Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

Maybe I missed something, but I found Lori's comments about the human race somewhat out in "left" field. I suppose if you believe as she does you don't have much contact with your fellow humans.

Posted by at April 25, 2002 10:04 AM

good lord. who are these people who read your articles? i was expecting a decent level of discourse. these guys are morons.

"Holy cow. I started reading your article (Foxnews.com) and your ridicule ..."

"If we spent a fraction of the time, effort and money that is spent on the space program ..."

who *are* these idiots? you need a bitbucket filter.

Posted by at April 25, 2002 10:31 AM

I think "Lori M" is a cancer on the butt^H^H^H^H face of intelligence.

Posted by at April 25, 2002 10:34 AM

There does seem to be a large contingent of people whose sole motivation is self-loathing-- whether it's hatred of their family, their country, or civilization, or their basic humanity. These people are irrational, and no amount of argument with them will accomplish them. The only choice is to marginalize them and then ignore them.

As your article pointed out, it seems that part of humanity's destiny might just be to bring life to a dead universe. Thirty some years ago, the moon, for a few weekends, for the first time in its history, actually contained life. We are near the ability to do this on a more permanent basis, and do the same to other bodies in this solar system. This is something the nature worshipers should revel in, not condemn, if they truely believe that life is some sort of mystic force.

Humanity is not Gaea's cancer, it's Gaea's reproductive system, the means by which Gaea will spread itself to the universe.

Posted by raoul ortega at April 25, 2002 10:41 AM

One day I had an epiphany. I'd been having an argument with my own "Lori M." on Usenet. I was in the back yard, and my then-4-year-old brown-haired brown-eyed daughter came running down the hill and into my arms. I decided in that moment that one trillion brown-eyed little girls running down one trillion grassy hills throughout the galaxy would be an enhancement of the state of the universe, not a diminishment of it.

And if one out of a billion of those little girls grows up to be another Hitler or Stalin, well that's a shame, but what are you going to do? I say bring 'em on.

Posted by Mike Combs at April 25, 2002 11:17 AM

i thi... wait, i KNOW that christopher watkins is completely misunderstanding what's going on in your critique of lori m.'s email. no doubt this chris guy is knee-jerk liberal and hides behind the guise of 'progress' in order to 'save' the environment or whatever.

newsflash chris, what's going to make space exploration a doable deal is capitalism - yes, the self-same capitalism that, no doubt, you cry foul on every time you go into the store and buy your cereal and soymilk - because it caused WASTE to make it [read: sarcasm].

'reckless abandon and careless expansion'???
please chris, give yourself a break, don't take yourself so seriously. it's going to be capitalism that makes space travel possible [most likely] and it's going to be capitalism that makes space travel and exploration safe and... well, just plain doable. you would rather hand everything over to the government to take care of? i suspect that you wouldn't. because then, you couldn't bash the government, couldn't bash someone for defending their opinion, and wouldn't have anything to complain about. but wait, you'd be happy not to have freedoms such as these right? because everyone would be equal and would have equal pay and there would be no more rich people and everything would be hunky-dory... UNDER the government.

please.

Posted by david at April 25, 2002 12:08 PM

God I hope these people don't vote! Who am I kidding they all took their prozac and voted for AL.

Posted by Dr. Clausewitz at April 25, 2002 02:51 PM

Screw the hand-wringing granola-huffers! The Universe is not some precious museum piece, to be endlessly examined and admired but never touched -- it's a resource, put there by a loving God for humanity to "till and subdue", preferably in a phallocentric, imperialistic, and utterly speciesistic manner. Manifest Destiny, baby! Menschlichkeit Über Alles!

Posted by at April 25, 2002 03:42 PM

Be so mean, Rand. Ow!

Those letters are priceless. One link, comin’ up.

Growing up a space-obsessed nerd, I soon realized that most people just don’t get it. But the addition of the human-hating environmental crowd to the mix has brought the level of pop thinking about the subject to a stunning new low.

Posted by Charles Johnson at April 25, 2002 07:01 PM

I just want to know how 'blob of nothingness' can be an intelligent life form. Although the guy who proposed that howler no doubt has one between his ears.

Posted by d at April 26, 2002 03:22 AM

People like you would land on a planet, declare it as you own, set up a republican party, and give tax breaks to all the rich aliens...........

Sounds good. When do we get started?

Posted by David Carr at April 26, 2002 07:06 AM

That is axactly what I mean. It To Charles, is the only person in his universe and no one else can be different from him and be intelligent. RAND and Charles can't comprehend that. I want to explore the universe just as much as anyone here. But if there is not an inch of respect for the unknown that you will be lost. We have the "explorers" attitude. We land on a piece of rock, stick a flag in it and claim it as our own. It is not ours to do with as we please, it is the universes. I am not a human-hating environmentalist. I just don't like the the tone of you extremist/militia people trying to "discover" new life in my name.

Posted by Thomas Hawthorne at April 26, 2002 07:26 AM

Humanity as a cancer on the universe is a quasi-religious belief. These people see no need to explain their view, you either believe or you don't. That is why you don't, and wont, find any reasoned arguments. That is also why people like Bjorn Lomborg, an environentalist who found the planet is not being destroyed, are greeted with such scorn.

Posted by Pete Harrigan at April 26, 2002 07:42 AM

Thomas: "you extremist/militia people"

Wow. That's quite a leap of connecting causes. I admit the idea of "property rights" in space seems a decidedly Western idea, and one I'd want to see a lot of debate about. But I hardly connect any of this discussion to "extremist/militia" views, and wonder why you do.

"blob of nothingness"

Wasn't that in an episode of the original Star Trek? Some planet where they found a big black pulsing blob on the ground, and it ate some crew member.

Posted by PhotoDude at April 26, 2002 08:07 AM

I withdraw the extremist/milita comment. And yes that is an episode from Star Trek. But it was used just as a point. In that episode, the crew thought it was just some monster trying to destroy everything. But it was an intelligent being who was trying to communicate. But because of human arrogance, we assumed that it was a monster. All I am to convey is that there is nothing wrong with exanding the human mind past this Earth, BUT we all know the history of exploration and what a bloody history it was. And I don't see any wisdom from anyone here. I don't see the conservativeness from the conservatives.

Posted by Thomas Hawthorne at April 26, 2002 08:38 AM

It is not ours to do with as we please, it is the universes
Say, what is the universe doing with those chunks of rock, metal, and gases? You're ascribing purpose to what is essentially empty space.

