Thankful I'm in the winter of my life...

[newtie 533]

For those of you who don't mind puttin' in the work, Andew Bard Smookler's book, "The Parable of the Tribes" speaks to many of the posts in this thread in addition to the nagging "What the hell happened to us?" 

One main point he makes early on is that man's fundamental problems cannot be solved externally. How agriculture came back to bite us. Jared Diamond also talks to this here.

Fascinating book about human evolution and nature. Ain't no gettin' around it 😎

Cheers,

Mark

[birdguy 3,943]

 

To summarise, the arguments in support of more money being spent on space exploration are persuasive.  It is certainly true that further space exploration would bring many advantages; for example providing answers to the many questions we have surrounding our existence.  Are we alone in this universe? How did life begin? Why exactly did the dinosaurs become extinct? Is time travel possible? All part of the endless list of questions that comes with human curiosity.  Furthermore, it allows us to challenge the boundaries of what is known about the world we live in. Nevertheless, with such significant humanitarian issues occurring on our planet, more attention must be paid to these issues.  It is time to put an end to world problems like poverty. Even a fraction of the money spent annually on space exploration could save millions of people in poverty-stricken countries, and improve living conditions for future generations.  The foundations of the world we live in are largely based on science and it is indeed vital to extend our knowledge of the universe.  However, space exploration is not something we need in this very moment. We must prioritise the needs of our human race and only wholly concentrate on space exploration once there is a large improvement in the humanitarian issues Earth is currently facing.

The entire article: https://ysjournal.com/should-more-money-be-spent-on-space-exploration-rather-than-to-solve-humanitarian-problems-on-earth/

Noel 

 

[goates 576]

2 hours ago, birdguy said:

The entire article: https://ysjournal.com/should-more-money-be-spent-on-space-exploration-rather-than-to-solve-humanitarian-problems-on-earth/

An article that misrepresents the amount spent on NASA in the very first paragraph to look bad. Not a very convincing start.

I always find it interesting that NASA and space exploration always seem to be at, or very close to, the top of the list of things to cut in the name of solving poverty. Stopping the waste going on with military spending around the world would have a far bigger impact, both on not wasting money and maybe in having fewer weapons to kill each other with. Of course, there are also things like the billions that go into entertainment that just pile up in millionaire and billionaire bank accounts, many of which are hidden offshore to avoid taxes.

Space exploration has brought many good things and should be one of the last things to get cut.

Edited April 12, 2021 by goates

[birdguy 3,943]

39 minutes ago, goates said:

Stopping the waste going on with military spending around the world would have a far bigger impact, both on not wasting money and maybe in having fewer weapons to kill each other with.

I agree.

Ya know, on May 1st it will be the 18th anniversary if the infamous 'Mission Accomplished' speech.

Noel

Edited April 12, 2021 by birdguy

[WingZ 547]

 

From Live AId to the Gates' Foundation foray into Indian toilets, past experience shows that throwing money at the world's woes, will not necessarily solve them.
The issues are often cultural, or steeped in history, tradition, and sadly, avarice.   

[martin-w 3,235]

10 hours ago, birdguy said:

Even a fraction of the money spent annually on space exploration could save millions of people in poverty-stricken countries, and improve living conditions for future generations.

 

Cutting funding for space exploration isn't a valid argument though. The US military budget is $732 billion plus per year! NASA get $24 billion, and only 50% of NASA's budget it spent on space exploration, so only $12 billion and that's if they get the higher budget proposed by the new administration. The remainder is split between aeronautics, technology, climate change, research etc. And as already stated numerous times, SpaceX are a private company, they are spending their own money generated from Starlink to fund their endeavours in regard to the development of their space vehicle. 

Then we have to look at the beneficial  things that have come from space exploration....

