Speaking of the "drive to explore"

Matt Giwer wrote:

So the idea is a myth. Explorers are so few we know all of their names. Organized explorations are
so few we know all their names.

Exceedingly excremental.

There is also curiosity about the unknown, fascination with the wonders
of nature, the adventurous yearning for new and interesting
experiences, the urge to explore. These are STRONG drives in healthy
humans, and if you don't believe me, just take a look at any normal
child. Notice the way they're curious about everything?

Let's say you found a door to another world, with its own strange
civilizations, art, architecture, languages, creatures and so on. Would
you be interested in exploring it? You wouldn't feel a strong drive to
step through that door and learn about what's there? You wouldn't feel
strongly fascinated? I would, and I know for a fact that I'm not
alone. This is what I mean by the drive to explore.

Millions of people bought Tolkien's *Silmarillion*, which is basically
an almanac of another world. All these people pay money to explore a
FANTASY world, and yet some of you would have me believe that no one
ever explores anything real out of strong curiosity. It's all about
money and power, and nothing else. How much more ludicrous could you
get?

Many of the most popular movies and books are about other worlds. If
the world of Lord of the Rings were real, do you think no one would be
interested in going there and exploring it? You really think there
would be no strong curiosity about it? If so, you are an *idiot*. As
far as we know, it's just a fantasy, and *still* lots of people spend
time exploring it!

I've personally traveled to Chile and explored the countryside, out of
curiosity. My curiosity is strong, and not weak. I love to learn. If
you think this is anything exceptional, you're frankly a fool. It's not
for naught that tourism is so big. Not only do people explore for
reasons other than just money, they actually PAY to explore places
they've never been. The human drive to learn and explore helps make us
who we are. Without that drive, we'd be something else entirely.

Lionheart wrote:
Matt Giwer wrote:

So the idea is a myth. Explorers are so few we know all of their names. Organized explorations are
so few we know all their names.

Exceedingly excremental.

There is also curiosity about the unknown, fascination with the wonders
of nature, the adventurous yearning for new and interesting
experiences, the urge to explore. These are STRONG drives in healthy
humans, and if you don't believe me, just take a look at any normal
child. Notice the way they're curious about everything?

The thread of course covered exploration of the physical world as in Columbus. And I pointed out
just how damned few explorers like him there have been.

Therefore

Let's say you found a door to another world, with its own strange
civilizations, art, architecture, languages, creatures and so on. Would
you be interested in exploring it? You wouldn't feel a strong drive to
step through that door and learn about what's there? You wouldn't feel
strongly fascinated? I would, and I know for a fact that I'm not
alone. This is what I mean by the drive to explore.

hypotheticals are always interesting. Let me look at the door before I answer the question.

Millions of people bought Tolkien's *Silmarillion*, which is basically
an almanac of another world. All these people pay money to explore a
FANTASY world, and yet some of you would have me believe that no one
ever explores anything real out of strong curiosity. It's all about
money and power, and nothing else. How much more ludicrous could you
get?

As with the myth, lots of people sit on their butts and dream but next to none actually get off
those butts and explore.

Many of the most popular movies and books are about other worlds. If
the world of Lord of the Rings were real, do you think no one would be
interested in going there and exploring it? You really think there
would be no strong curiosity about it? If so, you are an *idiot*. As
far as we know, it's just a fantasy, and *still* lots of people spend
time exploring it!

As above the discussion was about the real thing.

I've personally traveled to Chile and explored the countryside, out of
curiosity. My curiosity is strong, and not weak. I love to learn. If
you think this is anything exceptional, you're frankly a fool. It's not
for naught that tourism is so big. Not only do people explore for
reasons other than just money, they actually PAY to explore places
they've never been. The human drive to learn and explore helps make us
who we are. Without that drive, we'd be something else entirely.

It is also different to travel around the countryside and to hack through Brazil's forests
searching for Inca cities and such.

Exploration is hard and dangerous.

I pointed out Lewis and Clark had to be paid. If exploration were a natural thing to do Jefferson
could have got the same information quicker and cheaper simply by interviewing all the thousands of
people who traveled to the west coast on their own dime. Or maybe just read their stories in the
newspapers. If there were such people. There were very few and they were mainly trappers doing it
for a living not the love of exploration.

--
Japan was a functioning democracy in 1941. If Iraq is
functioning democracy in 2006 why does anyone expect
it to be friendly?
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3501
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
book review http://www.giwersworld.org/israel/wi...utioners.phtml a7

Matt Giwer wrote:

The thread of course covered exploration of the physical world as in
Columbus. And I pointed out just how damned few explorers like him there
have been.

