Dorky stuff about the Universe

benjs said:

brianlux said:

Still not even close to convinced, friends. NASA lays claims to these inventions but did we really need to go to the moon to get there?

benjs, "we're going to need to find somewhere new"? Really? No offense intended here, but I wonder if you have been reading too many sci fi novels? This is just not going to happen.

By the way all, I know my opinions on this subject are not very popular. If I'm the lone soul who feels this way I'll willingly acquiesce to being booted off this thread with no hard feelings. :-)

Brian, it's always great to have differing opinions on here - it's what makes conversation worth having!

I don't take offence to what you've said, but yes, really. I don't believe it'll be out of 'desire to see the universe', but I do believe it'll be out of necessity for finding somewhere better. I believe we have depraved our home of its resources by exhibiting our typically human greed. And rgambs, unfortunately, I do believe we have passed the point of no return, and hope I'm wrong. For what it's worth, I don't believe that trying to fix our planet should preclude our space exploration, nor do I believe that our space exploration should preclude trying to fix our planet.

PS, I haven't read a sci-fi novel in ages.

Just kidding about the sci fi novels

But why would we want to continue to trash the one place we know is inhabitable by further polluting that place even more (the space industry is hugely polluting) while seeking some other place that is way beyond reaching with our limited technology? I mean, yeah, we could live under domes on mars but, really, is that preferable to living in the open on our lovely green and blue planet that has sustained us for thousands upon thousands of years? Wouldn't it make more sense to take care of our generous and , thus far, forgiving planet?

brianlux said:

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

brianlux said:

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

brianlux said:

Will somebody please explain to me the justification for landing a space craft on a comet? I'm not simply being a curmudgeon here, I really and truly just don't get it.

Does the following help your understanding? If not I am not quite sure what you are looking for.
http://www.leaderpost.com/technology/What+next+after+comet+landing/10384194/story.html

We have so many obstacles to the successful continuation of the experiment called "civilization" here on earth. Besides social and economic woes, we have massively serious ecological issues that are not be tended to well at all. Yet we spend billions of dollars to land a craft on a comet. This makes absolutely zero sense to me. People are dying, species are being wiped out, the planet is becoming inhospitable to large forms of animal life and this is how we spend our time and money? I'm truly and sincerely baffled by this.

Studying the origins of our universe will help us all. We do know that the sun has about 7billion years of gas left (give or take a few billion), once it dies so does earth.

Comets and other origins are readily available in space.
Earth will become an inhospitable planet once our sun is gone.
Because we as a people are evolved to survive maybe looking out into space for answers is not a bad query to make.
No matter what we do on Earth eventually this planet will cease to exist.

I guess I must be a true oddball. That concept not only does not disturb me, it is, in fact, somewhat pleasing in the way I see my own inevitable death- it's a part of a greater scheme which is the cyclical nature of things along with one of the great and unmovable laws of physics: entropy.

Brian,

If we believed in the inevitability of our own death so greatly, we'd have likely never sought after cures for any fatal disease, claiming our fifty-odd years on this life are a legitimate restriction, and part of a greater scheme not worth combatting. How are those examples of immense human effort to prolong our existence any different than space travel? If you had your druthers, would you have proposed we never look into cures for malaria and scurvy? Otherwise, I assume you must believe in a 'line' somewhere along the spectrum where seeking cures for diseases falls on one side (when it comes to prolonging our existence), while space exploration falls on the other. Would you help me understand why this line exists and where it resides?

At the end of the day, space exploration is about our willingness to 'play god' with the universe, and treat it as our playground, ripe for discovery, creation, and human-facilitated change. Do we deserve that power? I'm not sure. Who gets hurt? Think of the poor aliens on QH-472 (randomly generated small planet name) who used to be able to have seven Globindegorks for dinner each, but now the wretched humans have placed their poop on the fields and the Globindegorks are growing with spiked Phlethmians and are no longer edible.

Won't somebody think of the Globindegorks!?!?

benjs said:

brianlux said:

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

brianlux said:

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

brianlux said:

Will somebody please explain to me the justification for landing a space craft on a comet? I'm not simply being a curmudgeon here, I really and truly just don't get it.

Does the following help your understanding? If not I am not quite sure what you are looking for.
http://www.leaderpost.com/technology/What+next+after+comet+landing/10384194/story.html

We have so many obstacles to the successful continuation of the experiment called "civilization" here on earth. Besides social and economic woes, we have massively serious ecological issues that are not be tended to well at all. Yet we spend billions of dollars to land a craft on a comet. This makes absolutely zero sense to me. People are dying, species are being wiped out, the planet is becoming inhospitable to large forms of animal life and this is how we spend our time and money? I'm truly and sincerely baffled by this.

Studying the origins of our universe will help us all. We do know that the sun has about 7billion years of gas left (give or take a few billion), once it dies so does earth.

Comets and other origins are readily available in space.
Earth will become an inhospitable planet once our sun is gone.
Because we as a people are evolved to survive maybe looking out into space for answers is not a bad query to make.
No matter what we do on Earth eventually this planet will cease to exist.