 

• Improving health care. ...
• Protecting our planet and our environment. ...
• Creating scientific and technical jobs. ...
• Improving our day-to-day lives. ...
• Enhancing safety on Earth. ...
• Making scientific discoveries. ...
• Sparking youth's interest in science. ...
• Cooperating with countries around the world.

https://www.asc-csa.gc.ca/eng/about/everyday-benefits-of-space-exploration/default.asp

Not to mention a vast number of inventions and technologies that have benefited mankind, everything from Teflon to the cat scanner that saves lives. 

Below is some of them, there are literally hundreds of them. Fuel cells, cat scanners, the silicon chip, the list is endless. The numerous NASA satellites that monitor the Earth for research into climate change. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spinoff_technologies

Space exploration even does the very thing you say we should be doing instead...

Benefits of Exploration Crucial for Eradicating Poverty, Say Speakers, as Fourth Committee Takes up International Cooperation in Outer Space

https://www.un.org/press/en/2016/gaspd614.doc.htm

Edited April 12, 2021 by martin-w

[Reader 2,021]

4 hours ago, WingZ said:

The issues are often cultural, or steeped in history, tradition, and sadly, avarice.   

This is what is the matter with us and why we are on the path that we are following. However, given that knowledge, the same money can be used in a different way, to prevent it being syphoned off into pockets that do not deserve it. For example, taking the resources to where they are needed and building them, instead of sending the money and hoping that it is spent on what was intended.

These human "attributes" are by no means limited to the "third world", Western Europe is littered with grandiose schemes, funded by the "EU" but which in fact benefited only a few contractors and those who awarded the contracts. Here is one article on the subject: https://www.rfae.org/the-astonishing-abandoned-airports-in-spain/ and this one is linked: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/travel_news/article-2871476/Spanish-ghost-airport-cost-receive-flight-four-years-completion.html and here is a question in the EU Parliament: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-8-2015-000461_EN.html?redirect

Edited April 12, 2021 by Reader

[martin-w 3,235]

10 hours ago, birdguy said:

However, space exploration is not something we need in this very moment.

 

Yes we absolutely do. Again... a big rock could hit us any time. Could be tomorrow, could be next week, could be in 1000 years. But come it will. If we don't want our species to become extinct before it has had an opportunity to progress to the level of development you would be proud of, we need to be a wide spread species throughout the solar system.

Furthermore, we are running out of resources. And the asteroid belts are jam packed with vital resources and no life or environment there to mess up. Human society will come to an abrupt halt very soon unless we learn to mine the asteroids and keep this planet clear of the damage caused by mining this planet. As we speak, a mission to an asteroid worth $1 trillion dollars in vital resources is planned. 

 

Giant research efforts like the one that put a man on the moon produce the kinds of technology that can lift an economy and protect citizens in times of war or disaster.

Twentieth-century America owed much of its security and economic strength to national support for science and technology. Some of the most revolutionary (and marketable) technologies of the past decades have been spun off research done under the banner of US space exploration: kidney-dialysis machines, implantable pacemakers, affordable and accurate LASIK surgery, global-positioning satellites, corrosion-resistant coatings for bridges and monuments (including the Statue of Liberty), hydroponic systems for growing plants, collision-avoidance systems on aircraft, digital imaging, infrared handheld cameras, cordless power tools, athletic shoes, scratch-resistant sunglasses, virtual reality. 

https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/public-and-social-sector/our-insights/why-exploration-matters#

 

From Robert Zubrin

 

Quote

 

CMK: But why should we go and screw up another planet, when we haven't fixed the mess we made of this one?

RB: Some people compare humans landing on Mars to Europeans destroying the Native Americans, along with the bison and the redwood forests. And there’s no question that something precious was destroyed in that process. But if there had been nothing here when Columbus landed but a barren desert, and a bunch of rocks with some bacteria hidden under them, and people turned that into a continental nation of liberty with 1,000 universities and 100,000 used bookstores, would anybody be picketing Columbus Day parades today?