It's a bait and switch argument. In order to justify government
funding for space exploration, the proponent claims that exploration
is an inherent human drive and, as evidence, points out all
sorts of human activities that could be called 'exploration',
not just of the geographical variety.

The problem is that if exploration is defined that broadly, why
is only space exploration able to satisfy this putative drive?

(I will leave aside the question of whether something being
a human drive is sufficient to justify government subsidy.)

Paul

Paul F. Dietz wrote:
Matt Giwer wrote:

The thread of course covered exploration of the physical world as
in Columbus. And I pointed out just how damned few explorers like him
there have been.

It's a bait and switch argument. In order to justify government
funding for space exploration, the proponent claims that exploration
is an inherent human drive and, as evidence, points out all
sorts of human activities that could be called 'exploration',
not just of the geographical variety.

The problem is that if exploration is defined that broadly, why
is only space exploration able to satisfy this putative drive?

(I will leave aside the question of whether something being
a human drive is sufficient to justify government subsidy.)

Also it sells in America as it goes along with the western frontier mythos.

Exploring space? You can see it. You mean exploring a few moons and the one planet that people
actually can? In this reality people "explored" for profit. Columbus for the spice trade. Lewis and
Clark for pay. The American west for the fur trade.

Find something profitable on the moon and people will get there. Unfortunately at current prices
there isn't anything worth bringing back from the moon if it were on pallets ready for pickup.

The science is going to great if there are a lot of trips to a lot of different places on the moon.
Most places to land for samples will be like randomly exploring earth and bringing back dirt and
common stones. Percentagewise there are not many places on Earth that are interesting to study.

Mars will be interesting for comparative meteorology if supercomputers don't solve problems first.
But meteorology is most all about automated weather stations which can be delivered by rocket. If
there isn't diverse life on Mars it will be as rewarding as bringing back dirt from the Moon.

If prices come down and solar sails and such pan out bringing a thousand tons of iron asteroid to
L5 might pay off, if we still use much iron and nickel by the time it is possible. But then it is
only good for building in space unless return to earth becomes extremely cheap.

And then we still haven't has a real accident yet even on the level of Dead Like Me where a falling
toilet seat kills someone. It is going to happen. We are getting into the period where lots of
things start de-orbiting and it will go on as long as there is LEO activity. I know the reality but
there are plenty of scare mongers from the anti-nuke groups with idle hands.

I'm all for it really. Flying cities migrating to other solar systems as this one gets too crowded.
My first SF novel was Red Planet and I read it about the same year it was published. Over the years
realism replaced optimism as it has for all the people who are trying to get into space for cheap.

Right now the space elevator folks are confident nanotubes will be strong enough with the only
problem how to weave them. In the mean time NASA is going to drop over $100 billion building a
modern version of the first moon lander instead of into weaving.

--
Denying the holocaust is to hating Jews as denying Jesus is to hating
(a) The New York Yankees.
(b) Alien space invaders.
(c) Christians.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3498
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Old Testament http://www.giwersworld.org/bible/ot.phtml a6

Matt Giwer ) wrote:
: Paul F. Dietz wrote:
: Matt Giwer wrote:

: The thread of course covered exploration of the physical world as
: in Columbus. And I pointed out just how damned few explorers like him
: there have been.

: It's a bait and switch argument. In order to justify government
: funding for space exploration, the proponent claims that exploration
: is an inherent human drive and, as evidence, points out all
: sorts of human activities that could be called 'exploration',
: not just of the geographical variety.

: The problem is that if exploration is defined that broadly, why
: is only space exploration able to satisfy this putative drive?

: (I will leave aside the question of whether something being
: a human drive is sufficient to justify government subsidy.)

: Also it sells in America as it goes along with the western frontier mythos.

So does the need for a strong national defense.

: Exploring space? You can see it. You mean exploring a few moons and the one planet that people
: actually can? In this reality people "explored" for profit. Columbus for the spice trade. Lewis and
: Clark for pay. The American west for the fur trade.

"Lewis and Clark for pay?" You need to explain how that wasn't pure
socialism.

: Find something profitable on the moon and people will get there. Unfortunately at current prices
: there isn't anything worth bringing back from the moon if it were on pallets ready for pickup.

So? Again, neither was there during the Lewis and Clark explorations. The
US government sent John Wesley Powell to the Grand Canyon, too. Care to
explain what that was worth.