Posted by d at April 26, 2002 09:59 AM

Can those other planets support human life? No. Only the Earth can. It seems that it was meant for us to live and dwell on this planet and nowhere else. Doesn't matter if there is nothing but rocks, metal, and gases. Maybe through human evolution of millions of years(if the man upstatirs let's us live that long) we will have evolved enough where that could be possible. But it won't be in any of our lifetimes, or our children's lifetimes, or our children's children's lifetimes and so on. The point is, instead of fantasizing over something you will NEVER take part of, why don't you take all this "wishful thinking" and put it toward reality which is our Earth and trying to make it better.

Posted by Thomas Hawthorne at April 26, 2002 10:27 AM

>> I just don't like the the tone of you extremist/militia people trying to "discover" new life in my name.

Feeling a little self-important, aren't we. Get over it.

We're not trying to do ANYTHING in your name.

We're trying to get to space. The only connection to you is that we're leaving people like you behind.

Posted by Andy Freeman at April 26, 2002 10:34 AM

Rand -
Your comments were right on, as usual. If we left the future to the self-loathing "Utopians" who would impose their impossible constraints on human behavior before we can make any forward progress, we might as well commit mass suicide as a species and call it a day. I think Lori and her ilk need to move to some little remote island out in the middle of nowhere and implement their radical system of totalitarianism and leave the rest of us the hell alone so that we can move forward and explore (and even exploit, oooh what a scary word) this fascinating little corner of the universe we inhabit.

When we landed the moon and sent interplanetary probes to many of our planets, I was entranced, thrilled and highly motivated and pursued the career that I still have. Those whining naysayers who said then (and now) that the money would have been better spent solving some problem like world hunger or "injustice" (whatever that means) are the quicksand in the middle of the faintly marked trail to the future. We can try to drive through this quicksand and risk drowning in pessimism and hopelessness or we can find another path that leads everyone to better lives (perhaps on the Moon, Mars or other moons) while helping to preserve this planet at the same time.

Keep up the fight here and on FoxNews.

Posted by Barb S at April 26, 2002 10:34 AM

>> BUT we all know the history of exploration and what a bloody history it was.

Okay - you've identified costs. Now, identify benefits and compare.

If you're going to use Star Trek economics ....

>> And I don't see any wisdom from anyone here.

What you don't see is blanket approval of mindless hand-wringing. Try to keep this straight.

>> I don't see the conservativeness from the conservatives.

Is there really some obligation to behave in accordance with your labels and definitions? (Based on what they've actually said, I'd guess that very few of the folks posting consider themselves "conservatives", and that fewer still think that your caricature fits them.)

Posted by Andy Freeman at April 26, 2002 10:40 AM

Argh!

>> BUT we all know the history of exploration and what a bloody history it was.

Now that you've identified costs, let's try for benefits.

If you're going to use Star Trek economics.....

>> And I don't see any wisdom from anyone here.

What you don't see is unquestioning approval of mindless hand-wringing.

Posted by Andy Freeman at April 26, 2002 10:43 AM

Yech - moveable type keeps eliding my text.

>> BUT we all know the history of exploration and what a bloody history it was.

Okay, now you've named some costs. Now, identify benefits AND quantify both.

If you're going to use Star Trek economics....

Posted by Andy Freeman at April 26, 2002 10:45 AM

You people are amazing! Vilify not debate. We discovered the world wasn't flat through exploration. We started this great country through exploration. We discovered great amounts of resourcses because of exploration. So as you can see I do acknowledge the benefits of exploration. But what you guys want to be blind to the fact is that, what it took to get here. People were conquered, people were killed, all so we can sing "America the Beautiful". It's the nonchalant "oh well if we exploit" attitude. You justifying wrongdoing. You wouldn't want to be exploited, so that makes you hypocrties. Anyway, IF you read my post earlier, I am for exploration. But you can't walk into to room with people you don't know and act like you own the place. It's as simple(even for you) as that.

Posted by Thomas Hawthorne at April 26, 2002 11:29 AM

My caricature fits because of the "leave the weaklings behind, lets go exploit somewhere else, we can do what we want, because this is my universe" facist philosophy. Hitler thought the same thing.....

To Barb S: There is no attempt to constrain human behavior, but if we all gave in to human feelings\wants and immediate fulfillment, we would not be humans, but animals.

I give you credit Barb, at least you acknowledge that you doing wrong. I just wonder what you people will do when the Earth is so decrepit that that you won't be able to drink the water anywhere.

Hunger means someone who doesn't have enough to eat.

Posted by Thomas Hawthorne at April 26, 2002 11:47 AM

Another great reason to go into space: Leaving Lori and Hawthorne behind. Hey Thomas, I'm still kinda questioning about that "bloody-handed colonialism" comment: First, aren't you assuming that there's anything out there to bloody our hands on? Looking at the two most accessable celestial bodies (Mars and the Moon), both seem kinda thin on Rosseau-esque Noble Savages to sell guns and firewater to. Second, it seems kinda rich to me as an American to hear ANYONE using the Internet to whine about 'colonialism'. Don't you know that the Internet was invented by the decendants of bloody-handed colonialists? Just THINK of all of the sweat of the exploited natives that went into your CPU! For the sake of your soul, Thomas, JUST SAY NO TO COMPUTING!

Posted by David Paglia at April 26, 2002 12:12 PM

You Republicans are hard of hearing. I will say this again........I DID NOT SAY THE THAT THERE'S WAS ANYTHING WRONG WITH EXPLORATION! I DIDN'T EVEN MENTION COLONIALISM! WHERE DID YOU GET THAT NONSENSE! You guys are using the the "ends justify the means" crap. Nowhere in any of my postings did I say ANYTHING about the Internet. I work in IT, I love computers, so talk what you know. AGAIN, it's not the fact that planets are inhabited, we know that they are not. Second, what gives any of us the right to say one day "we are going to colonize Mars.". So if America colonizes Mars first is it ours? We our all a part of the same universe, so how can we claim it as our own?. That's the issue I have with this. Also, there's nothing wrong with the notion of exploration planets and possibly colonizing them. But HISTORY shows that the WAY colonialism occured was not pretty. Fighting over territory is stupid(EX.=Middle East) So in other words, I am for it, but not the way it was done before. History should not be repeated. I would never limit human potential, but it's people you who will rape and abuse it.

Posted by Thomas Hawthorne at April 26, 2002 12:45 PM

>You Republicans are hard of hearing.

Interesting assumption. BTW - Rejecting your assumptions isn't deafness.

> Second, what gives any of us the right to say one day "we are going to colonize Mars.".

It's part of that "to boldly go" thing. It's a space thing, you wouldn't understand.

>So if America colonizes Mars first is it ours?

