A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Policy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

the drive to explore



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old May 21st 05, 05:31 AM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old May 21st 05, 08:23 AM
Stephen Horgan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

John Ordover claims that, "Exploration is only done for a profit
motive."

Sensible chap.

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. Exploration to remote parts of the
Earth has been extremely expensive for most of human history, with
little apparent prospect of any benefit beyond giving the immediate
explorers a tourist experience.

So let me get this straight. Before modern Europeans decided that
exploration was a Very Good Thing, nobody ever explored for
exploration's sake? No one ever thought to wander through the woods out
of sheer wonder? No one ever went on a boat ride just to see what was
out there, and have fun while they were at it? No one ever explored a
cave, or a creek, or a mountain, or a jungle, out of their sense of
adventure? Please! That has got to be garbage. As a kid, I explored
everything -- and not for extra allowance money! There was no extra
profit to be made; I thrived on the thrill, the wonder, the adventure,
the knowledge to be gained. And I still thrive on it. The
profit-obsessed would have me believe that I'm the only human who has
ever existed to feel this way. (If they first admit that I exist at
all!) But that is laughable. Money can be a useful device, but not the
be-all and end-all of human existence. Profit is *not* the only motive
for exploration or anything else. Far from it.

Exploration, real exploration, has been and is fantastically
expensive. 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.

Craig Neumeier claims that "Exploration for its own sake is quite rare
in history, and the Romans didn't do it." No Roman ever explored
without getting paid for it? No Roman child ever snuck outside after
bed to stalk the night for strange discoveries? No Roman centurion ever
found fulfillment or adventure in his expeditions, but cared only for
his paycheck? This is economic determinism at its worst.

There is no record of a major Roman expedition performed solely for a
sense of wonder. There are records of many for a return in terms of
land or loot acquired.

Anytime a discussion comes up regarding space exploration, someone is
bound to ask, "What's the point? There's no economic justification that
I can see." Or something along those lines. It apparently never
occurred to such people that space is fun and fulfilling and
fascinating in its own right.

And that hasn't been sufficient for any significant progress post the
moon landings.

In 'Mission Worth It?', Stanley Kurtz writes,

"Space lovers, in contrast, are a hopeful lot. They seek to conquer
space for sheer glory's sake. And space-o-philes don't just crave
evidence of life; they intend the colonization of space to remake human
society. Space lovers even expect to save the world - by giving
humans a new home in case a stray asteroid, or ecological disaster,
threaten Earth. Dreams like this keep the space lovers going."

Notice that Mr. Kurtz *never* even mentions exploration for its own
wondrous sake. Apparently the thought just never came to his mind. It's
difficult for me to find common ground with people like Kurtz. We
almost seem to come from different species. Perhaps that's yet another
good reason for me to get off this planet and explore what's out there.


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.

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.

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.

I cannot deny my curiosity. Yet my curiosity is anything but weak. It
is powerful enough to rank right next to my need for food, water, and
life itself. Perhaps my drive to explore makes me rare. I am willing to
consider that possibility (though I seriously question it). But I
refuse to consider that people like me do not exist. That is simply
absurd on its face. Unfortunately, it is also an article of faith for
extreme materialists.

It would be better if you stopped categorising people who disagree
with you and started considering their arguments. 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.

Paul Dietz writes that "Explorers are a tiny, abberant microminority of
any society."

Do not agree. This is simply a function that only a very small number
of people can explore because it is so expensive.

Christopher Jones echoes that belief, albeit with a qualifier:
"Exploration is, indeed, a rather exceptional human behavior, but it is
nevertheless a human behavior. And one which is so ingrained in the
nature of humanity that it has been a constant, continuing, and quite
important part of the entirety of human history and pre-history."

He does not address why, which is the point.

But are explorers truly so rare among humans? I am certain that they
are not rare among children. Growing up, I rarely met a fellow child
who was *not* an explorer. Somehow I doubt that most adults simply
"grow out" of this urge to explore. Shawn Dawson puts it this way:

"It is true that most individuals have not explored, but that is not
because they lacked the urge. I believe that they have not explored
for other reasons. Among them, are 1) How do you support your family
while you explore. 2) Political restrictions (crossing national borders
can cause problems) 3) Similar to 1), but even if you don't have a
family, how do you even sustain yourself while exploring. Surely many,
many people would, if given the choice, rather explore (and perhaps
settle) some newly discovered island, or sail the seas in a boat than
push a pen at work. The reason we don't is not lack of desire, but one
of the above issues (or others). To call explorers a 'tiny, aberrant
microminority of any society' is a totally unfounded statement."

Except that we don't have a rash of explorers among people of
independent incomes, because real exploration is very expensive even
if you can afford to feed your family while you are away.

Based upon my observations in life, I am inclined to agree with Mr.
Dawson.

He makes a simplistic analysis.

Are explorers truly rare among people? And if so, how rare are they?

It seems that lots of people are explorers. Even people who are bogged
down in the 'normal' life often explore vicariously (through RPGs, for
example).

Are some people simply more genetically inclined to explore than
others?

Why are some people so intent on denying humans' drive to explore?

ObWI: WI the belief that profit is the main motive throughout human
history never gains widespread currency (pardon the pun)? WI it were
far more fashionable to attribute human behavior chiefly to spiritual
beliefs, cultural orientations, or sexual habits, for a few examples?
Granted, this should put many major philosophies out of commission;
certainly, economic determinism would be a fringe phenomenon...


A space exploration programme would cost billions, in the same way
that the great journeys of discovery were relatively expensive in
their day. That is not just piles of greenbacks, but represents
investment, education, healthcare, safer streets or defence. It
represents choices made and other opportunities not taken. For space
exploration there have to be rational arguments in favour and,
frankly, a sense of wonder among the participants does not cut it
against reducing the mortality rate for babies in inner cities. If a
straight economic return could be found then that would be a strong
argument. As it is, the possibilities of such returns are some of the
strongest arguments.

If walking in the woods cost billions then there would have to be a
very good reason for people not to stay indoors.
--
Stephen Horgan

"intelligent people will tend to overvalue intelligence"
  #23  
Old May 21st 05, 10:00 AM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.

  #25  
Old May 21st 05, 12:24 PM
Paul F. Dietz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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
  #27  
Old May 21st 05, 12:58 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old May 21st 05, 01:13 PM
Paul F. Dietz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

wrote:

That the human need to explore probably has evolutionary roots is
merely an observation. I don't need it for a justification.


Which is good, because it's pseudoscience.


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.


You completely avoided the issue I raised, which is that
a desire being biologically based doesn't necessarily
make it 'good' or generally desirable. To argue so would
be the naturalistic fallacy or, in the case of arguing
about ones own desires, simple psychological projection.

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.


'Tend' to be, dip****. I bet you know many more men than women
in this group.

And I noticed you didn't mention having any kids. This is my
surprised face.

Paul
  #29  
Old May 21st 05, 01:17 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old May 21st 05, 02:11 PM
Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Celestron Celestar C8 Dec Drive Motor / Hand Controller dean UK Astronomy 3 January 15th 05 01:27 AM
Mars Exploration Rover Update - November 8, 2004 Ron Astronomy Misc 0 November 9th 04 06:13 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 05:09 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:54 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.