|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Scott Lowther wrote:
I had a boss who one time stated, and not without reason, that males of the species are driven largely by three goals: 1: Money Hmm. Then I must belong to some other species. I like money insofar as it can help me accomplish other things, like space exploration. Money is largely a means, rather than ultimate end in itself. 2: Pussy That's pretty high on the list. I have several females in my life who are out-and-proud bisexuals who would put it high in their lists as well. However, for a close relationship, personality matters more to me than anything else. Wild sex is wonderful, but believe it or not, I need love and romance in my life as well. 3: Power There is broad overlap uniting these three categories. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Stephen Horgan wrote:
On 20 May 2005 04:16:06 -0700, wrote: John Ordover claims that, "Exploration is only done for a profit motive." Sensible chap. Try 'senseless'. Exploration is obviously not done only for a profit motive. There have been explorers for whom profit was not even the principal goal, or any goal. Even when it is a goal, it is not necessarily the only goal. Many explorers seek profit, adventure, exploration for its own sake, and/or any number of other aims. Consider the famous Meriwether Lewis. In his book *Undaunted Courage*, Stephen Ambrose describes him thusly: "He had an endearing sense of wonder and awe at the marvels of nature that made him the nearly perfect man to be the first to describe the glories of the American West." Lewis was not a broke man looking to strike it rich. At age 18, he had already inherited nearly 2,000 acres of land, 520 pounds in cash, and 24 slaves. Exploration was often tempting to adventurous plantation owners who were *already* wealthy. "Not all men were content with or pursued the plantation life, and like Lewis, many sought adventure." http://www.pbs.org/lewisandclark/inside/idx_cir.html Paul Hermann, in *Conquest of Man*, writes that "[M]en like Marco Polo...sought adventure for adventure's sake, because it represented self-affirmation and self-enhancement." Note that it says "sought adventure," not "sought to make a profit." What planet is Mr. Ordover from, anyway? I must hail from some other universe! All my life, I've enjoyed exploration for exploration's sake. To explore appeals to my deep sense of wonder; no financial profit is necessary (even if it can be nice). Many things are fun. However, exploration will not command significant resources without a prospect of a return on that commitment. Perhaps Mr. Ordover is a troll; he certainly comes across like one. But he is far from the only person to make such statements. If only. There is indeed a tendency among many to pretend that only *profit* motivates anyone to do anything. I doubt if that was the point that he is making. Your choice of breakfast cereal, for example, was probably not made in the expectation of economic benefit. Joseph Wang writes that "none of the early European explorers or the governments that financed them were really interested in abstract knowledge or for a sense of adventure. They were in it to get filthy rich from the spice trade." Steve Stirling concurs: "Exploration for its own sake was a later development -- after generations of unbelievable success had taught Europeans that finding things out about remote places was always a Very Good Thing." These sound like sound analysis. Hardly. Exploration to remote parts of the Earth has been extremely expensive for most of human history, Exploratory expeditions throughout history have greatly varied in expense. Even if we pretend such exploration has always been extremely expensive, that does not demonstrate that "exploration is only done for a profit motive." It wasn't, and isn't. with little apparent prospect of any benefit beyond giving the immediate explorers a tourist experience. The thrill, adventure, and wonder of going where others have never been is no "little" prospect. Exploration, real exploration, has been and is fantastically expensive. Exploration is exploration, not what you want to redefine it as. For governments it represents hard choices not to provide for their own people, for private individuals it threatens bankruptcy. Comparing it to a walk in the woods is fatuous. Children who explore the woods show the same impulse to explore as the great explorers who likewise, often sought adventure. Throughout history, many private explorers never went bankrupt. The American government, for example, spends hundreds of billions on wars that bring no material benefit to the average American. There is no record of a major Roman expedition performed solely for a sense of wonder. There is every reason to believe that many Roman explorers were motivated in part by a sense of wonder and adventure. To pretend otherwise is to deny that the Romans were human. And that hasn't been sufficient for any significant progress post the moon landings. There has been further progress, and it's only been a few decades. The question is not whether the wonder of exploration exists but whether it is sufficient to find the many billions of USD required for a serious space exploration programme. 