Why not? Why shouldn't the benefits go to those who do the work?

Although, one might reasonably argue for private colonization to avoid various parasites.

> But HISTORY shows that the WAY colonialism occured was not pretty.

Since most of that "not pretty" isn't possible (there being no "noble savages" on Mars), why is that history relevant?

> Fighting over territory is stupid(EX.=Middle East) So in other words, I am for it, but

Huh? The fight is between those who want to go and those who want the first group to stay.

> I would never limit human potential, but it's people you who will rape and abuse it.

Really? We're taking life to some place with no known life. Who is getting raped and abused?

-andy

Posted by Andy Freeman at April 26, 2002 01:31 PM

>>Really? We're taking life to some place with no known life. Who is getting raped and abused?

Why, the pristine regolith of Mars, of course. ROCKS HAVE RIGHTS TOO! UP WITH SILICON

Posted by d at April 26, 2002 04:27 PM

"I give you credit Barb, at least you acknowledge that you doing wrong. I just wonder what you people will do when the Earth is so decrepit that that you won't be able to drink the water anywhere."

Yeah, and the horse you rode in on, bub! What in the living hell are you talking about? I support space exploration and a hope for a positive future for humans and you twist that into a stupid statement that I'm all for turning the Earth into a cesspool and that I admit doing "wrong". Are you insane?? How DARE you accuse me of doing "wrong"; you know nothing about me or what I feel about the earth or about our place in this universe! You have a lot of gall to judge a person like that and say that I'm "like Hitler". I'm so angry right now at that incredible crap that I can't see straight.

Here's one back in your face (see how you like it): You Marxist scum!

Posted by Barb S, at April 26, 2002 10:37 PM

Gee..ever notice how insane and loud people like thomas get when anyone challenges their religous beliefs? All those caps and poor grammar! Damn, I bet he wishes he had a gun right now...
Oh yeah, and thomas? You also have no right to be using English, it's the language of oppression after all...How about rephrasing your rant about the rights of nonexistant aliens into, say, Bantu?

Posted by David Paglia at April 27, 2002 05:19 AM

One more point: comparison of the explicitly slave-driven, exploitation-oriented exploration of past centuries to space exploration at the current time is completely invalid. We are not going to the stars to get slaves or to melt down somebody's temple idols, and the current treaties governing exploration FORBID nations from claiming off-world territory. That US flag on Luna is a marker - all it says is "we got here first". The US has no more claim on Luna than Uganda has.

And personally speaking, I think that quibbling about the direction of investment from Lori M.'s perspective is particularly misguided. Don't just sit in a corner whining, join the space effort as an oversight person or something, and push to make sure that environments are respected and so on. Oh wait, that sounds like work...

Posted by Dominic at April 28, 2002 03:08 AM

We have the same right to spread across the
galaxy as a dandelion has to send its seeds
downwind.

Posted by J. Wasilewsky at April 28, 2002 03:44 PM

Already a young adult when the first 60s-detritus environmentalists appeared, your message from "Lori M." amused me. It evoked the UFO witness testimonials that proliferated in the 1970s. Little green men (or perhaps genderless beings) in flying saucers would kidnap a human being and take him or her to their spaceship. Almost invariably, the extraterrestrials would have an environmental message for the people of Earth: "Clean up your planet."

Yes, they'd taken the warp drive and travelled the 23 light-years from Betelgeuse or Arcturus to tell mankind to recycle those beer cans on the side of the freeway. In a way, Lori M.'s ideas aren't any sillier. She appears not to believe in extraterrestrial life forms, or at least not to be expecting their imminent arrival. (The physicist Enrico Fermi used to ask proponents of life on other planets, "If they're out there, where are they?") What is scary is how many eco-mushheads there are today. The UFO abductions were considered to be nutbar stuff by 95% of the population, but the worshippers of Gaia are taken seriously by far too many.

Posted by at April 28, 2002 03:48 PM

"Can those other planets support human life? No."

Yes.

With sufficient technology. Just like, oh, say, the Northwest Territories.

You really need to take a timeout and get your arguments put together, because I've seen very little resembling either facts or logic from you. It's mostly just accusing people of being extremists and militia members, and Republicans, and conservatives.

I am none of the above (with the possible exception of extremist, in Goldwater's immortal words, in defense of liberty).

Posted by Rand Simberg at April 28, 2002 03:55 PM

I am certainly not a member of either majority party, and while libertarian in many ways, I am more a "contrarian" than anything else, as my occasional rants on-site make clear.

Having said that, I would like to comment on the negative posts you have received on the now famous/infamous "Lori" post.

She, and those whose comments revealed a like mindset, will have descendants on Mars picketing for reparations to be paid to rock formations that were disturbed upon the landing of spacecraft from Earth. There will always be naysayers, and they serve a useful purpose . . . they help us refine our arguments for what is truly right and proper.

So . . . as you did . . . so keep doing . . . let them bitch and gripe . . . they are emminently helpful in the long run, despite themselves.

All the best,

J. Baxter (jb)
Long-Haired Country Boy

Posted by jb at April 28, 2002 09:06 PM

WOW!!! What a reaction!! Thank you for proving my point that you guys would rather call names like children than debate. "Marxist scum?" I have to remember that one. First Barb, I never said you were Hilter. The reason why I used that because YOU said exploitation was not bad....but it is. How could you not believe that? I am ALL for human advance. But how can colonize another planet when we can even take care of this one? Anyone pleae explain this logic. Second Rand, you give me planet that can support HUMAN life....Mars? When you get there go ahead a take you helmet of and breathe in that wonderful air. Third J. Walsilesky, it's our right because WE say so? Who are we? What makes us great enough that we have absolutely no restraint and clarity to blindly go and do whatever we want. Fourth David, who in the world said anything about religious beliefs? That has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion! I am talking about ethics, I don't know what you talking about. And here lies my whole arguement. There's a great line in Jurrasic Park by Jeff Glodbum that goes something like, "they were so caught up with if they could, that they didn't think about if they should." My arguement is that since the beginning of time man has evolved in extraordinary ways. We've built huge cities, created technology that puts one person from one side of the world in direct contact with another person on the other side. BUT what about the the negative things human have done? There is more pollution in the world then there have ever been. Not only have we created the atomic bomb, but it has been used. The quest for the best technology created and arms race between countries that can destroy each other 100 times over with a click of a button. My point is that when people make mistakes, then tend to learn from them so they can make better decisions next time around. We have a chance to expand the human race beyond this planet which is very awesome to think about, and I am very much for it. But RIGHT NOW we live on this planet and we are doing everything in our power to destroy it. Not just be pollution but by wars, and extreme globalization. How can we have the ego to think that we can go to another planet and blindly believe that it won't happen again? You guys choose to focus to good on the good mankind has done which is fine. BUT you also choose to disregard the negative things that mankind has done which is very dangerous. Before you go into any venture, gain some wisdom.

