogant one. 



> _...save in relation to this particular discussion. _


_ - JD_

_I explained how it was relative here:_

_Quote:_


> _Originally Posted by *Scifi fan*
> 
> _
> _... many on this forum said that going into space cannot solve our environmental problems, because the hurdles were too great. Does anyone still believe that? _
> ...


 

_


Chinook said:



			This is what I'm responding to, and no, I don't believe that going into space can solve our environmental problems. But I don't believe the hurdles are too great toward going into space, I just think we need to straighten out our priorities. Our next frontier should be to preserve the one we've already got before we go mess up more planetoids. Get our act together here first before we go trudging accross some barren wastelands to accomplish what? I certainly don't beleive cluttering up the Earth's orbit with rich people is going to help solve environmental problems.
		
Click to expand...

_


Chinook said:


> _I'm also curious SciFiFan - what debate did you think this would settle once and for all?_


 


> _Why can't you even answer a single one of my questions? Some of them were related to the difficulty level, and processes involved in going into space. _


_ - Chinook_
_At the point in the discusion when I said this, you had not addressed any of these questions, and were self-satisfied to argue that they were all irrelevant - a position which you now seem to have shifted on. _

_



			Er, well, yes we did. It was in fact the needs of the space program which fueled the research and development of the technologies making the modern computer possible. Without that involvement in the Apollo program, either these would not have come about at all, or they would have taken much, much longer, as there was simply no driving need for them before.
		
Click to expand...

_ 
_This is outright bull. The only thing the space program needed was a way to store more memory in a smaller space. It may have contributed in some secondary way to making smaller memories for laptops, but I suggest we take this argument offline because I could tell you everything about the history of the computer and then some. _



> _Okay.. that last is simply silly. No one said all of the benefits were life-and-death. Many are relatively trivial._


_ - JD_

_Okay, it's silly because you say it's silly? Who died and made you the expert on everything? I said five MAJOR areas not five relatively trivial areas of technology. _




> _This statement (or series of statements) simply makes no sense._


_ - JD_

_Well, you sure are good at handing out judgements. From your general line of replies, I would guess that you are a very judgemental person. But then I don't know you, so I will withold judgement for now. _



> _Education is certainly among them, as education in numerous fields has been impacted by the space program... _


_ - JD_

_Again, the "education" here is only benefitting those who are already well off. Do you have any sliver of compassion in your heart? _




> _...just how tiny our planet is..._


_ - JD_

_If you believe this, obviously you don't get out much. Tiny is a relative term. How tiny is one person compared to the size of our planet? _




> _Blah, Blah, blah..._


_ - JD_

_Sorry, I don't have any more time to waste on this futile discussion. Our world is headed for disaster very quickly, and you have missed that entire point in everything I've said. _



> _I don't want to answer for Scifi fan here (correct me if I'm wrong, SFF), but I don't think there was an intent to "settle' any debate "once and for all". I don't think such is possible; certainly with issues such as this. But a healthy exchange of ideas (via a technology made possible by the space program... again!) is quite another thing._


_ - JD_

_Go back and read the post that started this thread. _


----------



## iansales (Jun 11, 2010)

Chinook,

The Lunar Module was 100% reliable. The Apollo 13 disaster was caused by an explosion in the Command/Service Module.

NASA ordered millions of integrated circuits for the Apollo Guidance Computer. Which used rope memory for ROM. That technology was discarded after Apollo. NASA certainly kickstarted the semiconductor industry, which boosted the computer industry.


----------



## j d worthington (Jun 11, 2010)

Chinook said:


> J.D. Obviously has a lot of time on his hands to carry out such lengthy and verbose arguments. I wish I had that kind of extra time, but I don't.


 
Chinook:

No, I don't. I _*took*_ the time as a courtesy, in this case, to respond to your direct query. That meant that I did _not_ get several things done which I had planned on, and which I would, frankly, much rather have been doing.

