EPTOn August 07 2012 06:53 xrapture wrote:
It's funny that you posted that picture. Do you know how "inspiring" the Statue of Liberty and the Eiffel Tower are today? They are nothing more than tourist attractions. And I'd be more than happy to see the Pyramids destroyed. Why preserve "wonders" that are a testament to slavery?
You speak a lot about the importance of inspiring future children to be scientists, mathematics, and engineers. Doesn't that seem like a selfish motive-- hoping impressionable children are manipulated into becoming slaves to the scientific community?
" inspire the youth to do practical things like engineering and math and science" Ah, of all the words I've heard in relation to math, something that isn't required in nearly any of the world's jobs, practical is one I've not heard. And $2.5 billion to look at rocks on Mars is practical to you? I think you need to look up the definition of the word.
Yea, ok we spend too much money on the military, I've heard that argument many times. But, is that seriously your argument? People say the Rover is a waste of money and you point the finger to something else? That is not how you argue and it's immature to be honest, but I'll bite.
Look, technology and society is evolving at an exponentially faster rate than humanity. We are just smart monkies, after all. We have animalistic instincts, carnal desires, and we are all utterly selfish. Look at the most powerful and successful nations in the world's history: The United States, Great Britian, and Rome. Wars sculpted these countries and will always be a part of the world as long as primitive creatures like humans rule it.
If man steps foot on Mars it will be the equivalent of moving a fraction of a nano-meter from the Earth's surface (in relation to the universe). Sorry if I'm not inspired by that.
If man makes the world self sustainable-- yes that will be inspiring. So I guess you can lump me in with all the people that say that we should fix our world's problems before embarking on huge scientific endeavors. Of course I know crime or poverty can never be completely eliminated, but imagine if the entire world was like most of Europe. Can we aim for that? Can we aim for a low birth rate and a very small amount of starving citizens before we spend billions to look at rocks?
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/DflDz.gif)
It's funny that you posted that picture. Do you know how "inspiring" the Statue of Liberty and the Eiffel Tower are today? They are nothing more than tourist attractions. And I'd be more than happy to see the Pyramids destroyed. Why preserve "wonders" that are a testament to slavery?
You speak a lot about the importance of inspiring future children to be scientists, mathematics, and engineers. Doesn't that seem like a selfish motive-- hoping impressionable children are manipulated into becoming slaves to the scientific community?
" inspire the youth to do practical things like engineering and math and science" Ah, of all the words I've heard in relation to math, something that isn't required in nearly any of the world's jobs, practical is one I've not heard. And $2.5 billion to look at rocks on Mars is practical to you? I think you need to look up the definition of the word.
Yea, ok we spend too much money on the military, I've heard that argument many times. But, is that seriously your argument? People say the Rover is a waste of money and you point the finger to something else? That is not how you argue and it's immature to be honest, but I'll bite.
Look, technology and society is evolving at an exponentially faster rate than humanity. We are just smart monkies, after all. We have animalistic instincts, carnal desires, and we are all utterly selfish. Look at the most powerful and successful nations in the world's history: The United States, Great Britian, and Rome. Wars sculpted these countries and will always be a part of the world as long as primitive creatures like humans rule it.
If man steps foot on Mars it will be the equivalent of moving a fraction of a nano-meter from the Earth's surface (in relation to the universe). Sorry if I'm not inspired by that.
If man makes the world self sustainable-- yes that will be inspiring. So I guess you can lump me in with all the people that say that we should fix our world's problems before embarking on huge scientific endeavors. Of course I know crime or poverty can never be completely eliminated, but imagine if the entire world was like most of Europe. Can we aim for that? Can we aim for a low birth rate and a very small amount of starving citizens before we spend billions to look at rocks?
No dude. It will be like moving millions of miles through space. The universe is really big - but that doesn't change how long a nanometer is. Using scales like that is one way to approximate a comprehension of the vastness of the universe which is actually quite impossible really - but saying that it's like "moving nanometers compared to the vastness of the universe" is completely misleading and completely an understatement. You include the comparison between "the distance between Earth and Mars" and "the greatest diameter of the universe" but you purposefully exclude what you are comparing "nanometers" to. If its like moving nanometers in a sphere of radius 2 nm thats 4th base, home run, going all the way. The universe is so large there is starlight seen on other planets that will never reach us - even if given billions of years travelling at 300,000,000 km/s. The volume of any object you have ever encountered here on Earth divided by the volume of the universe is a number so small that in math we would say "thats pretty much zero, mang." Like if there was a button that gave me 2 bucks every time I pressed it, but every time I pressed it there was an (apple/the universe)% chance I would die - I would push that shit all day np. Even a (moon/the universe)% chance - yes even (sun/the universe) or (milky way/the universe). I would be a rich motherfucker after a couple days of button pressing (or I'd be dead - but just look at the odds!). You can't really gain anything by comparing distances in the solar system to the vastness of the universe - and aforementioned vasticity is totally irrelevant in this case. I'll get into that in a second.
I'll just ignore that you think the rover's main objective is to transmit visual spectrum images of local aggregate - I think NASA has that pretty well covered on their website - you can go there to look if you want, I'm pretty sure its like "NASA.gov" or something.
One of the main problems we have with Earth sustaining our gigantic population is simply that she isn't supposed to. We have a difficult enough time feeding ourselves in first-world countries - let alone providing support and aid to poorer regions. This is huge problem that needs to be solved - and one of the ways we could do it - would be by colonizing/terraforming a nearby planetary body capable of supporting life - like for example, Mars. This is why the vastness of the universe is irrelevant in this case. There are billions of billions of trillions of billions of planets in the universe. There is no way we can colonize all of them - and there is no reason to start with the ones on the other side of the universe (unless, you know, mass relay). The major distance we will have to overcome is first stepping outside our solar system - the closest star is still light years away and we want a star with habitable planets. This is a problem that could be solved by a FTL engine or something like the 2045 Project. One thing is for certain - we need more room for the species to grow and we need to maximize the efficiency of the space we have. Earth has not yet reached this efficiency potential - and efficient technologies have a way of turning up in space programs like NASA. The two problems - space exploration and Earth reformation are intertwined through science. One helps the other. I think one of the best things we could do would be to focus on BOTH topics with an awareness of the challenges in each field - and thus a greater rate of collaboration.
This last bit is a bit more political - but I'm interested to hear (enlightened) takes on it (or explanations of the problems involved that I am not understanding):
I think with things like "saving the Earth" and "saving the human race" - money should be less of a concern. Can't the whole world just give itself a couple extra probe/manned launches as a present? Or a shot in the arm(/poor underdeveloped country)? Lets say I wanted to send a group of volunteers to build infrastructure in a certain part of the world - is the main problem resources and travel expense? Because that seems like things are just being held up by greedy corporations who are "sorry, but that's business." I don't think "The Home Despot" would be put out of business by a even a few hundred thousand dollars worth of wood and nails - nor any airline that sent the volunteers over for free. I don't think charity should be about raising money to purchase the necessary goods. If we are going to live in a Capitalist society where corporations are considered people - those corporations need to contribute to the people in more ways than getting rid of excess money when taxes come around. It shouldn't be "damnit, we have all this money - quick give some to that charity thing" - but instead be "we give some of our expertise to the improvement and modernization of the world, we still turn a profit, and damnit we're proud of that shit."
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/58/PIA14294_Sumner1_curiosity_landing_site.jpg/800px-PIA14294_Sumner1_curiosity_landing_site.jpg)