 

Quote

This planet is not little; it comes with an infinite sky. And if we’re not confined to this part of it, but have unlimited reach into all of space, then there’s no need to fight over this tiny corner of the universe

 

https://www.ttbook.org/interview/how-colony-mars-would-change-everything-earth

Edited April 12, 2021 by martin-w

[birdguy 3,943]

5 hours ago, martin-w said:

Benefits of Exploration Crucial for Eradicating Poverty, Say Speakers, as Fourth Committee Takes up International Cooperation in Outer Space

Yeah, right!  Sending 10 people to colonize Mars will eradicate poverty because 100 people won't be using up Earth's resources.

If only we could have sent people to Mars in the Middle Ages the cycle of poverty would have been broken long ago.

Noel

 

[birdguy 3,943]

Martin, you and I are polar opposites.  You love space.  I love the Earth.  You are a technocrat.  I am a Luddite.

Ever since I was a boy in my early teens and my Dad took me on my first backpacking trip into the High Sierras of California I have had a love affair with the wilderness and the living things in it.

When my children were toddlers we took them camping and when they were old enough to carry a sleeping bag we went back packing in the wilderness.

The wilderness, the earth, is my environment and I have absolutely no interest in space save that tiny bit I can fly a small airplane in and from where everything on the ground looks clean.

I eschew air travel for rail travel that hugs the ground and lets me see America close up rather than a movie at 35,000 feet.

We are all children of the earth.  And some of us love mother earth more than we love father space.

You are concerned with getting 100 or so people off a sick and dying planet.  I am concerned with healing our sick and dying planet.  

You say we can do both, but we are not doing both with equal fervor.  Granted our forever wars cost more than space travel does.  But to my mind we need to cut back on both and focus on repairing the planet.  Combating global warming and restoring forests and habitat.  To me that is a higher priority than putting people on Mars.

Only once we have a handle on global warming and have restored some of the natural habitat we have destroyed should we be thinking of colonizing Mars or some other planet where those inhabitants choose a fake environment over a natural one.

I would never give up my allegiance to America for, say, Norway or Brazil.  I would never give up my allegiance to the planet Earth, and the people you would to leave behind, for Mars. 

Everything dies.  That is the nature of things.  And some day the Earth will die.  That is the nature of things.  Eternal life is for theologians to ponder.  To my mind seeking it for a certain species of life is folly.

Once I was assisting the refuge biologist trapping and banding field mice.  On the way back to the headquarters we passed a pond where a duck was at the edge of the water struggling with something.  The biologist thought it might be stuck in sme brush or something.  But when we got there we saw that a snapping turtle had it by the leg and was trying to drag it into the water.  So the biologist just left it as it was saying that was the nature of things and we should not interfere.  Was it cruel to leave that duck to a certain death?  No, that was nature at work.  And the natural fate of mankind should not be tampered with.

Yesterday someone who is following tis thread but not participating e-mailed me asking why I don't like people implying that I would rather see them die in a fiery ball of flame than send a few of them to Mars.  It's not that I don't like people, I like people as individuals.  I am disappointed in the human race.  I hate man's inhumanity to his own kind.  It has been going on since man discovered he cold kill his fellow man with a rock or a club and our wars can do it on an unimanageableble scale.  Should we be taking this to new worlds?

Of course you have a different mindset.  Martin is Martin, and Noel is Noel, and never the twain shall meet.

Noel

 

 

Edited April 12, 2021 by birdguy

[martin-w 3,235]

8 minutes ago, birdguy said:

Martin, you and I are polar opposites.  You love space.  I love the Earth.  You are a technocrat.  I am a Luddite.

 

Nope, I love space AND the Earth. We don't have to be one or the other. I also love the huge benefits to society that have come from space exploration. See previous list. 

 

15 minutes ago, birdguy said:

I have had a love affair with the wilderness and the living things in it.

 

Same for me. 

 

16 minutes ago, birdguy said:

We are all children of the earth.  And some of us love mother earth more than we love father space.

