the drive to explore

: "Pete Lynn"
: Why has evolution imbued you with an instinct for exploration if it does
: not profit by it?

Supposing that "drive to explore" is an adaptive trait, and not just
a side-effect of an adaptive trait at best, is sort of like asking
"why did you stop kicking that puppy".

Seems to me I recall several good examples (presented by Gould I think)
where one of the evolutionary "just so" stories about How Humans Got
their Spots (or whathaveyou) turns out to be just that; confabulated
stories/myths. But sadly, I can't call one to mind just now. Probably
some of the social-darwinism pop-sci stuff from a while back.

But whether I can remember the specific cases or not, I remain skeptical
when people come up with wonderful little explanations of why this or that
personality trait is as it is because of evolutionary manifest destiny.

But I'm not bitter; no, I'm not bitter.


Wayne Throop http://sheol.org/throopw

"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" wrote in message
...

"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.

On track to eventually do both.

Get a business degree so you can manage their books.

ehhh... I think I'll take staying on Earth over being bored out of my skull.
(No offense intended to those who do actually find that kind of thing
interesting.)

Read up on the history of suit design and develop a better one.

Done it. Well, the reading up bit, and fiddling around with different
designs, anyway; actually completing, prototyping, and testing one is
slightly outside of my current capacity.

There are some ideas.

-l.
------------------------------------
My inbox is a sacred shrine, none shall enter that are not worthy.

On 21 May 2005 02:00:18 -0700, wrote:

Stephen Horgan wrote:
On 20 May 2005 04:16:06 -0700, wrote:

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.

Let us not forget science.

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.

The US government spends on wars in order to keep its people alive and
prosperous, in that order. As for manned space exploration, I want to
see it happen, but the wonder of exploration won't be nearly enough.


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?"

Your argument is weak but I don't think you are deficient for it. On
the other hand you appear to think that anyone with the temerity not
to instantly agree with you is flawed as a human being.


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.

Because I am not against it. I am also British, and couldn't care less
about the Federal budget. However, if you think the people that do are
going to give up other things then you will need more than a sense of
wonder. The moon landing was in 1969, you know. Things appear to have
slowed down since then.

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.

We shall see if the Mars mission survives the political dance required
to take it off the drawing board. In general, orbital space is being
exploited on the back of real commercial activity in the provision of
satellites. This had driven down the cost of reaching orbit and driven
out the skills that are required into a developed industry. The ISS
and so on represents an expression of the scientific and strategic
aims of governments.

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.

Dismissing anything that you don't like on the basis that anyone who
says something you don't like is subhuman is irrational.

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.

Look past the explorers to the people that funded them and the reasons
why. Lewis and Clark were funded by the US government you know.

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.

People do all sorts of dangerous things for fun and the main reason
why people go up Everest in numbers is primarily because, today, you
can. Comparing that to equipping Columbus's expedition or landing on
Tharsis is peas against pumpkins.
--
Stephen Horgan

"intelligent people will tend to overvalue intelligence"

lclough wrote:
wrote:



Do you think the Apollo missions were motivated *solely* by
nationalism, to the exclusion of the sense of wonder, exploration,
fascination with the unknown, etc.?




The -money was invested- solely for other reasons.

Partly, yes. Solely, no.

Remember
Kennedy's speech? It was in reply to the Russians' space
achievements to date. If the Russians had spent their money on
vodka and suntan lotion in the 50s the United States would not
have put one thin dime into NASA.

Space exploration still would happen, with or without NASA.

Consider:

1) The billions that Americans have spent and continue to spend on
science fiction, in part based on their sense of wonder, fascination
with the unknown, and desire to adventure;
2) The private space entrepreneurs, such as Burt Rutan, who are driven
in large part by adventure-seeking and fascination with the great
beyond (in Rutan's words, "it's mostly about fun").
3) The fact that before NASA, the Soviets were already exploring space.
They weren't trying to one-up anyone; they were the *first*. According
to many Russians themselves, there was a sense of wonder and desire for
scientific advancement involved.