Posted by Thomas Hawthorne at April 29, 2002 10:20 AM

Just want to say I apologize for the name calling.

Posted by Thomas Hawthorne at April 29, 2002 10:24 AM

And the extremely poor grammar. I need to do more proofreading.

Posted by Thomas Hawthorne at April 29, 2002 10:27 AM

I've followed up Mr. Hawthorne's message in a new post a few posts above...

Posted by Rand Simberg at April 29, 2002 01:22 PM

jb wrote:
"I am ALL for human advance. But how can colonize another planet when we can even take care of this one? Anyone pleae explain this logic."

Simple. The same way Africans left to colonize Europe, Asia, and America instead of waiting until things were perfect in Africa first.

Here's a bulletin for you: Humans make mistakes. It's part of having limitations. If we are to wait until we no longer make mistakes to explore and inhabit space, we will never get there.

No one has yet denied that we will not make mistakes in space. We will. But that is not a reason *not* to go, any more than it is a reason not to have children or enter relationships.

jb continued:
"Second Rand, you give me planet that can support HUMAN life....Mars? When you get there go ahead a take you helmet of and breathe in that wonderful air."

Mars is an excellent candidate. We will have to depend on technology to sustain life there, just as (to borrow another poster's analogy) inhabitants in the Northwest Territories have to depend on technology for shelter against the harsh elements to be found *there*. Simply because the conditions are harsher is not a reason to refrain from going. Or are you suggesting that we should not go anywhere we cannot romp naked, sleep outdoors, and pick berries from the indigenous plant life?

jb continued:
"And here lies my whole arguement. There's a great line in Jurrasic Park by Jeff Glodbum that goes something like, "they were so caught up with if they could, that they didn't think about if they should." "

No one is advocating that we should be careless. You seem to be suggesting that we should refrain from it altogether.

Note that Ian Malcolm (Jeff Goldblum's character) was concerned about impact on the environment. What environment would be impacted by moving people to the Moon? There is no pre-existing trophic web *to* impact adversely. (What could humans do to make the Moon more dead?)

jb continued:
"My point is that when people make mistakes, then tend to learn from them so they can make better decisions next time around." ... "But RIGHT NOW we live on this planet and we are doing everything in our power to destroy it. Not just be pollution but by wars, and extreme globalization. How can we have the ego to think that we can go to another planet and blindly believe that it won't happen again?"

Hopefully, as you say, we will learn from those mistakes. But I can almost guarantee that if and when people take up residence other places besides Earth, they will make *new* mistakes. But mistakes we *might* make is not a reason to refrain from trying.

Let's bring this back to the terrestrial analogy and the primitive Africans. Would you have thought that someone mentioning, "We now have wars that can wipe out entire tribes. What's to say that, when you move to Asia, those things won't happen again?" Part of the reason to go is simple: To Make More Tribes. Even if something happens and the people on one ball of rock are stupid enough to wipe themselves out, if humans are on *more than one ball of rock*, that stupid mistake won't wipe us out *altogether*. We go, in part, to *enhance* our survivability, not diminish it. And more importantly, if such a hellish mistake is ever made, we will then finally have the *chance* to learn from it.

Posted by Matthew Funke at April 30, 2002 11:47 AM

My mistake. I misread the attributions of the various posts. Where I gave jb credit, I should have given Thomas Hawthorne credit.

My apologies.

Posted by Matthew Funke at April 30, 2002 11:49 AM

You know, I saw the recently released pictures of the Hubble Telescope of space. It was absolutely unbelievable and intimidating. I feel so insignificant. O.K. Here is a question. What's the problem with taking all this "enthusiasm", and putting toward something tangible like the Earth we live on right now? Why can we do something for us right now? We could make this planet a paradise with the invention of new technology. To produce a atmosphere on Mars is feasible, but it would take literally take hundreds of years. We won't even be around to reap the benefits. I just don't understand that.

Posted by Thomas Hawthone at April 30, 2002 12:35 PM

I'm glad you liked my post Rand. I'm glad it was one of your favorites. I hope you know it wasn't personal. How could it be personal? I don't even know you. I was attacking your attitude, not your person. In fact, your ridiculously condescending attitude is the only thing that stops you from making any sense in this piece. Your position is well and good, but you method of getting your point across is not very well thought out and extremely childish. That is the issue.

Posted by Bill Feeney at April 30, 2002 01:02 PM

Thomas Hawthorne wrote:
"What's the problem with taking all this "enthusiasm", and putting toward something tangible like the Earth we live on right now?"

There's absolutely nothing wrong with being enthusisatic about things here on Earth. I would say, however, that there is something wrong with putting *all* our enthusiasm into Earth, when we can see, explore, and inhabit other places as well. Having enthusaism about one to the complete exclusion of the other is not healthy. Excessive fascination with the present and none with the future causes useless stagnation.

I do not advocate that we ignore Earth, or stop trying to solve problems on Earth. But we can certainly allow some humans to explore and live elsewhere, too.

Thomas Hawthorne continued:
"We could make this planet a paradise with the invention of new technology."

That's quite speculative. Since human beings are prone to making mistakes and over-simplifying complex issues, I tend to doubt that we will ever be able to solve *all* environmental ills.

Thomas Hawthorne continued:
"To produce a atmosphere on Mars is feasible, but it would take literally take hundreds of years. We won't even be around to reap the benefits. I just don't understand that."

Could people exploring the American West have envisioned present-day Seattle? Sometimes we do things because we hope and dream, not because we plan to see *all* the outcomes immediately. In fact, some of our most precious things are things that do not offer immediate return: our children require many years to grow up, and chances are good that we will die before they will; those who plant trees may not live to see them mature; cathedrals were built over the course of generations. Simply because a given task is time-consuming does not negate its positive outcome in the future, nor does it prove that we should not begin the undertaking in the present.

Posted by Matthew Funke at April 30, 2002 01:10 PM

> What's the problem with taking all this "enthusiasm", and putting toward something tangible like the Earth we live on right now?

Go for it. Or, are you really arguing that we should work on what you find important....

> We won't even be around to reap the benefits. I just don't understand that.

And you have the nerve to criticize others for not thinking ahead....

I know old men who plant orchards, knowing that they'll never see the fruit.