: The science is going to great if there are a lot of trips to a lot of different places on the moon.
: Most places to land for samples will be like randomly exploring earth and bringing back dirt and
: common stones. Percentagewise there are not many places on Earth that are interesting to study.

Others disagree with you.

: Mars will be interesting for comparative meteorology if supercomputers don't solve problems first.
: But meteorology is most all about automated weather stations which can be delivered by rocket. If
: there isn't diverse life on Mars it will be as rewarding as bringing back dirt from the Moon.

We'll never know unless we go.

: If prices come down and solar sails and such pan out bringing a thousand tons of iron asteroid to
: L5 might pay off, if we still use much iron and nickel by the time it is possible. But then it is
: only good for building in space unless return to earth becomes extremely cheap.

: And then we still haven't has a real accident yet even on the level of Dead Like Me where a falling
: toilet seat kills someone. It is going to happen. We are getting into the period where lots of
: things start de-orbiting and it will go on as long as there is LEO activity. I know the reality but
: there are plenty of scare mongers from the anti-nuke groups with idle hands.

: I'm all for it really. Flying cities migrating to other solar systems as this one gets too crowded.
: My first SF novel was Red Planet and I read it about the same year it was published. Over the years
: realism replaced optimism as it has for all the people who are trying to get into space for cheap.

: Right now the space elevator folks are confident nanotubes will be strong enough with the only
: problem how to weave them. In the mean time NASA is going to drop over $100 billion building a
: modern version of the first moon lander instead of into weaving.

Most people can't deal with the aspect of space travel/exploration as
being the stepping-stone of bigger things to come. Our 'instant
gratification' society wants the whole thing to happen on their shedule
and be home by dinner time. Apollo spoiled us. The next major breakthru
might take several decades rather than before the decade is out. IOW, you
might not live to see it and must understand that that is the way it is!

Eric

: --
: Denying the holocaust is to hating Jews as denying Jesus is to hating
: (a) The New York Yankees.
: (b) Alien space invaders.
: (c) Christians.
: -- The Iron Webmaster, 3498
: nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
: Old Testament http://www.giwersworld.org/bible/ot.phtml a6

On Tue, 4 Oct 2005 18:31:57 +0000 (UTC),
(Eric Chomko) wrote:

"Lewis and Clark for pay?" You need to explain how that wasn't pure
socialism.

You need a better dictionary.

: If there isn't diverse life on Mars it will be as rewarding as bringing back dirt from the Moon.

Any life at all on Mars would be an epochal discovery.

-- Roy L

Eric Chomko wrote:
Matt Giwer ) wrote:
: Paul F. Dietz wrote:
: Matt Giwer wrote:

: The thread of course covered exploration of the physical world as
: in Columbus. And I pointed out just how damned few explorers like him
: there have been.

: It's a bait and switch argument. In order to justify government
: funding for space exploration, the proponent claims that exploration
: is an inherent human drive and, as evidence, points out all
: sorts of human activities that could be called 'exploration',
: not just of the geographical variety.

: The problem is that if exploration is defined that broadly, why
: is only space exploration able to satisfy this putative drive?

: (I will leave aside the question of whether something being
: a human drive is sufficient to justify government subsidy.)

: Also it sells in America as it goes along with the western frontier mythos.

So does the need for a strong national defense.

That is a different politics and best reserved for another thread. Reality is oceans are no longer
the first line of defense so something had to change.

: Exploring space? You can see it. You mean exploring a few moons and the one planet that people
: actually can? In this reality people "explored" for profit. Columbus for the spice trade. Lewis and
: Clark for pay. The American west for the fur trade.

"Lewis and Clark for pay?" You need to explain how that wasn't pure
socialism.

Sounds like free enterprise to me.

: Find something profitable on the moon and people will get there. Unfortunately at current prices
: there isn't anything worth bringing back from the moon if it were on pallets ready for pickup.

So? Again, neither was there during the Lewis and Clark explorations. The
US government sent John Wesley Powell to the Grand Canyon, too. Care to
explain what that was worth.

It was worth not a damn thing that I am aware of. Wait twenty years and visit the town built near
it. If you want to be impressed twenty years earlier fine with me.

: The science is going to great if there are a lot of trips to a lot of different places on the moon.
: Most places to land for samples will be like randomly exploring earth and bringing back dirt and
: common stones. Percentagewise there are not many places on Earth that are interesting to study.

Others disagree with you.

Nothing unusual. That is why these groups exist. Why would they exist otherwise?