I guess I must be a true oddball. That concept not only does not disturb me, it is, in fact, somewhat pleasing in the way I see my own inevitable death- it's a part of a greater scheme which is the cyclical nature of things along with one of the great and unmovable laws of physics: entropy.

Brian,

If we believed in the inevitability of our own death so greatly, we'd have likely never sought after cures for any fatal disease, claiming our fifty-odd years on this life are a legitimate restriction, and part of a greater scheme not worth combatting. How are those examples of immense human effort to prolong our existence any different than space travel? If you had your druthers, would you have proposed we never look into cures for malaria and scurvy? Otherwise, I assume you must believe in a 'line' somewhere along the spectrum where seeking cures for diseases falls on one side (when it comes to prolonging our existence), while space exploration falls on the other. Would you help me understand why this line exists and where it resides?

At the end of the day, space exploration is about our willingness to 'play god' with the universe, and treat it as our playground, ripe for discovery, creation, and human-facilitated change. Do we deserve that power? I'm not sure. Who gets hurt? Think of the poor aliens on QH-472 (randomly generated small planet name) who used to be able to have seven Globindegorks for dinner each, but now the wretched humans have placed their poop on the fields and the Globindegorks are growing with spiked Phlethmians and are no longer edible.

Won't somebody think of the Globindegorks!?!?

As far as curing disease, I think that's great to an extent. I'm more interested in preventing disease. Many of the diseases we have cured came about through good, useful science- the discovery of penicillin for example. But some of that science has worked against us- the use of antibiotics is becoming more and more questionable as viruses continue to mutate and become resistant to antibiotics (there's a ton of evidence and information out there on that). Also, many of the diseases we are dealing with today on an ever increasing basis- cancers, asthma, neurological disorders, to name a few) are directly related to pollutants in our food, air and water. We are generally more focused on and pour more funding into curing diseases than we are on finding ways to live cleaner and prevent disease. That is one of the great paradoxes of the industrial age.

There are some researchers out there who propose that are on the verge of developing nano technology to cure diseases. We are really not all that far off from being able to use tiny machines not only to cure diseases, but to replace malfunctioning parts of our bodies. The concept of cyborg- part human, part machine- is not far from becoming reality rather than simply science fiction. We could argue endlessly about the merits or detriments of being part machine. I generally avoid those kinds of arguments because I personally have no interest in being a machine. I would be willing to use mechanized devices to assist what ever there is of me that still works, but I do not have nor ever will integrate machinery into my bodily existence.

An even better argument for what I'm try to say here can be found in Bill McKibbens fine book, enough. I've often highly recommend that book- even to point of having a professor friend use it in one of his classes. You may not always agree with McKibben, but his ideas are worth checking out.

As far as playing god goes, we already have done enough of that. In doing great damage to our land bases and the planet as a whole, I think we have already proven we are a very irresponsible species when it comes to playing god. During the timber wars in the northwest when environmental activist were doing what we could to stop the logging of old growth forests, many of the pro-logging camp used to put bumper stickers on their trucks that read: "First we'll log the earth...then we'll go to other planets and log them too". I think those guys had it figured out. That's exactly what we would do. Fuck Mother Earth... then we'll find another planet and fuck her too. No thanks.

oftenreading said:

I see your point and have sympathy for it, brian. We very likely should be spending that money on a host of things that could improve the state of our planet and the lives of people already here and those to come. But I do think we would all lose an important source of inspiration if we no longer engaged in space exploration. Countless other kids and teens in addition to rgambs have found their creative spark from the images and information we have received from space exploration. I personally hope we do not, as a species, spread out into the universe - frankly, I don't think we deserve it, given what we've done to this planet - but I do want to learn about what's out there.

And I second the suggestion to check out The Sparrow, one of my favourite books. If you are put off by the idea that it is "science fiction", then it's an even better idea to check it out so you can see that there is a lot of good writing in the field of "speculative fiction" .

I won't rain on anybodies parade as far as finding inspiration from space exploration. To so so would be to spit on my mother's grave and I won't do that. I'll just do another thing she used to love to do- go out in the yard and lie on my back gaze into space and just take in that great big wonderful universe.

And yes, oftenreading, there are some truly great "science fiction" writers out there. It's not my favorite genre in general but there are books within it that definitely make my list of favorites. Just off the top of my head- books like Walter Tevis' The Man Who Fell to Earth and George R. Stewart's Earth Abides.

As professor Brian Cox says (Drakes Equation notwithstanding obviously).......

'We may well be unique in our Universe'......so we'd better start looking after it (Earth that is)'

Excuse the paraphrasing. :-)

brianlux said:

We humans are close to the middle sized object in the universe. The smallest object in the universe is the Planck length or 10 to the minus 35 power m. The known universe is about 10 to the 26 power m. The smallest object is about as many times smaller that we are as the know universe is as many times bigger than we are.

Dorky or profound?

It seems perfect to me, if I were to consider believing in creation, this would be one of the more convincing arguments. Much better than that eyeball intelligent design bullshit.