BTW - I'd like to know what you're going to do to stop us from leaving Earth? Do you feel justified in doing more than calling us names?

-andy

PS - you really should cut down on the hyperbole. At some point, we might decide that you actually mean it.

Posted by Andy Freeman at April 30, 2002 01:55 PM

>>I feel so insignificant
So do we all. Which is why we want to go out there and make our mark on the universe.

Posted by d at May 1, 2002 08:47 AM

Who said anything about stopping exploration into space? All I am asking(since the beginning of these postings) is a little wisdom and respect for things that are beyond our comprehension. And not just a reckless "Mars is ours" attitude.

"Since human beings are prone to making mistakes and over-simplifying complex issues, I tend to doubt that we will ever be able to solve *all* environmental ills."

I agree, but we are mostly responsible for causing a lot of environment's ills. I just finished reading the article on the American Lung Association report on CNN's website. It's about half of all Americans live in areas where ozone levels can damage a person's health. They also stated that in some areas, there has been an increase in ozone levels.

Listen, I am not trying to point out all the "bad" things that us as humans have done. I just feel that we know very little about space(we can't even fathom how big this universe is) and I just think if we can't solve "environmental ills" here, how can we solve them in other place?(not only the problems we cause, but natural environmental issues)

It's kind of like(another analogy) going swimming in a place that has a sign that says "beware of sharks" but us stubborn humans go out swimming anyway. Then we get bitten, and wonder why sharks are attacking us. Because you didn't respect that fact that you could get bitten....

Posted by Thomas Hawthorne at May 1, 2002 10:45 AM

"Who said anything about stopping exploration into space?"

The person who wrote the letter to whom I responded in the Fox News column. She said that space travel was unethical, which presumably imply that we shouldn't do it, and that she would prevent it if she could.

"All I am asking(since the beginning of these postings) is a little wisdom and respect for things that are beyond our comprehension."

And who says that we don't have wisdom and respect for those things. You've been kicking the stuffing out of strawmen.

"And not just a reckless 'Mars is ours' attitude."

Assuming that there are no sentient/sapient Martians, if it's not ours, whose is it?

Posted by Rand Simberg at May 1, 2002 11:34 AM

Thomas Hawthorne wrote:
"Who said anything about stopping exploration into space?"

You're advoacting, unless I misunderstand you, that we don't go anywhere just yet. That would certainly put a stop to our exploration.

TH continued:
"All I am asking(since the beginning of these postings) is a little wisdom and respect for things that are beyond our comprehension."

*By definition*, things will remain beyond our comprehension *until we explore them*. Going into what we perfectly understand is not exploration. Going into the unknown, by definition, is.

TH continued:
"I just feel that we know very little about space(we can't even fathom how big this universe is)"...

I don't think too many people can fathom how big the *Earth* is. Does that mean we don't belong here?

I have trouble imagining the number 241. (If you pointed to a group of four cars and told me, "There are four cars there," I could immediately grasp the correctness of your statement. If you pointed to a parking lot from above and said, "There are 241 cars there," I'd have to count before understanding whether or not your statement was correct.) Still, the number of the building where I live is 241. I can use the number in a useful way without being able to wrap my head around it completely; namely, I can derive that it is the 120th building on my side of the street (which it is), among other things.

Similarly, we do not have to comprehend the size of the universe before we explore it. Was it necessary for Eratosthenes to calculate the size of the Earth before we undertook its exploration as a species?

TH continued:
..."and I just think if we can't solve "environmental ills" here, how can we solve them in other place?(not only the problems we cause, but natural environmental issues)"

You're predicting the future again. How do you know we can't solve environmental ills here? And why do we have to make sure all problems are solved in one area before exploring another? Human history has no precedent for that, and I submit that we would be *quite* overcrowded in a small land area if we subscribed to that philosophy early on.

TH continued:
"It's kind of like(another analogy) going swimming in a place that has a sign that says "beware of sharks" but us stubborn humans go out swimming anyway. Then we get bitten, and wonder why sharks are attacking us. Because you didn't respect that fact that you could get bitten...."

An imprefect analogy at best for several reasons.

(1) Last I checked, the Universe did not have a "Keep Out" sign posted anywhere.

(2) It's not like going swimming in a shark-infested area in swim trunks. We're trying to do this intelligently. It's like going into a shark-infested area while wearing a Kevlar body suit in a submarine that is covered in shark repellent.

(3) No one is saying that it's not dangerous. *Of course* it's dangerous. We're trying to *explore* here, and exploration is a dangerous business. If we were to look at the astronauts who have died in the attempt to explore space, I think you'd find that most space enthusiasts mourn their deaths, but also consider them a sober reminder of the difficulty and the importance of the task to which they were committed.

If we were to apply your analogy more accurately, the stance of those advocating space exploration would be to look at the sign and be as careful as possible to do everything we can think of not to get attacked before going in. The stance of those who would advocate we stay behind is analogous to someone who suggests we stay out of that area completely, under any circumstances, until we figure out a way to solve the animosity between shark and human.

We respect that we "could get bitten". That's exactly why we try to design our spacecraft carefully. But there's a world of difference between doing your damnedest to avoid catastrophe while having the courage to try and trying to avoid catastrophe by avoiding the attempt.

Let me ask a few questions in return:

* Why would you want to condemn humanity to live in one place until we solve all our problems? What if we make a *big* mistake and wipe out that one place? Is it better that we wipe out the species or that we have a contingent of the population who can see what happened and learn from it?

* Why does humanity, as a whole, have to stick with what isn't dangerous, even assuming they do their best to mitigate risk? What should it do about *current* activities that it undertakes that are risky?

Let me finish this post by replying to something you said at the beginning of yours: ..."And not just a reckless "Mars is ours" attitude." No one is advocating being reckless. The American Heritage Dictionary defines reckless as "indifferent to or disregardful of consequences"; even rabid advocates of space exploration would admit that we should go no faster than would allow sober assessment of the risk involved to life and limb. But we cannot allow understanding of the fact that a risk exists prevent us, *as a race*, from trying.

We're not forcing everyone to try. There are some people who *still* wouldn't get in with the sharks if you put them in the Kevlar, submarine, and shark repellent, and that's fine, I suppose. But it's another thing altogether to suggest that those who do are necessarily being reckless.

Posted by at May 1, 2002 11:40 AM

Whoops. That's my big, long message up there (Posted by at May 1, 2002 11:40 AM). I forgot the name and stuff... I didn't intend to be chicken-hearted.

