This just in: Miriel has no soul. More at 11.Originally Posted by Miriel
Dude. It looks like a perfectly round poop. A big round poop. But I mean, if that's the style you dig...I think someone needs glasses.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ARS-Viking.jpg
Yeah, I'm not going to image tag that since the original is 6445x6445.
You look like a poop.
I just got an email and I am officially on the newsletter for application. When the time comes you have a week to send in a 1 minute response video to a question.vote chemical for mars 2023.
Boldly go.
I don't think I'm cut out for a trip to Mars, but the idea of a one-way visit fascinates me. Some scientists actually think it's the only practical way we'll get humans on Mars for the foreseeable future. I listened to this podcast episode about a one way trip to Mars a couple months ago--highly recommended!
I really want to go and be part and do my share in this amazing historical moment, but going away forever feels too overwhelming. Still, I will send an application. If I'm qualified no way I'm missing this chance to an adventure to another planet and be in a spaceship... in space!
Last edited by Larahl; 04-04-2013 at 02:33 AM.
if there is one thing I've learned from this thread it's that Mars is serious smurfing business and is the most polarizing topic in the history of mankind and causes serious amounts of butt devastation all around
Pike, every topic on this forum is polarizing.
But the exploration of space is always serious smurfing business. Our survival as a species depends on it.
I agree, of course, but I really wanted an excuse to post skub.
I'm not sure our species really deserves to carry on, tbh. Once we die out, we should die out naturally. In case you hadn't notice, our species kind of sucks.
Our species landed on the moon about 50 years after inventing heavier than air flight just because we could.
Our species is GREAT.
Our species includes Patrick Stewart and Morgan Freeman. Your argument is invalid.
Also maybe we should try to improve ourselves as a species (By doing awesome things like pursuing scientific and technological goals) rather than just saying "We're trout, let's give up"
Also also you've got a deeply incorrect comprehension of what our species is. Our intelligence IS natural. Evolution removed almost every other advantage we could possibly imagine, except the capacity for extraordinary endurance, and traded it all in for intelligence. Saying we should forego that and allow ourselves to "die out naturally" (as though species-wide suicide could be natural) is utterly nonsensical. It is exactly equivalent to arguing that cats should stop using their claws and stealth, that bears should shave their fur, or that fish shouldn't use their fins to swim around.
Personally, I would rank the elimination of pollution, habitat destruction, poverty and disease over space exploration. Until our lives on Earth are fair and harmonious, we have no business in overconfidently going where no man has gone before.
You seem to believe that we have to choose between one or the other. In fact, so many technological advances can be traced back to the space program that I'd argue that it's almost irresponsible not to continue to explore space.
In fact even just looking at your list of problems we need to overcome on Earth, many could be helped or solved by advancing into space. Elimination of pollution? We need cleaner fuels and better ways to store energy and recycle a great many materials. All things which may be required on long term space voyages. Habitat destruction? Colonization of other worlds to allow the human race to continue to expand and exploit resources gained from worlds, asteroids and moons with no life could help alleviate this. Poverty and disease? Poverty is really not something that will be solved faster if we stop investing in the exploration of space. We're not going to suddenly solve the problems inherent in present day political systems, international relations, and economics by taking money from space programs and throwing it at these. Particularly when the amount being spent on space exploration is a pittance compared to things like the US defense budget. Same goes for curing disease really. The biggest problem with disease in the world are preventable illnesses which crop up in third world countries that you don't see here. It's utterly pathetic that that's true, but we can blame pharmaceutical companies, the patent system, and god knows how many other factors for that being the case. As for more first world diseases like cancer, these are an issue, but you're not going to cure them by just throwing money at them. In fact, you might be less likely to cure them if you just throw money at them. We actually have things like MRI's these days because we went into space, not because we gave doctors research grants so they could cure us.
My point being, the idea that we have to choose between solving problems on Earth and going into space is a false dichotomy. Both sides can and have benefited from the other and that should be encouraged to continue, not the other way around.
It's funny that you mention MRIs.
We don't have to choose, but I think that we should because any money or fuel spent on space exploration is wasteful while we still have so many problems around scarcity (or perceived scarcity) of resources, animals becoming extinct, etc. There are many valuable qualities and achievements to be had by explorers, scientists, etc., I'm just not sure why those breakthroughs can't be made without the allure of travelling through space. I'm certain that there is a list somewhere, but what common, practical good has come of the moon landing, other than perhaps velcro? I also don't think that humans have the right to exploit resources simply because they find them on interplanetary ecosystems. So I guess I disagree, but I don't mind that we do.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