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. As for the "many billions in USD," America already spends that on wars that bring no material profit to the typical American citizen. Somehow I don't see you being too concerned about the federal budget. Instead, you appear to be biased against manned space exploration for your own reasons. Catherine Hampton says it best: "It's as if an art lover had to explain his love for Michangelo's David to someone who saw sculpture as nothing but shaped rocks." So, people who disagree with you are deficient in some way? That is a weak and insulting argument. Isn't it "insulting" for you to dismiss my argument as "weak?" One poster to rasf writes, "Curiosity, like gravity, is a weak force - it does its work slowly. But like gravity, it is a force which cannot be denied." It certainly can. Note the absences of a moonbase or a Mars landing, despite both having been on the drawing board for decades. So you do deny that there is a sense of wonder in exploration. Why not just admit that you're against it (for whatever reason), rather than pretending to be concerned with the federal budget. The US government has a manned Mars mission planned for the relatively near future. Many other countries are also involved in space activities. Then there's the ISS. Private individuals are building spaceships and traveling into orbit, with plans to go beyond. It would be better if you stopped categorising people who disagree with you and started considering their arguments. Categories can be useful when they are accurate. It is a fact that most, or maybe all, of the documented journeys of real exploration in human history had economic incentives. Pretending otherwise is ridiculous. To the contrary. It's ridiculous to pretend that "most, or maybe all" exploration in human history had economic incentives. We know for a fact that "all" is definitely not the case, based on what explorers themselves have said and continue to say. Yet you continue to pretend otherwise. You are living in a fantasy world. Private space developer Burt Rutan points out that "for decades informed adults have taken treks to the top of Everest, even though more than 10 percent of those who've reached the summit have died on the mountain." How do you explain that kind of adventuring by *profit motive*? Clearly, people like you and Clough are out of touch with reality. There *is* a human need to explore. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message
oups.com... Stephen Horgan wrote: On 20 May 2005 04:16:06 -0700, wrote: John Ordover claims that, "Exploration is only done for a profit motive." Sensible chap. Try 'senseless'. Exploration is obviously not done only for a profit motive. Why has evolution imbued you with an instinct for exploration if it does not profit by it? Pete. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Pete Lynn wrote:
Try 'senseless'. Exploration is obviously not done only for a profit motive. Why has evolution imbued you with an instinct for exploration if it does not profit by it? Because if you can convince yourself that evolution demands it, you don't actually have to provide a real justification. For his next lesson, 'alr' should explain why something that is (let's assume) driven by someone's biology should therefore be considered desirable, or something that should receive general support. As an example, he should consider the case of biologically based drives to commit rape or pedophilia. I do have a biological theory about people who are so fired up about getting off planet. They tend to be reproductively unsuccessful young males. The urge dies away as they get older or have children. Paul |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Pete Lynn wrote: wrote in message oups.com... Stephen Horgan wrote: On 20 May 2005 04:16:06 -0700, wrote: John Ordover claims that, "Exploration is only done for a profit motive." Sensible chap. Try 'senseless'. Exploration is obviously not done only for a profit motive. Why has evolution imbued you with an instinct for exploration if it does not profit by it? Pete. I was referring to economic profit. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Paul F. Dietz wrote:
Pete Lynn wrote: Try 'senseless'. Exploration is obviously not done only for a profit motive. Why has evolution imbued you with an instinct for exploration if it does not profit by it? Because if you can convince yourself that evolution demands it, you don't actually have to provide a real justification. That the human need to explore probably has evolutionary roots is merely an observation. I don't need it for a justification. The fact that space is an amazing frontier filled with knowledge waiting to be discovered through grand adventure, is justification enough. However, the evolutionary drive could easily offer yet another justification. As I explain below, serious problems can result when one's basic drives are stifled. For his next lesson, 'alr' should explain why something that is (let's assume) driven by someone's biology should therefore be considered desirable, or something that should receive general support. As an example, he should consider the case of biologically based drives to commit rape or pedophilia. Rape and violent pedophilia become more common when the natural sex drive is repressed. They are not basic drives so much as perversions thereof, resulting from repression. Likewise, stagnation sets in when the natural drive to explore is repressed. If your attitude had prevailed from the beginning, we'd literally still be living in caves. Let that be *your* lesson. I do have a biological theory about people who are so fired up about getting off planet. They tend to be reproductively unsuccessful young males. The urge dies away as they get older or have children. Paul Add ignorant sexism to Paul's list of vices. I personally know women who are just as fired up about space exploration as myself, including my girlfriend. There is nothing exclusively masculine about being enthralled by the wonders of our universe; many women are just as interested. I am not particularly young; neither are most space enthusiasts that I know. Few, if any, private space developers are young, and most that I know of have families. As usual, your assertions are as unfounded as they are idiotic. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Well, first of all, I've been off this topic, having said what I wanted