Posted by Matthew Funke at May 1, 2002 11:43 AM

Here are the answer to your questions:

1."Why would you want to condemn humanity to live in one place until we solve all our problems? What if we make a *big* mistake and wipe out that one place? Is it better that we wipe out the species or that we have a contingent of the population who can see what happened and learn from it?"

I dont' want to condemn humanity to just thhis planet. Space exploration is an incredible idea. But my point is if you can't solve problem in one place, what makes you think you will solve that problem in another. Space is unpredictable. Meteors don't fly into Earth as much as other planets. With different planets come different issues(some which we've would have never expected)

2."Why does humanity, as a whole, have to stick with what isn't dangerous, even assuming they do their best to mitigate risk? What should it do about *current* activities that it undertakes that are risky?"

I didn't say that. To me the more risk is not respecting the unknown. Humans(as much as you guys put us on a pedestal) are fragile. One minute we're here, the next we're gone. We should live for every moment, and not worry about something we can't control.

I have a question for you, if man has naturally evolved into the people we see today, with all the discoveries and inventions and technology, don't you think that it is feasible "naturally" we will evolve into a race that will be able to handle exploration of this magnitude?

Look I personally feel that humans have not reached their full potential, I would like to be a part of it when we do, but without being humble in my fragility and not appreciate what I have around me, I walk blind and mostly certainly will fall. I feel that we are trying to force evolution, and that is something that we might not be ready for.

Posted by Thomas Hawthorne at May 1, 2002 01:45 PM

So what are you proposing, if not that we should wait until the doubting Thomases say it's OK? If you're saying we should be careful and respectful, no one here disagrees. You've been arguing with a strawman.

Posted by Rand Simberg at May 1, 2002 01:55 PM

Thomas Hawthorne wrote:
"But my point is if you can't solve problem in one place, what makes you think you will solve that problem in another."

Since each problem is different, each problem requires its own answer. Some problems that we have are ones that we *caused*, and which we would hopefully learn from and avoid. Other problems are unique to our destination, and will be solved when we arrive. If we can't solve the problem, and it is a threat to our survival, we won't go. (Outside of a few kooks, for example, no one is advocating a manned mission to set foot on Venus; keeping people reasonably safe there is beyond the state of the art.)

"Space is unpredictable. Meteors don't fly into Earth as much as other planets. With different planets come different issues(some which we've would have never expected)"

True. But things that *might* happen are not a reason not to go.

If someone moved from the Middle East to Siberia, different issues -- perhaps some unexpected -- would arise to challenge that someone's survival. But I wouldn't insist that she *not go* -- just that she go *carefully considering Siberia's unique dangers*. And that's *exactly* what we want for space exploration.

Besides, who wants a life that's totally predictable? Not I. And I politely ask that you allow that others might enjoy not knowing everything the future holds as well. (Please note that reveling in the unpredictable and unexpected does *not* mean living life with no plans or regard for danger. It's not an either-or proposition.)

TH continued:
"To me the more risk is not respecting the unknown. Humans(as much as you guys put us on a pedestal) are fragile. One minute we're here, the next we're gone. We should live for every moment, and not worry about something we can't control."

Which, to me, is *exactly* why we should go. You're insisting that we not go until we can take *every* factor into account -- which, given our lack of omniscience, is inherently impossible. We go soberly, carefully, intelligently, but we don't hold back because we can't imagine everything that might go wrong or all the problems we might create. (Do you think we don't know why things are polluted? Do you think we lack the intelligence to avoid doing that elsewhere?)

TH continued:
"I have a question for you, if man has naturally evolved into the people we see today, with all the discoveries and inventions and technology, don't you think that it is feasible "naturally" we will evolve into a race that will be able to handle exploration of this magnitude?"

Science, discoveries, and technology has not caused man to *evolve*; his understanding of things has changed, yes, but he has not changed biologically through any of these things. His mental capacity and biological makeup have remained essentially fixed through the whole of human history.

Given that, I think we *have* evolved into a race that can handle exploration of this magnitude. Our understanding grows. That's the nature of intelligence. We can peer into space using telescopes where we couldn't before. That's a growth in understanding, not evolution. We can fly now; we couldn't before. That, too, is a growth in understanding, not evolution. Similarly, expansion into space will represent a growth in our *understanding*. We will become a more advanced species, as we always have become, because we *understand more*, not because the random forces of evolution and genetics have changed us into a better species.

TH continued:
"Look I personally feel that humans have not reached their full potential, I would like to be a part of it when we do, but without being humble in my fragility and not appreciate what I have around me, I walk blind and mostly certainly will fall."

-=sigh=- *No one* is advocating that we ignore or do not appreciate what is around us. NO ONE. We are not going to *replace* the knowledge we have of Earth with what we find elsewhere; we are going to *augment* our knowledge.

Have you ever read T.S. Eliot? He understood that exploring did not mean ignoring what we leave behind: "We shall not cease from exploration, and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we started and know the place for the first time."

TH continued:
"I feel that we are trying to force evolution, and that is something that we might not be ready for."

Was the invention of the telephone attempting to force evolution? Was leaving for the American West in covered wagons?

When we set up a habitation on Mars, *we will still be human beings*. Just as inventors, discoverers, and scientists have been before us.

Going to another planet is not some mystical enterprise, any more than choosing to take up habitation in Finland instead of the United States. (We don't have to cause all sorts of nasty problems there, either.) It's a question of technology and the decision to go.

Posted by Matthew Funke at May 2, 2002 06:37 AM

My god I have actually been drawn into an issue on your site and made a hypocrite.

Going to another planet is a far more than a technological question. If it was merely a technological question, anyone could jump off the old lazy boy, beer in hand and head to the stars driving a rocket. Even your colonists were in tiptop shape, relocating to another planet is a mind bogglingly stressful project. I'd imagine only a small fraction of the earth's population would be mentally sound enough to participate in such an endeavor. If you doubt it, try locking yourself in your room for a couple months. The ?We?re going and leaving you behind folks? are certainly not going. If by any chance they do, good riddance.

"Going to another planet is not some mystical enterprise, any more than choosing to take up habitation in Finland instead of the United States. "

Yes it is. Finland and the US have the same color sky. In both places you are able to walk outside and breathe. There are trees, bugs and a millions other things that are in your daily experience that will not be there on another planet. Try relocating to the middle of a forest for a year and see what even that does to you. God knows what effect that will have on the first generation. Current folks on space stations know they are coming back. Colonists to another planet are going there for good. Their bodies will likely change making it impossible to return. Even if they were able and did want a breather back on earth, they probably will have barely the resources required to survive, let alone an interplanetary vacation.