 

I love mother Earth too and space. This planet isn't the only thing that the universe created. And our endeavours in space actually help the environment you and me love. NASA's Earth  Observation satellites are orbiting above us as we speak, helping us to learn more about, and combat, climate change, for example. 

 

20 minutes ago, birdguy said:

You are concerned with getting 100 or so people off a sick and dying planet.  I am concerned with healing our sick and dying planet.

 

No I'm not.

I'm concerned about healing our "sick and dying" planet too. And if we cant heal our "sick and dying" planet we need to have an alternative plan. Unlike you (if we cant mitigate environmental issues) I don't believe in giving up and letting the species and all its history die. And whether our planet is sick or dying or not, a planet killing asteroid doesn't care, it will still wipe us out. Hence, why it makes sense to have an insurance policy.

 

30 minutes ago, birdguy said:

Granted our forever wars cost more than space travel does.  But to my mind we need to cut back on both and focus on repairing the planet.  .

 

As I said previously, the amount of money we spend on space exploration is a pittance compared with the amount we spend on other endeavours. Cutting back on space exploration will have no impact whatsoever. What it would do though is take away the myriad of benefits that are gained from space exploration. You wouldn't even have the very silicone chip in the PC you are using now if it wasn't for space exploration. (see previous post and links) And I've said quite a few time now, SpaceX are using their own money to develop their spaceship that will take us to Mars. Clearly, as a company, they are not in a position to donate billions of dollars to an environmental charity or their company would cease to exist. 

 

45 minutes ago, birdguy said:

 

 

 

Quote

Combating global warming and restoring forests and habitat.  To me that is a higher priority than putting people on Mars

 

I'm glad you support our efforts to mitigate climate change. You will know from the many arguments I have had on this forum with climate change deniers that its an important priority for me. But again, we CAN do both, We already are doing both. Its not about money. There is an abundance of money already available for research and action on climate change.

We are getting into the political sphere now so this topic is heading into risky territory, but its actually about political will not money. Its about not having a system in certain nations that supports legalised bribery, with fossil fuel companies and other polluting industries being allowed to fund politicians. Politicians will procrastinate, will hold back, will outright deny when they are being funded by that industry. 

 

Quote

Only once we have a handle on global warming and have restored some of the natural habitat we have destroyed should we be thinking of colonizing Mars or some other planet where those inhabitants choose a fake environment over a natural one.

 

Again, one doesn't depend on the other. Funding space exploration does not automatically defund our efforts to clean up the planet. You are barking up the wrong tree. There's a ton of research funding currently available for climate change. Its THE hot topic. THE main concern amongst academics. 

And again, the big rock heading our way, or the plasma that gets puked out of the sun, or the super volcano about to erupt, or the pandemic our drugs don't work for, or the threat from over population, or the lack of resources.... doesn't care that we have waited a bit longer to fix climate change first.

 

54 minutes ago, birdguy said:

 I would never give up my allegiance to the planet Earth, and the people you would to leave behind, for Mars. 

 

 What good is your allegiance to the planet when a mega sized asteroid has rendered it a lifeless rock? 

As for leaving people behind. That often happens in a major disaster. If a colony on Mars existed and is flourishing and then the big rock hits the Earth, and survivors are asking for assistance, I'm pretty sure any Mars colony would render that assistance and take as many people as they could. Just like we do now when there's a disaster. But here's the thing... by building not just a Mars colony, but a Moon colony too, and colonies throughout the solar system, we would have enough capacity to save all it was possible to save. 

Thus, again, its imperative for our future survival that we have, not just a Mars colony, but a multitude of colonies in the solar system. Why I referredd previously to "multiplanetary". 

 

1 hour ago, birdguy said:

 Eternal life is for theologians to ponder.  To my mind seeking it for a certain species of life is folly.

 

Nobody said anything about eternal life. Just using our common sense and exercising our instinct for self preservation that nature gave us. Its dumb not too. 