As for my comments about the arrogance of your tone and assumptions... if one makes a statement or poses a question using such phrases as "Are you saying you don't want to look at the horrible condition the world is in?", or making barbed comments directed at the person rather than their arguments, that is the very definition of being judgmental, arrogant, and snide. In this, your posts (including this recent response) speak for themselves.

I repeat: civility needs to be brought back into the discussion here. Personalities need to be left at the door. Snide comments are not welcome, and further examples of such behavior are grounds for moderational response.

And, on the subject of time... I only had about 10 minutes to post everything I needed to this morning on the entire site; and this one has already taken more of that than it should.


----------



## Chinook (Jun 11, 2010)

Don't worry JD, I'm done wasting my time posting to an audience who does not share my concern for humanity. Good bye.


----------



## iansales (Jun 11, 2010)

At least we don't share your lack of concern for facts.


----------



## j d worthington (Jun 11, 2010)

Chinook: Once again with the arrogance that you: a) are on a higher moral ground than those you address; b) that you have any faint conception of whether or not we do share these concerns; c) what sort of persons we are; d) that we lack compassion... etc. If you _don't_ think that sort of attitude is arrogant in the extreme, I strongly suggest you look up the word. I have given you full credit for your concern on these issues; I have given these issues their due as of grave concern and things which need addressing, and on which we have a very long way to go. The same courtesy toward those who differ with your specific opinion would be an immense improvement.



iansales said:


> At least we don't share your lack of concern for facts.


 
Thank you, Ian. If someone has evidence to give against my claims of, say, the lowered infant mortality rate, eradication of diseases, expansion of average lifespan, etc., I would appreciate it if they would bring that evidence to the table. I base mine on statements by numerous medical sources, the WHO, various vital statistics sources, and so forth, which I have come into contact with over the years. Ditto for my statements about the benefits of the space program. If there are errors in what I post, they are honest errors based on the best information I have, and I will do my best to track down the sources I recall (where possible), or find similar sources (where not).

But bald assertions to the contrary without anything to back them are quite another matter.

Now... Procrastinator: I don't see your earlier post as "doomsaying", but rather in favor of a realistic or at least cautiously optimistic approach. While I have spent the past several posts addressing the positive aspects of this subject, I also made clear in my earlier posts that I, too, am less than sanguine about these projects, and in fact have grave concerns about their going awry without a good deal more work on aspects which, to the best of my knowledge, have not been addressed, some of which have been raised throughout this thread.

As for the rest of your post:



> I am for the space program. For the reasons JD has named - for the fact that pure science is worth pursuing - for the fact that ultimately I think (or rather hope) it is our destiny.
> 
> I am agin seeing the space program as our salvation and as a justification for Scifi fan's "unlimited growth". I think that the practical difficulties involved, physiologically and psychologically for us, and in terms of our understanding of biospheres (I'm thinking of "leaving the planet" scenarios here - we're going to need to take some form of our biosphere with us) are going to require technological and maybe even genetic advances we're not capable of yet, and that there is a vast difference between getting into orbit more cheaply and moving people wholesale into space.
> 
> ...


 
I see no reason to argue with this. As I noted earlier, I simply see _no_ possibility of our making a _successful_ attempt at colonization (or even much in the way of extended manned exploration) by 2069. Technological concerns aside, I have mentioned numerous areas dealing with intransigent human factors which have yet to be addressed. The very fact that these are often somewhat nebulous in nature makes them all the more difficult of solution; but in order to avoid having attempts at such exploration -- let alone settlement -- backfire horrendously, solutions must be found. Some of them, indeed, may not have solutions, or at least may not have any solutions for a very, very long time to come. (Genetic alterations, for instance, may require a type of genetic science we simply have no conception of as yet; especially if we are looking to adapt ourselves to the environment, rather than the environment to us... and there are enormous hazards as well as enormous potential benefits to each of these options.)