What kind of social structure will appear out of the stresses imposed by living in such a wildly different place? How will the colonists respond to such a change? What will the children of these people be like? If we (collective) don?t have a plan to tackle these questions, let alone a clue, Mr. Murphy will likely pop in for a visit and ruin the party.

Finally, I?d just like to tie this together. The point here is not that we shouldn?t go. Hell yes we should. It is that if we only consider the technology and leap off, we ARE going to bring all the nasty human baggage across the void and to a far less forgiving place. The human race as a whole doesn?t need to ?achieve a higher level?, or whatever, but the few who will colonize the stars do.

p.s. since some of your readers have decided to try and virus my system, unsuccessfully so far, I will make them go to the top for my email address.

Posted by Bill Feeney at May 2, 2002 11:23 AM

Interesting stuff....

To the fellow that thinks we can't claim Mars for our own... Who the hell else has claim on it?

"We're all part of one Universe." And if you ran it it'd be a gulag. You've watched Waaaayyy too many episodes of Star Trek. Space is mostly empty (particularly of Sentient life) The only thing that the neo-human colonialists are going to exploit are minerals. Please get over the pale-penis-people loathing and join us in this new millenium.

Posted by chris C at May 2, 2002 11:46 AM

I think it is a sign of our prosperity as a species and our lack of a current unifying goal when our species has members who think in such destructive relatavistic loops as Mr. Hawthorne does.

Our entire history has been one of expansion, of a constant stiving for the better life. If a resources existed that we were aware of, we exploited it. There has never, until the last century and a half, been any guilt associated with this defining trait of our species. Only until our species' standard of living rose so exponentially, and so suddenly, could we have the ability to look back twenty years ( or any measure of time that could be experienced in one lifetime that noticible change occured) and realize what it took to live then vs. now.

I think that it is this obvious change in our lives that drives some members of our species to fear our progress and begin to redress our methods of acquiring the heights of experience that we have attained.

It is those members who fear and prophesie doom that should be most thankful of our growth, for had this explosion in technology never occured, they would never have had time to complain, since they'd be hunting their food most of the day and cooking it in the evening.

I say to hell with guilt and the rediculous notion that we owe anything to any other thing than our species. We wrested control of this planet from every other living thing here. We are the masters of our domain. Lets expand it.

And the tree huggers and self-haters will inherit the earth. I want the heavens.

Posted by at May 2, 2002 02:34 PM

Bill Feeney wrote:
"Going to another planet is a far more than a technological question. If it was merely a technological question, anyone could jump off the old lazy boy, beer in hand and head to the stars driving a rocket. Even your colonists were in tiptop shape, relocating to another planet is a mind bogglingly stressful project."

I never said that it was *merely* a technological question. Read my post again carefully. I said it was a question of technology *and the decision to go*. I also made it clear in my post that the decision to go must be made carefully and soberly. You're taking my words out of context and twisting them to make it sound as if I advocate a haphazard jump into the stars, when nothing could be further from the truth. We must decide to go, but that decision should be made as intelligently as we know how.

Mr. Feeney continued:
"I'd imagine only a small fraction of the earth's population would be mentally sound enough to participate in such an endeavor. If you doubt it, try locking yourself in your room for a couple months. The ?We?re going and leaving you behind folks? are certainly not going. If by any chance they do, good riddance."

I admit that only a small segment of the human population could undertake such a venture. We're not all cut out to be pioneers. What I decry is the statement that *all* pioneer-minded people should resist the urge to inhabit space until the species as a whole "matures" to some arbitrary standard.

I don't know if I, personally, am made of the kind of psychological stuff that being a space explorer would require. Perhaps not. But I think that humans that want to go and are careful about doing so *should be allowed to go*, and not be held back because of some belief that mankind is innately incapable of undertaking the enterprise.

Mr. Feeney continued, in response to my statement that "Going to another planet is not some mystical enterprise, any more than choosing to take up habitation in Finland instead of the United States.":
"Yes it is. Finland and the US have the same color sky. In both places you are able to walk outside and breathe. There are trees, bugs and a millions other things that are in your daily experience that will not be there on another planet."

Read my statement again more carefully. I would never deny that space habitation is not more *complex* or *challenging* than moving from the US to Finland. That would be foolhardy, if not self-delusional. But how does this complexity or challenge make it more *mystical*? It does not. In both cases, we must assess where we are going carefully, as well as the challenges it might present. The challenges are more profound in space. But I would argue that if we can ethically move around on Earth guilt-free, then we can move around *ethically* on the Moon guilt-free. There's no *ethical* difference, and certainly no *mystical* difference. There may be *technological* differences, or *psychological* differences, but those are different questions, and would not address the accusation that mankind is currently too ethically bankrupt to take to space habitation.

Mr. Feeney continued:
"What kind of social structure will appear out of the stresses imposed by living in such a wildly different place? How will the colonists respond to such a change? What will the children of these people be like? If we (collective) don?t have a plan to tackle these questions, let alone a clue, Mr. Murphy will likely pop in for a visit and ruin the party."

I think we agree on this point. I'm not advocating a jump into space without regard for the stresses involved in that jump, to equipment and the people depending on it for survival. And I have *insisted* on this from the beginning. My problem is with people who seem to think that we are *incapable* of being sober-minded about it (at least for the time being). Mr. Murphy is exactly *why* we need to be sober-minded.

Posted by Matthew Funke at May 3, 2002 06:28 AM

You say that the decision to explore this universe should not be based on maturity. So little toddlers can go if they want to? Pre - adolescent children. Of course not! Why? Because whoever goes, should have a certain level of maturity to handle things that have never been seen before. It's the mature people who think first BEFORE they act. It's the mature people who think about the positives and negatives in attempting a venture like this. It's a mature person who will respect someone else's opinion, even if they don't agree. It's the mature people who will respect the unknown and not boast they know so much about something new and unpredictable. Those are the people who will go.

Posted by Thomas Hawthorne at May 3, 2002 11:31 AM

?I admit that only a small segment of the human population could undertake such a venture. We're not all cut out to be pioneers. What I decry is the statement that *all* pioneer-minded people should resist the urge to inhabit space until the species as a whole "matures" to some arbitrary standard.?
I don't know if I, personally, am made of the kind of psychological stuff that being a space explorer would require. Perhaps not. But I think that humans that want to go and are careful about doing so *should be allowed to go*, and not be held back because of some belief that mankind is innately incapable of undertaking the enterprise.

Read my statement more carefully.

The human race as a whole doesn?t need to ?achieve a higher level?, or whatever, but the few who will colonize the stars do.

I think you missed that.

