the drive to explore

marc_CH wrote:
In article
wrote...

To the contrary, some people in this group claim that there is no
wonder or adventure in exploration. For example, Brenda Clough has
claimed that people have never explored for any reason other than
Money, God, and/or Country.

Let us not forget science.

Or boredom.

marc

Curiosity/exploration is a human drive. When this drive is stifled,
boredom can result.

Nah, even with a dire pathogen, it would -still- be cheaper, faster,
and simpler to build seal habitats on Earth than in space.

Um - you say that your curiosity to explore outranks all your other
desires, and that you are serious about it. Yet you have a job, a roof
over your head, you clearly have access to an internet connection, and
I doubt you are worried about where your next meal is coming from.

So if you want to be convincing, quit your job, sell everything you
own, and spend all the money exploring places on the Earth rarely
explored (at the very least) such as the Austrailian Outback, which is
far more habitable than space but has not been colonized to any great
extent because of a lack of water.

If it's space or nothing, then you should be willing to put every dime
you have into space travel possibilities, never mind food, comfort,
housing, etc. etc.

Remember I'm not making this odd claim that your curiosity to explore
outweighs all your other needs; you did. But you're sure not acting
like it. You're acting like it's a hobby you enjoy doing once in a
while, knowing you have a warm bed to come home to at the end of the
trip.

In article .com,
wrote:
Um - you say that your curiosity to explore outranks all your other
desires, and that you are serious about it. Yet you have a job, a roof
over your head, you clearly have access to an internet connection, and
I doubt you are worried about where your next meal is coming from.

Well, if he was worried about his next meal or shelter, then surely
exploration wouldn't be his greatest concern, yes?


--
An experiment in publishing:
http://www.ethshar.com/thesprigganexperiment0.html
The All-New, All-Different Howling Curmudgeons!
http://www.whiterose.org/howlingcurmudgeons

Look, the real point here is that -we have already explored the solar
system- and -there is nothing there worth going there in person to look
at or to bring back-. What exploring -haven't- we done that you feel
we should have? Exploring does -not- mean having to go there in person
- that's being a tourist, not doing exploration.

I'm all in favor of continuing exploration and gathering scientific
data per the following plan: Place sensor satelites around every major
object of interest in the solar system (insert your own definition of
object of interest here). If the sat scanners pick up anything
particularly interesting, send a lander as follow-up. If the lander
finds anything particularly interesting, send a retrieval mission.
Only then, if what's been found is incredibly motivating, such as life
forms would be, consider sending a manned mission.

I can learn all I need to about the Austrailian Outback from planted
sensors and satelite scans - I don't have to actually go there to find
out it's an almost waterless desert and a poor place for habitation.
However, if a stegosaurs walks by the camera, I'd be there in a shot.


You'll get a whole lot more exploring done for a lot smaller
expenditure of resources using the above plan. Plus we have a pretty
good record of actually doing the satelite scanning thing and a shaky
but okay record of sending down landers. So not only is this within
our budget, it's within our ability to get things done. Plus it
doesn't risk anyone's life unless there is some really good reason to
take the chance.

Science Fiction writers are aware they are writing science fiction, and
they are aware they are making huge numbers of unproven assumptions
(the most common of which is FTL travel). Heck, it is only in the last
decade, give or take, that we have confirmed that other stars actually
have planets orbiting them - until then, it was just a bet that our
solar system wasn't unique. Almost all science fiction assumes
breakthroughs in technology that are not currently within our even
theoretical reach - and almost all of the assumed technologies reduce
the cost of space travel to a trivial amount, asume "magic" trade goods
like Dilithium or Spice, etc. etc. Science Fiction writers are the
first ones to tell you that this stuff is made up.

But you don't spend your life exploring - you spend it talking about
exploring, far as I can tell. Have you quit your job and sold
everything you own to go off exploring full-time? Nah. I'm betting
you have a job and a house or apt and certainly an internet connection
and don't worry about your next meal - exploring isn't your passion,
it's a hobby. Your words and deeds show that you have no interest in
in any way discomforting yourself to explore - you may go exploring in
already covered territory, but you know you can always call for help
and will wind up at home in a soft bed. You're actually making my
point every time you post here, becuase the money you spend on an
internet connection, the time you spend posting here, could be spent
exploring instead.

You make the excuse that the Earth has been explored to death already,
so unless you can get into space, there's nothing to explore. Sorry,
but 4/5ths of the Earth is covered by water and the vast majority of
that is unexplored in corpus. There are huge stretches of land in
Africa, in South America, and in Austrailia that haven't been explored
-in-corpus-. Get a degree in an appropriate field and you'll even have
the expenses for your trip covered.

Are you doing any of that? No, you're too busy arguing aobut how much
exploring means to you on the internet.

And let me remind you that I hadn't posted on this group for what -
over a year? And that you not only posted a reply to my long-ago
postings, but emailed me your response and gave me directions on the
best way to respond to this thread - seems a bit hypocritical to call
me out and then call me a troll.



John

On 21-May-2005, "Paul F. Dietz" wrote:

After any reasonably plausible disaster, Earth is still
more habitable than any place in space would be.


Nova?

Not plausible. We know what causes novas. The sun
can't go nova.

OK, some type of solar flare.

On 21-May-2005, "Paul F. Dietz" wrote:

Nova?

Not plausible. We know what causes novas. The sun
can't go nova.

Can a near enough star do significant damage to life on Earth?

wrote:
On 21-May-2005, "Paul F. Dietz" wrote:


After any reasonably plausible disaster, Earth is still
more habitable than any place in space would be.


Nova?

Not plausible. We know what causes novas. The sun
can't go nova.


OK, some type of solar flare.

Sorry, that wouldn't do it either.

Paul

wrote:

Not plausible. We know what causes novas. The sun
can't go nova.


Can a near enough star do significant damage to life on Earth?

Not any nova. A gamma ray burster pointed right in our direction
might, but it affects all the planets (and the space colonies).

Paul