We may well get out into space with manned missions well before then... but until these factors are addressed and solutions are found (and I am _not_ talking about the technological difficulties here... in comparison, those are relatively simple) there are going to be severe limitations to what we can do.

I do, however, see science (and space exploration as a part of science) as a vital part of our solving many of the problems we face, just as it has been for alleviating many of the problems humanity has faced since the beginning of our understanding of how the world around us works. (And anyone who does not think it -- science, including space exploration -- has had such an impact, really needs to go check out the facts.) That is why I took the approach I have in my last several posts....


----------



## The Procrastinator (Jun 12, 2010)

Chinook said:


> Don't worry JD, I'm done wasting my time posting to an audience who does not share my concern for humanity. Good bye.



Hmmm. Doesn't sound to me like you read JD's posts properly, or the context of them. If you're still reading, Chinook, I don't think anyone disagrees with you that the space program will not directly solve humanity's many woes - but that is no reason not to have a space program. There are always indirect benefits from programs like this. We are currently doing many things and spending a lot more money on things that are not going to solve humanity's many woes - in fact we are adding to the problems all the time. You know this I'm sure. But don't take your frustration out on someone who was trying to have a meaningful dialogue with you. Like it or not that's what he was doing. The space program is not a betrayal of humanity and nor are the opinions of those who think we should have one. Take a chill pill. And btw its Ms Procrastinator. 

JD - the doomsaying - I confess I have a sense of irony.  Sounds like we're on pretty much the same wavelength on this issue.

And I don't know if Chinook was showing a "lack of concern for facts" - but he sounds so involved in some facts that others get overshadowed.


----------



## Ursa major (Jun 12, 2010)

Well at least no-one's been questioning the spending on the important things; like the World Cup and the Olympics....


----------



## Starbeast (Jun 12, 2010)

*I would love to go into space.*




 




Honestly, I would very much love humans to be able to leave our Earth, explore space, improve life on our planet with new science technology, discover resources we could use from outer space and use other worlds to live on...etc.​ 
The only thing that bothered me was when I read this about orbitting habitats.....​ 



> "For a country or company willing to sign up for a 4 year commitment, the lease for an entire 6 person module would cost just under $395 Million a year, and that would include transportation for a dozen people each year. You see why this is attractive for the sovereign client market." - *Michael N. Gold - director of Bigelow Aerospace - Washington Office*


----------



## j d worthington (Jun 12, 2010)

Ursa major said:


> Well at least no-one's been questioning the spending on the important things; like the World Cup and the Olympics....


 
I'm not sure there's any place far enough such a person could run to avoid the vengeance of sports followers... otherwise you'd likely have heard _me_ making such a comment ere now....

Ms. Procrastinator... I rather felt it looked that way myself.

And to get back on topic... _does_ anyone have thoughts on solutions to some of the problems raised? Does anyone think some of them (human psychological adaptation to such alien environments, for instance) are insoluble? Are there others who agree with Scifi fan's view that we'll actually be colonizing by the year 2069? Or even earlier?....


----------



## j d worthington (Jun 12, 2010)

First: I have no problem with the rich going into orbit, or even getting further "out there". That's fine by me, as long as we actually get our butts out there _in a sustainable way_. If that is the case, then where the rich go first, others will follow (though that may take considerable time). My concerns are that the proper precautions be taken, and that we take into account the factors raised earlier on.

Anyone recall the experiment in... what? Arizona? some years back, where they were going to try to simulate something like a habitat of the sort envisioned for our early planetary colonists? It was to be, if memory serves, a five-year experiment, where they would indeed undertake a manufactured experience of this kind, cut off from the rest of humanity save in case of emergency or failure. Now -- and again I'm going on memory with this, so please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong -- the thing didn't quite make it to three years, if I recall correctly. Why? People cooped up together in such a small space over such a prolonged period simply cannot function any longer.

