Space Missions, Wasted Money? - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 08-16-2004, 07:22 AM   #16
Refugee
 
WinnieThePoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: New England
Posts: 2,232
Local Time: 09:02 PM
don't kill the dream , and a noble cause too ,
__________________

__________________
WinnieThePoo is offline  
Old 08-20-2004, 04:32 PM   #17
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 05:02 PM
If mankind had always focused on the problems at home instead of exploration, we would likely be living in huts far from where we are today.
__________________

__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 08-21-2004, 10:52 AM   #18
you are what you is
 
Salome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 22,016
Local Time: 02:02 AM
I don't see the logic in that one really

space missions have helped along some technological progress
but it's not like we would still be walking on all fours if our aim would be to improve life on earth instead of finding dust on mars
__________________
“Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe.”
~Frank Zappa
Salome is offline  
Old 08-21-2004, 10:58 AM   #19
Jesus Online
 
Angela Harlem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: a glass castle
Posts: 30,163
Local Time: 12:02 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
If mankind had always focused on the problems at home instead of exploration, we would likely be living in huts far from where we are today.
I cant see how you reach this conclusion.


Unless you are talking about the spiffy non stick coating on your iron, or your swanky teflon frying pan. Cos, lets face it, that's about the crux of NASA's useful achievements.
__________________
<a href=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v196/angelaharlem/thPaul_Roos28.jpg target=_blank>http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...aul_Roos28.jpg</a>
Angela Harlem is offline  
Old 08-21-2004, 12:36 PM   #20
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 05:02 PM
History and progress is based on exploration. The benefits of modern exploration go far beyond kitchen gadgets.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 08-22-2004, 10:48 AM   #21
Refugee
 
Dorian Gray's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 1,520
Local Time: 01:02 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Angela Harlem
Water is on earth. Where we've already spread out and destroyed such large portions of it. Why head out into such a vast, pristine space and willinly fuck that up too? You think we wont? We are aware of what we've destroyed here, but I dont see anyone really doing a great deal about it. So our logical step is to move somewhere else? If we survive as a species long enough, where will we go after that? Because I'm sure our egos will ensure we take up as much room out there as possible. Defeatist it might be, but alternatively moving on instead of rectifying here, is arrogance. We dont belong in space.
I can understand where you're coming from here, but I have to disagree. Space - in terms of what we as humans can explore - can't really be 'fucked up.' It isn't in some pristine state. Space just "is": Mars, Jupiter, the Moon, wherever. What does "pristine" mean anyway? I can't wrap my head around the idea. Isn't "Pristine," like the terms "natural," or "wilderness," a human construct? From what I can figure, it's used to convey the idea that non-human regions are somehow the ideal, and human presense upsets this ideal. But this is really a late 19th/20th century idea. (Think of T. Roosevelt and his work as a naturalist; before this period, would you ever see that sort of thinking?) Pristiness is not an absolute truth/reality.

Instead of space, think about the justifications given for the building of national parks. Parks are constructed so that human influence remains outside of a designated area. In doing so, we call that area pristine, or natural. But when did humans become unnatural? Why have we seperated our behaviour as being somehow different (or unnatual) from other animal behaviours?

Anyway, back to space - Can an arguement be made that humans have no "right" to explore/colonize/plunder space? Given that our presence is in no way upsetting a balance, or creating an unnatural state, I can't see one logically being made. Especially considering that the tiny fraction of space we can explore is seemingly devoid of all life. By preventing ourselves from exploring space, who or what are we protecting?

Now, that being said, I do agree with you in that we should stick to Earth for now. The money could be better spent elsewhere.


(apologies if I've taken this thread on a bit of a tangent)
__________________

__________________
Dorian Gray is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

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

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:02 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com