Mystical ? a. having a spiritual meaning or reality that is neither apparent to the senses nor obvious to the intelligence.

b. involving or having the nature of an individual's direct subjective communion with God or ultimate reality.

I do think it?s a mystical experience to leave you planet. I would argue that such an experience does effect ?the nature of an individual's direct subjective communion with God or ultimate reality.?

I am afraid that I took your words out of context because that's how I read them.
You are right. You did say all that in a previous post. And I misunderstood it as taking an approach concerned with technology. I guess it was the lack of a human element in the discussion that sparked me.

As for the topic itself, I would say that the only ethical question I see in this is that there must be a balance in the chance of success and the cost in Earthly resources. Which is something I don?t think anyone would argue.

Posted by Bill Feeney at May 3, 2002 11:32 AM

Bill Feeney wrote:
"Read my statement more carefully. The human race as a whole doesn?t need to ?achieve a higher level?, or whatever, but the few who will colonize the stars do. I think you missed that."

I understand that you believe this. This entire discussion *started*, though, with someone who thought that the human race was not worthy (at least not yet) to take to the heavens as a race. Some others here have been asserting parallel statements. It is *these* statements with which I do not agree, and not yours that the ones who do make the pioneering steps into the unknown will have to be uncommonly brave, skillful, intelligent, and fortunate. I believe that they will, and that they will be be a step beyond the average John or Jane Doe who would not be as willing to suffer deprivation or who would simply not possess the talent to go.

Just please, *please* don't tell me that the *entire race* can't go, and *please* don't tell me that going constitutes a willful disregard of things either here on Earth or at the chosen destination. I don't believe any of those conditions to be true, and it's those statements I meant to debate, not yours. I apologize for the misunderstanding.

Mr. Feeney continued:
"I do think it?s a mystical experience to leave you planet. I would argue that such an experience does effect ?the nature of an individual's direct subjective communion with God or ultimate reality.?"

I believe that it *can* be, depending on the sensitivity of the individual to such things -- but not that it *must* be, or that acquiring this "deeper communication" is a prerequisite for going.

This does not mean that humans who do this will not be changed by the venture. It's interesting to see how even normally tight-lipped test pilots awkwardly stumbled over their words in a vain effort to describe the wonder of the things they'd seen. Michael Collins (the Command Module Pilot for Apollo 11) went on record saying that what the space program *really* needed was more English majors, since the astronauts they had on hand found themselves woefully ill-equipped to deal with trying to describe things. (I'm an engineer, so I'm not tooting my own horn here.) I have a quote from Jim Irwin, an Apollo 15 astronaut who has mentioned at various opportunities that it was his trip to the Moon that changed his faith. "As we got further and further away, it [the Earth] diminished in size. Finally it shrank to the size of a marble, the most beautiful you can imagine. That beautiful, warm, living object looked so fragile, so delicate, that if you touched it with a finger it would crumble and fall apart. Seeing this has to change a man."

Of course, there may be that one-in-a-billion person whom it doesn't really affect all that much. If he was willing to go and talented enough to go, I'd still let him go. :)

Mr. Feeney continued:
"As for the topic itself, I would say that the only ethical question I see in this is that there must be a balance in the chance of success and the cost in Earthly resources. Which is something I don?t think anyone would argue."

No argument here, certainly. :) *Because* space is the harshest and most unforgiving environment into which man has yet ventured, it behooves him to consider things as carefully as he can before he commits to living there. But he is certainly *capable* of the task, and I wouldn't hold him back. :)

Posted by Matthew Funke at May 3, 2002 12:25 PM

Thomas Hawthorne wrote:
"You say that the decision to explore this universe should not be based on maturity."

When did I say this? If anything, I've been stating that the people who go should do so intelligently, soberly, and carefully from the beginning. I've been something of a broken record in this respect. Those things would seem to be the earmarks of mature decision-making.

I've looked through this list several times by hand and even tried using text-search tools, but I can't find a single reference to the maturity of individuals. What I am trying to disagree with is the notion that the race *as a whole* is not mature enough to go. I believe that it is. (Certain individuals are obviously not. But I don't believe it is they who will be interested in pioneering such a venture anyway, once they investigate its difficulty and danger a little bit.)

TH continued:
"So little toddlers can go if they want to? Pre - adolescent children. Of course not! Why? Because whoever goes, should have a certain level of maturity to handle things that have never been seen before. It's the mature people who think first BEFORE they act. It's the mature people who think about the positives and negatives in attempting a venture like this."

I find nothing to disagree with here. This is exactly the sort of approach I've been trying to support -- that mature, intelligent, careful, talented people should be allowed to go into space.

TH continued:
"It's a mature person who will respect someone else's opinion, even if they don't agree."

Provided that opinion has reasonable basis in fact, yes. If I had an opinion that 2 and 2 should equal 78, and that the rest of mathematics should remain unchanged, I would hope that no thinking person would respect that opinion. But that's somewhat irrelevant.

TH continued:
"It's the mature people who will respect the unknown and not boast they know so much about something new and unpredictable. Those are the people who will go."

I've been saying that we should go and *explore*, which by its very nature means that we will be going *in order to find out*. That means that no one knows exactly what they're going to find.

But that also doesn't mean that we can't be careful about our venture and plan to go intelligently. One can respect the unknown and acknowledge what one does *not* know while simultaneously making preparations for the attempt to discover *more*... and I think we *need* to do both; either one, taken to an extreme, could be unhealthy. (Too much "respect for the unknown" is paralyzing; not enough is foolhardy.)

In short, I don't really know what point you're trying to make or with whom you're trying to disagree.

Posted by Matthew Funke at May 3, 2002 12:40 PM

I also agree that there are some who may not be affected in a mystical way, but I do think that the vast majority would, but this point is really moot.

In the end we are saying the same things. I am glad to see that with futher refinement and clairfication of our positions, they seem to meld. I enjoyed the dialogue with you even if I only showed up here out of spite. =]

p.s. I knew you were an engineer. =]

Posted by at May 3, 2002 01:22 PM

It seems that we have an intellectual morass concerning post industrial environmentalism. I would like to point out that space will be explored by bigots, racists, criminals, and others with a prepossed intectual slant (read 'Bias') and that this is unavoidable. You are who you are and your biases cannot be removed.
I would like to pose a question? What would America be if order were removed an anarchy was the social order of the day? Would environmentalism be cast aside for darwinistic survivalism? I think so. I think it is egregious for us to think that man can destroy the world. Man can only destroy his environment. I think that the world and what would come to rise after man would be quite alright.

Keep on writing Rand!!

Posted by M.G. Reed at May 7, 2002 09:42 AM

Post a comment