This is a problem which will have to be faced and dealt with, as simply the journey to, say, Mars, is likely to take something in the neighborhood of 18 months at optimum condition; any further away and you're looking at a one-way journey of between two to... what, ten years or so? And once there, they must be able to set up a habitat which will allow them to survive and begin making the changes necessary to allow the planet (or moon, etc.) to support a necessarily growing colony. That is likely to take several generations... which means you'll have to have either replacements periodically or a constantly growing infrastructure... but it will by necessity have to also be quite confined... and that's where the human factor becomes a major problem. There's no place to go to get away from the others if they're getting on your nerves, or if feuds break out, or any other set of conditions which can cause social breakdown. You're stuck there, no matter what.

That's what I mean by it being a recipe for disaster unless we take this into account and actually find solutions to this most fundamental of problems. If we can do that, then yes, the potential for growth is... almost unlimited. But such a solution is not going to come easily, as what we're dealing with are almost entirely nebulous imponderables which, while having their basis in the physical universe, have yet to be studied properly.

Now, on the flip side of this coin, I just came across these, and thought I'd share them here:

YouTube - Neil deGrasse Tyson at UB: What NASA Means to America's Future

YouTube - The Future of Space Exploration - CC #88


----------



## Starbeast (Jun 12, 2010)

*I would love to go into space.*

Mr Worthington, we are on the same wavelength.

I remember the failed Bio-sphere experiment, and that the indiviauals inside didn't get along with one another. I am totally aware that it is a difficult task to venture into space and live out there, plus I know of all of the wonderful advancements made through science to benefit us here on this world because of space technology. The videos you provided are great for those who don't understand the "whys and wherefores" of space endeavor, but for me they weren't anything I didn't know already, but they were good to show where humans are at this point in time for those who don't know.

I am only disappointed that I won't be in space in my life-time, but that's ok, I can still write my fictional stories about space adventure.

Here's a couple of items I would like to add.


----------



## j d worthington (Jun 12, 2010)

Thanks for bringing those in. Yes, we're dealing with very big questions here, with enormous implications for our species (and, quite possibly, for out impact on the universe -- or the multiverse? -- itself). The aspect presented by the opening post is simply one very small example of an opening to a solution to some of the problems we face. Should we succeed in colonization, despite the odds, that would make a sizable impact on the problems of overpopulation, lack of resources to feed, house, and clothe those here, and other related issues raised. It also, not incidentally, gives us a much better chance of survival if there is global disaster of some form, whether that be celestial impacts, supernovas in our (relatively near) neighborhood, "supervolcanoes", or any of the other "extinction events" which either have occurred periodically or might occur in the future. It's a way of avoiding having "all our eggs in one basket".

But... is it actually possible? Can we do it? Can we do it _in time_? Those are the questions I have about this. And, as this is a sff forum, and two of the major components of sf have always been to speculate and to extrapolate, I'd like (if Scifi Fan doesn't object) to see some of that going on here. Use what we've learned from both science fiction and science fact to explore some of the issues raised. Brainstorm a little, and see where it takes us....


----------



## Chinook (Jun 12, 2010)

Houston, we have a problem. And it isn't with our space program. Its washing up on our shores.


----------



## The Procrastinator (Jun 12, 2010)

Maybe time for a new thread Chinook.  That lovely picture certainly merits discussion, but it deserves its own thread. Why imprison it in a thread about the space program??

(How big has it gotten btw? I'm a bit out of the loop on this as I don't watch tv and can't load internet videos - my information superhighway is a corrugated, potholed, one lane dirt road - an update in your new thread would be much appreciated)

Back on topic, I can't watch those vids yet for the abovementioned reason, but next week I'll be visiting a friend in civilisation who has broadband. So hopefully can remedy my lack.  But I've always liked the sound of hollowing out asteroids to make habitats, even giving them spin for some kind of gravity effect - is this really feasible? (Not yet obviously)


----------



## j d worthington (Jun 13, 2010)

There already is such a thread, and that is where the post properly belongs:

http://www.sffchronicles.co.uk/forum/527594-will-the-spill-help-us-get-greener.html


----------



## blacknorth (Jun 16, 2010)

I think Chinook makes very valid points.