: Mars will be interesting for comparative meteorology if supercomputers don't solve problems first.
: But meteorology is most all about automated weather stations which can be delivered by rocket. If
: there isn't diverse life on Mars it will be as rewarding as bringing back dirt from the Moon.

We'll never know unless we go.

Drop the automated weather stations and find out before sending people.

: If prices come down and solar sails and such pan out bringing a thousand tons of iron asteroid to
: L5 might pay off, if we still use much iron and nickel by the time it is possible. But then it is
: only good for building in space unless return to earth becomes extremely cheap.

: And then we still haven't has a real accident yet even on the level of Dead Like Me where a falling
: toilet seat kills someone. It is going to happen. We are getting into the period where lots of
: things start de-orbiting and it will go on as long as there is LEO activity. I know the reality but
: there are plenty of scare mongers from the anti-nuke groups with idle hands.

: I'm all for it really. Flying cities migrating to other solar systems as this one gets too crowded.
: My first SF novel was Red Planet and I read it about the same year it was published. Over the years
: realism replaced optimism as it has for all the people who are trying to get into space for cheap.

: Right now the space elevator folks are confident nanotubes will be strong enough with the only
: problem how to weave them. In the mean time NASA is going to drop over $100 billion building a
: modern version of the first moon lander instead of into weaving.

Most people can't deal with the aspect of space travel/exploration as
being the stepping-stone of bigger things to come. Our 'instant
gratification' society wants the whole thing to happen on their shedule
and be home by dinner time. Apollo spoiled us. The next major breakthru
might take several decades rather than before the decade is out. IOW, you
might not live to see it and must understand that that is the way it is!

I do not expect to live to see much more than incremental improvements as major changes are really
very rare. It was 30 years from the first computer to home computers. It has been 30 years since
then. Apollo was not so much a breakthrough as a stupid stunt suitable for TV. The major cost was
the huge expenditure in avoiding failure in prime time.

We can price the cost of failure in those automated weather stations crashing on launch and such.
We cannot price to cost of the Marsnauts dying in the process.

Rationally, after a dozen payloads arrive safely which are the mass of what will carry people, then
send people. Maybe not a dozen but that is the idea. In Apollo we went from low mass things crashing
into the moon to a controlled landing by two people. There was nothing in between that I remember,
not even a moon orbiter.

Evil Knievel was not that stupid.

--
Bush insists we must stay the course in Iraq. But no one
has told him what the course is. There is nothing being
done that is different from what was done in Vietnam.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3492
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Zionism http://www.giwersworld.org/disinfo/disinfo.phtml a4

Paul F. Dietz ) wrote:
: Matt Giwer wrote:

: The thread of course covered exploration of the physical world as in
: Columbus. And I pointed out just how damned few explorers like him there
: have been.

: It's a bait and switch argument. In order to justify government
: funding for space exploration, the proponent claims that exploration
: is an inherent human drive and, as evidence, points out all
: sorts of human activities that could be called 'exploration',
: not just of the geographical variety.

: The problem is that if exploration is defined that broadly, why
: is only space exploration able to satisfy this putative drive?

: (I will leave aside the question of whether something being
: a human drive is sufficient to justify government subsidy.)

Yes, it's quite obvious that you have never thought about war in-depth.
You save your speech about government waste, fraud and abuse for NASA and
give the DOD a pass.

Why don't you explore ways to reduce the DOD budget?

Eric

: Paul

Eric Chomko wrote:

Yes, it's quite obvious that you have never thought about war in-depth.
You save your speech about government waste, fraud and abuse for NASA and
give the DOD a pass.

Why don't you explore ways to reduce the DOD budget?

It's called division of labor, Eric. Many other people, such
as yourself, are doing a wonderful job criticizing waste in
the defense budget. I am focusing my attention elsewhere.

There's really no need for everyone to charge headlong at
the same target. We're not herd animals. At least, I'm not.

Paul

Paul F. Dietz ) wrote:
: Eric Chomko wrote:

: Yes, it's quite obvious that you have never thought about war in-depth.
: You save your speech about government waste, fraud and abuse for NASA and
: give the DOD a pass.
:
: Why don't you explore ways to reduce the DOD budget?

: It's called division of labor, Eric. Many other people, such
: as yourself, are doing a wonderful job criticizing waste in
: the defense budget. I am focusing my attention elsewhere.

Right, on NASA.

: There's really no need for everyone to charge headlong at
: the same target. We're not herd animals. At least, I'm not.

Yes, you think that you are a cat...

Eric

: Paul