But again, its not just about existential threats. The resources on this planet are finite. We must explore space and mine the asteroids, if we are to have the raw materials to survive as a species. And that's better than mining this planet and polluting it is it not? You must agree, I would have thought. And to do that requires space exploration and technology. 

 

Meanwhile SN15 is on the pad, ready for its next test flight. 

 

 

[birdguy 3,943]

I would rather see people panting trees in clearcut areas like this.  I am not enamored with rockets. 

Edited April 12, 2021 by birdguy

[birdguy 3,943]

36 minutes ago, martin-w said:

Its about not having a system in certain nations that supports legalised bribery, with fossil fuel companies and other polluting industries being allowed to fund politicians. Politicians will procrastinate, will hold back, will outright deny when they are being funded by that industry. 

I would rather direct my energies into changing this than putting 100 people into a colony on Mars.

Noel

[birdguy 3,943]

1 hour ago, martin-w said:

You wouldn't even have the very silicone chip in the PC you are using now if it wasn't for space exploration.

Wrong!  I looked up integrated circuits on Wiki and the silicon chip was developed by Fairchild for communications application.  They were looking for a vacuum tube replacement.  The first transistor was developed by Bell Labs in 1947, ten years before Sputnik went into orbit beginning the space program.  Before that rockets and missiles were developed for weapons systems.  The space program certainly used the microchips as  they were being developed, but the space program didn't provide the need.  Communications programs provided the need first.

You guys who dote on space seem to think every bit of technology and medicine we have now was due to the space program.  That simply isn't true.  The space program wasn't alone in pointing out the needs for new technology.   

Noel 

[martin-w 3,235]

2 hours ago, birdguy said:

Wrong!  I looked up integrated circuits on Wiki and the silicon chip was developed by Fairchild for communications application.

 

I didn't say the silicone chip was invented FOR the space program and and not in existence before!

The early chips were untested. Plus the unreliability was unknown. The Apollo program pushed the technology ahead. And in fact, silicon valley owes a lot to the fact that the Apollo program utilised the MIT guidance computer design. 

Doesn't matter though, the point I was making stands. There are a vast number of technologies developed as a result of the space program. Again... take a look at the links I gave you and the list of beneficial technologies that have resulted from the space program. There are hundreds of them. Do you deny that? 

 

2 hours ago, birdguy said:

You guys who dote on space seem to think every bit of technology and medicine we have now was due to the space program.

 

Why do you type this stuff. Utterly false and again, rather rude. Please be respectful Noel or you and I will fall out. I do NOT believe every bit of technology and medicine was due to the space program, how utterly ridiculous. I have given you  links were there are lists of the technologies that DID come from the space program. Do I have to post them, all over again. My point stands, and you know it does. 

 

Quote

What was more, the designers of the computer, at the MIT Instrumentation Laboratory, decided to build the computer using the newly-invented integrated circuit, or silicon “chip” as we now know it. That seems obvious in retrospect, as today we enjoy the fruits of integrated circuit technology in our consumer devices. But in the early 1960s, when this decision was made, the chip was untested, and its reliability was a large unknown.

 

Quote

The Apollo contract was not the sole reason for the transformation of the Valley, but it was a major factor. 

 

https://airandspace.si.edu/stories/editorial/apollo-guidance-computer-and-first-silicon-chips

 

Quote

This short article discusses the integrated circuits in the Apollo manned lunar landing program.
The Apollo program played an integral part in helping establish the world market for IC’s.

 

https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/apollo-ic.html

How NASA gave birth to modern computing—and gets no credit for it

https://www.fastcompany.com/90362753/how-nasa-gave-birth-to-modern-computing-and-gets-no-credit-for-it

The Apollo computer tech revolution. Apollo spacecraft computers pioneered chips in smart tech

https://www.raytheon.com/news/feature/future-was-now

Edited April 12, 2021 by martin-w