Am I alone in finding Kaku an extremely unsympathetic advocate in his chosen field?

Will a unified field theory give us better sliced bread? He is speaking to his preferred audience - mostly white, mostly middle-class, mostly safe and healthy Westerners. His unified field theory is above sliced bread, which is fair enough, but may not be up to translating into social change for the human species. Surely a more astute point would have been - will a unified field theory give the human species a conscience? Sadly, the answer to that is, probably not.


----------



## j d worthington (Jun 16, 2010)

I don't think anyone denied that some of the issues Chinook raised are valid. But they are not germane to the topic under discussion; they are a separate conversation altogether.

As for string theory (or any other scientific theory dealing with physics) and human behavior... not everything has to relate to such, nor should it. Narrowing our horizons to this degree is simply foolish and short-sighted, as it would prevent us from making any advances in any field. On the other hand, the more we learn about how physics, biochemistry, evolutionary biology, and human behavior are linked, the more likely we are to be able to evolve a truly workable ethical system grounded solidly in reality rather than metaphysical theorizing. As I said, we've got a very long way to go on that, but just in the past decade, we've made strides which would have been unimaginable twenty years ago.

We really don't know what string theory will ultimately give us, or how it will influence our view of ourselves or our behavior. It may have very little to do with it at all; it may have (most likely through byproducts produced by the impact of various aspects of the theory on various fields in physics) a tremendous role to play. In the latter case, it is highly unliikely that we would be able to envision what such an impact will consist of at this point; we simply don't have enough data to go on. We do know, however, that advances in physics generally have widespread (if frequently less obvious) importance to society in many ways, so I wouldn't rule out its beneficial aspects yet.

As for the human species having a conscience... um, we already do. The very fact that such a discussion occurs is proof of that, let alone the strides we have made toward more humanitarian dealings with each other. (The world-wide _general_ condemnation of slavery being one of the more obvious examples. While slavery still exists, when found to occur it is condemned by the overwhelming majority of humankind. That is an amazing advance from what one would have seen less than two centuries ago.) Expecting human beings -- or any other species -- to succeed in eradicating such problems is completely unrealistic; to deny we have made great strides in many is also to deny the truth. Humanity is still very much a "work in progress", and the more we learn about the nature of reality and our function(s) within it, the more likely we are to be able to come closer to realizing our potential.


----------



## blacknorth (Jun 16, 2010)

I would, tentatively, posit that it's all part of the same discussion - the OP linked to articles relating to private enterprise going into space, which inevitably raises the question of a division of spoils - space for profit - who stands to gain and who stands to lose.

I think that all scientific theories are linked to human behaviour - scientists are human beings and are conditioned by the kind of society they are born and educated in. That can't help but impact their thinking. An academic question would be - can a scientist from a closed, narrow, ideologically rigid society develop the scope and freedom of vision that might allow the development of a grand theory? Soviet scientists were often criticised for their ideologically correct findings. My own fear would be that scientific theory developed by the free market would always invariably be for the free market - at the very least an affirmation of it - and would designate the universe as property, specifically elite human property (reminded of John Boyd's Rakehells of Heaven). I can't regard capitalism as any less a construct than communism - it's certainly not fire or water as the neo-liberal consensus of the past 40 years would have us believe.

As for a conscience, I'm afraid I really have to disagree - hypocrisy is as powerful a force as ever, and the fact that many millions of people across the world survive on less than a dollar a day, compounded by the fact that millions of their fellow human beings are content to turn a blind eye so long as they have access to cheap clothes and gadgets, suggest to me that slavery is alive and flourishing and that we've simply changed its name, or compartmentalised it by continental shelf.