And on this one we have some historical proof. Consider the
present day: the Chinese are thinking about a moon shot. They
announced it. Americans continue debating the guilt of Michael
Jackson.

Americans are also funding space exploration, both privately and
publicly.

Why are we not stoking up a major space effort in
reply, as we did in the 60s?

We are, but not just in reply, but also because people are fascinated.
There is a manned Mission to Mars coming up which will cost billions.
And we've already been spending billions of space exploration. Did you
miss Spirit and Opportunity?

I ask again: if people aren't fascinated with the unknown, and willing
to invest their money, why do they buy sci-fi and fantasy? Both genres
tap into exactly that fascination.

Sci-fi and fantasy novels and RPGs tap into this sense of wonder with
the unknown. Sure, they represent an escape, but it's an escape into an
unknown world for the player to explore. There is typically a great
deal of emphasis on exploration and discovery. This is why
sci-fi/fantasy worlds are usually so detailed, including histories and
maps and so on. That's one reason authors engage in worldbuilding: "if
you build it, they will come." They come to explore, because they are
fascinated. This all taps into the human fascination with the unknown,
and your apparent inability to see this is a mystery in itself.

NASA relies partly on popular support, and if people weren't fascinated
with the great beyond, that support would be much weaker.

It is because space is no longer
an arena of competition. Competition is now dirtside, in
textile exports, automobiles and software.

Space absolutely *is* an arena of competition. What do you call the
X-Prize?

"From the folks who organized the competition that led to the world's
first private human spaceflight now comes the X Prize Cup, planned to
be an annual showcase of commercial space ventures, with a debut
exhibition slated for October."

http://tech.monstersandcritics.com/n...he_X_Prize_Cup

The Ansari X-Prize for $10 million (claimed by Burt Rutan et al) is a
serious number that represents real competition.

I say again: offer one example of major national assets
invested in exploration, that do not involve political,
religious, or monetary gain. I offered one: Alexander, which is
dubious simply because of the thinness of the historical record.

National assets typically come from multiple hands, both "public" and
"private." As a result, national projects are rarely monocausal. When
something is financed on a national scale, you're usually going to have
multiple sources of finance. There are as many motivations as the
financiers who are involved. Some will be motivated by fascination with
the unknown; some by profit motive; some by nationalism or religion,
some by a combination of these factors, and so on.

Meriwether Lewis was clearly motivated, in part, by a sense of
adventure. He left behind his wealthy plantation so he could satisfy
his fascination with the unknown. Other members of his entourage had
varied motivations, with wonder and adventure prominent among them.
They spent time, money, and often blood in pursuit of this adventure.

Lewis and gang were far from rare in this regard.

I'll say it again: as a sci-fi writer, you should be the last person to
discount this fascination with the unknown. It has been and continues
to be an *important* motive behind exploration.

If everyone simply found the unknown to be deadly dull, space
exploration would get far less funding. The masses would have far less
interest, and their representatives would be far less likely to
appropriate money for space exploration.

(And -is- it exploration, when you are going to a place where
there are millions of people?

Um... if not, then most of the great exploration throughout history has
not been exploration. Erikson, Columbus, Lewis, Clark, etc. -- most of
the greatest explorers in history -- were not explorers. *Of course* it
is exploration.

Even if there is native life on Alpha Centauri, the first humans to go
there will indeed be explorers.

Robert Kolker wrote:
lclough wrote:



OTOH, that fact is not exactly unknown now. For a mere $25K or so
anybody can sign up for an expedition to the top of Everest. Blind,
overweight, handicapped -- it can and has been done. In fact one of
the main problems with climbing Everest is bringing the trash down.
For a while the place was looking like a garbage dump.


Two points:

1 current crop of climbers have life-support equipment, including oxygen
tents and breathing apparatus.

2. I concur with you about the mess. I think the expeditions should be
required by the local government to pack their trash and bring it away
for proper disposal. It is a disgrace. Mt. Everest is looking more like
a used oxygen tank display than a Challenge. Eventually the weight of
all those oxygen tanks will cause the mountain to collapse.