to say, for over a year. But here we go again.... First, a definition of "exploration" is in order. By "exploration" I mean not merely searching around your local area in search of resources - everyone who has ever needed firewood or gone hunting has done that. We're talking about an organized, extremely expensive and risky mission involving a huge investment of resources, not one person wandering around near their house. Plus, if I may point out, as a kid you were well fed without working for it, you had a roof over your head without working for it, you had excellent medical care, or were at least aware that a broken bone or cut arm wouldn't turn septic and kill you - etc. etc. The "exploration" you describe involved incredibly minimal risk. But being curious about your surroundings and exploration are two different things. Humans do not have a drive to explore; they have a drive to better themselves economically - and not in a limited monetary sense. The drive is to move to where resources are better. When it gets too crowded in one area, enough people pull up stakes and move five miles down way (note that this continues in what is called "Suburban Sprawl"). Recent anthropological evidence indicates that this is how homo sapiens settled the world - people constantly moving to the edge of the current civilization to get more room. In that sense, we have a drive to move on to unspoiled ground where the hunting and gathering is better because there aren't as many people. Those talking about exploring space -in corpus- have to deal with the unpleasant reality that -we have already explored it virtually - and there are no resources there that would pay back the expense of going there to get them and bring them back, and not even any place to put down stakes and start a new civilization. Space Opera - including Star Trek - has several unmentioned assumptions within it, of which I'll mention two: 1) the space travel is cheap and 2) that there is something out there worth brining home and someplace that may be rough to live on, but is habitable for a rugged adventurer - Mars has a thin atmosphere, Venus is a water world - all sort of scenarios of that kind inside and outside of our solar system. But we've -been- to the Moon in corpus, we've -been- to Mars, we've been to Venus - virtually - they've all been explored in fantastic detail.. One way or another, we've already explored our local area and are expanding outward within the solar system - and it's cost us a pretty penny to do. Sadly, as it turns out, we're already on the only good plot of land around. As for what we might find out there" - if there isn't a civilization to trade with - and if there is, it's hiding - then there are no manufactured goods on, say, Mars, to bring back (and the plans for such could be sent far more simply than the objects anyway) so we know -exactly- what we'll find on Mars - all you have to do is read the periodic table of the elements - that's the shopping list. Find anything on there worth billions to bring back from Mars? We've sent out robotic advance scouts. They "came back" with the information that there's nothing but a frozen desert in all directions. So what's the motivation? Just to play tourist? Is that worth billions? That said, feel free to wander off the Earth on foot-power any time you like (joke, not an insult) at a cost of nothing. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
"Logan Kearsley" wrote in message news:8oyje.1099$Rp1.534@trnddc08... "Jim Davis" wrote in message . 247.90... Logan Kearsley wrote: Give me a method of contributing to the heavy lifting, and I'll do it myself. *Give* you a method? You want to get into space in the worst way, don't you? As in 'inform me of what I can do to help', not 'donate oodles of cash'. Sure. Get a job at a company working to "open the final frontier". Heck, volunteer to update their webpage so they can attract more people with money! Get an aerospace degere so you can do orbital mechanics for them or design their craft. Get a business degree so you can manage their books. Read up on the history of suit design and develop a better one. There are some ideas. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Celestron Celestar C8 Dec Drive Motor / Hand Controller | dean | UK Astronomy | 3 | January 15th 05 12:27 AM |
Mars Exploration Rover Update - November 8, 2004 | Ron | Astronomy Misc | 0 | November 9th 04 05:13 PM |
Getting a Edmund 6 newt clock drive to work | robertebeary | Amateur Astronomy | 0 | June 23rd 04 05:07 AM |
Problems with Celestron 11" Ultima clock drive | Charles Burgess | Amateur Astronomy | 0 | June 20th 04 11:51 PM |
Spirit Ready to Drive Onto Mars Surface | Ron | Astronomy Misc | 0 | January 15th 04 04:09 PM |