----------



## Ursa major (Jun 16, 2010)

blacknorth said:


> I would, tentatively, posit that it's all part of the same discussion - the OP linked to articles relating to private enterprise going into space, which inevitably raises the question of a division of spoils - space for profit - who stands to gain and who stands to lose.


The intention of the original post** was neither about the distribution of wealth on Earth, nor about how a major movement off the Earth might impact this. While you're right that the division of spoils is an issue, that wasn't the point scifi fan was making. I think there is more than enough on the points scifi fan _was_ making without veering off onto other aspects, which would be best left to another thread***. Best left, because most of this thread has not been arguing about what scifi fan said. We should go back to that, if only because I think scifi fan is misguided in his optimism.




** - Here's the original post, by the way.





Scifi fan said:


> The New York Times (NYT) recently has two articles on how private enterprise is going into space. The first talks of the Falcon 9 rocket successfully going into orbit, while the second talks of how a billionaire is preparing to put space habitats into orbit, to be leased for profit to other countries and companies. And everyone here of course knows of Virgin Galactic's preparation to send wealthy individuals into sub-orbit.
> 
> Actually, the NYT says the Falcon 9 rocket is the first private rocket to reach orbit, but that's not true - Boeing's sea launch facilities have been sending satellites into orbit.
> 
> ...



I would suggest that it is saying two things:
that there is a demand outside government to move into space and at least some degree of capability. (Although the evidence is limited, strictly speaking this is correct (as far as it goes).
This will somehow sort out environmental problems. This I think is questionable; more like we will increase the scope of our environmental impact.
 
*** - There's nothing stopping someone creating such a thread, though I imagine it would be more appropriately located in World Affairs than here in Science / Nature.


----------



## blacknorth (Jun 17, 2010)

Well, fair enough, Ursa, I'll leave it. But I feel it all depends on which part of SciFi Fan's original post presses your debating button. You picked out those matters most pertaining to you. For me, the phrases 'private enterprise' and 'no limits to growth' sparked my attention and drew me through to Chinook's and then JD's comments. 

And both are so engaging that it's hard not to hit the reply button.


----------



## j d worthington (Jun 17, 2010)

blacknorth said:


> Well, fair enough, Ursa, I'll leave it. But I feel it all depends on which part of SciFi Fan's original post presses your debating button. You picked out those matters most pertaining to you. For me, the phrases 'private enterprise' and 'no limits to growth' sparked my attention and drew me through to Chinook's and then JD's comments.
> 
> And both are so engaging that it's hard not to hit the reply button.


 
*chuckle* I think I'll take that as a compliment....

I think Big Bear pretty much said what I would have to reply when it comes to this sort of discussion being that closely related. It is related, but not actually germane to the apparent intent of SFF's post(s). (I also agree that it's a worthy discussion of its own, though it does belongin World Affairs rather than Science/Nature, because of its political, rather than scientific, focus.)





blacknorth said:


> As for a conscience, I'm afraid I really have to disagree - hypocrisy is as powerful a force as ever, and the fact that many millions of people across the world survive on less than a dollar a day, compounded by the fact that millions of their fellow human beings are content to turn a blind eye so long as they have access to cheap clothes and gadgets, suggest to me that slavery is alive and flourishing and that we've simply changed its name, or compartmentalised it by continental shelf.


 
I see what you are saying, and there is some truth to this. Yet as horrific as this situation is, it is not the same as slavery. Slavery is ownership of one human being by another; not being _treated_ as property, but _being_ property, to be bought and sold. It recognizes no ties or bonds save at the discretion of the slaveowner (at least in most cases) and with little or no recourse _even in theory_ for the slave. In some cases, the difference may seem a subtle one, but it is nonetheless a profound one. Ask anyone who has been a _bona fide_ slave.