Bob Kolker


And I am sure you agree that a place where litter and garbage is
a major issue cannot be explored in any real sense of the word.
It may be hard to get there, but many many people have done it
already.

Brenda


--
---------
Brenda W. Clough
http://www.sff.net/people/Brenda/

Recent short fiction: PARADOX, Autumn 2003
http://home.nyc.rr.com/paradoxmag//index.html

Upcoming short fiction in FIRST HEROES (TOR, May '04)
http://members.aol.com/wenamun/firstheroes.html

Stephen Horgan wrote:

We shall see if the Mars mission survives the political dance required
to take it off the drawing board. In general, orbital space is being
exploited on the back of real commercial activity in the provision of
satellites.


If you mean the United States going to Mars, I would not bet on
this. A Mars drive will certainly not even begin in the next
decade, and probably will not happen in the lifetime of anyone
over forty. (My son may live to see it, but I will not.) The
US government is currently wallowing in stupendous debt, and
faces huge deficits in the not-distant future. To pry Mars
money away from the old folks' pensions, the collapsing
health-care system and the highway fund, a really cogent and
powerful reason will have to be presented.

Brenda


--
---------
Brenda W. Clough
http://www.sff.net/people/Brenda/

Recent short fiction: PARADOX, Autumn 2003
http://home.nyc.rr.com/paradoxmag//index.html

Upcoming short fiction in FIRST HEROES (TOR, May '04)
http://members.aol.com/wenamun/firstheroes.html

wrote:

Consider:

1) The billions that Americans have spent and continue to spend on
science fiction, in part based on their sense of wonder, fascination
with the unknown, and desire to adventure;
2) The private space entrepreneurs, such as Burt Rutan, who are driven
in large part by adventure-seeking and fascination with the great
beyond (in Rutan's words, "it's mostly about fun").
3) The fact that before NASA, the Soviets were already exploring space.
They weren't trying to one-up anyone; they were the *first*. According
to many Russians themselves, there was a sense of wonder and desire for
scientific advancement involved.

This is all very nice. Now where is the front money coming from. I can
think of two likely sources. Big corporations and governments.
Corporations are governed by the bottom line and government have their
own whacky incentives. Aside from communications applications in orbit,
where is the profit in long distance manned mission?

Now to government. If there were a discernable military advantage to
manned flight, orbital habitats and moon colonies the government might
buy it. But what about Mars. Where is the military advantage there?

My guess is that the prospects of private entrepenuers getting us off
this mudball are not good. I would say we have two chances. Slim and none.

Bob Kolker

lclough wrote:
future. To pry Mars money away from the old folks' pensions, the
collapsing health-care system and the highway fund, a really cogent and
powerful reason will have to be presented.

There is no such reason. The only way humans are going to get to Mars is
if some genius comes up with a cheap and ultracapable propulsion system
that is not even in sight in the Think Tanks. What are the odds of that?

Bob Kolker

lclough wrote:
Stephen Horgan wrote:

We shall see if the Mars mission survives the political dance
required
to take it off the drawing board. In general, orbital space is
being
exploited on the back of real commercial activity in the provision
of
satellites.


If you mean the United States going to Mars, I would not bet on
this. A Mars drive will certainly not even begin in the next
decade, and probably will not happen in the lifetime of anyone
over forty. (My son may live to see it, but I will not.) The
US government is currently wallowing in stupendous debt, and
faces huge deficits in the not-distant future. To pry Mars
money away from the old folks' pensions, the collapsing
health-care system and the highway fund, a really cogent and
powerful reason will have to be presented.

Surrrrrrrrre. Just as "a really cogent and powerful reason" was
required to spend *hundreds of billions* on the newest Iraq War.

"Martians hate our freedom."

Space exploration will continue, because there is demand for it. People
are fascinated with the unknown, like it or not. (You should like it,
considering your occupation.)

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

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.

Exploration leads to moving. A species that is spread around is less
vulnerable to localized disaster.