And I think you belittle your fellow human beings a bit too much with that last statement. It is certainly not that they don't care or turn a blind eye; but rather that, as with so many things, they find themselves helpless to affect a change in the situation, and therefore cannot focus too much on it and continue to function in their own lives. While we all have responsibilities to our fellows, we also have a responsibilities to ourselves and our families, our employers, friends, etc., and to become so intent on conditions outside that sphere that we cannot fulfill those simply adds more injustice and suffering to the mix. (This is not to say that, where something can be done, it shouldn't be; but the reality of the situation is that, without either special circumstances or a great deal of training in various networks, there really _is_ little most people can do to alter these situations.)

Nonetheless, the human race, while by no means eliminating the many injustices, has in general improved vastly in comparison to our earlier history, where nearly all nations allowed, even encouraged, slavery; genocide was by no means frowned upon; and sectarian violence was the norm rather than the exception. Not to mention the often horrendously brutal treatment of women and children; the acceptance of high infant mortality and "childbed fever" deaths, with its attendant effects on how one's loved ones were often viewed -- knowing the likelihood that a child would not survive infancy made for a mixture of feelings and responses we in most modern societies can only dimly grasp. The plight of the laborer in the worst countries was, until recently, the plight of most laborers in nearly _all_.

So, yes, we have a very, very long way to go. But let's not deny the strides we have made to improve many of these situations, and the fact that humanitarianism (i.e., a conscience) has had much to do with that change.

However... this had best be where this part of the discussion ends _in this thread_; though, as U.M. has said, it is perfectly fine to begin a related thread on this topic over in W.A.....


----------



## iansales (Jun 17, 2010)

blacknorth said:


> I think that all scientific theories are linked to human behaviour - scientists are human beings and are conditioned by the kind of society they are born and educated in. That can't help but impact their thinking.



A scientific theory is "a comprehensive explanation of an important  feature of nature supported by facts gathered over time", according to the US National Academy of Sciences. IOW, the evidence leads to the theory. Certainly there have been classic cases of misinterpretation of data, but they're rare. So no, scientific theories are not the product of the social milieu of the scientists investigating them.


----------



## Ursa major (Jun 17, 2010)

blacknorth said:


> Well, fair enough, Ursa, I'll leave it. But I feel it all depends on which part of SciFi Fan's original post presses your debating button. You picked out those matters most pertaining to you.


I don't think so. Apart from anything else, I'm not someone who's particularly interested in the environment or "peak <put name of commodity here>". If I was, I'd have been posting early on page one of this thread.

However, now I'm here.... 

As I said in my previous post, scifi fan was suggesting that the move of humans into space would solve environmental problems. Now I'm not one of those folk who believe that everything humanity touches ends up being spoilt. I don't think, like the AIs in some SF stories, that humanity is an infection. I point this out because of what I'm about to say next. If you do have an infestation, one that causes damage, the traditional approach to solving it does not usually involve greatly increasing the number of infested locations. If we, as humans, cannot learn to live without despoiling where we live, moving some of us elsewhere is not going to be a solution. Perhaps there isn't a solution, and perhaps, as scifi fan suggests, we should fix something we perhaps can (the number of resources available to us), rather than one that may unfixable (human nature).

(I will say one thing about the space exploration versus human suffering debate. The problem is not resources, although putting more of them into mitigating suffering is no bad thing in itself. But mitigation, almost by definition, isn't really a solution. Giving a starving person a meal, while good in itself, does not put them in a state where they won't starve in the future. On the global scale, a few billion dollars here and there wil not solve the world's problems (although it can help in the short term). More profound solutions are required in those areas where human suffering is endemic.)

.


----------



## j d worthington (Jun 17, 2010)

I hadn't intended to post anything more on this aspect, but since discussion is still ongoing, I'll throw this out there. I don't know that much about them, so I'm not sure about the pros and cons, but from what little I _have_ gathered, this does sound like a worthy organization to address some of these problems:

YouTube - 24 hour Blogtv for MSF - 18 September (please mirror)

Médecins Sans Frontières - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRDvzG1sZHA&playnext_from=TL&videos=cka3S4IUWgE&feature=recentf


----------

