fine@nmtvax.UUCP (Andrew J Fine) (02/09/86)
Let's ask ourselves a few questions: ****************************************************************************** Does humanity (men and women) really *need* to populate space? Do we really need to explore, in person or otherwise, other planets? Historically, exploration and open boundaries only encouraged exploitation, slavery, and genocide of indigenous peoples such as African, American Natives, and East Asians. It widened the gap between the rich and the poor at home, and the massive funds spent on ships and weapons in that previous era caused more people to starve. It also increased the likelyhood of the lawless being able to escape justice, for example Botany Bay and the HMS Bounty. So what do we buy with $2 billion dollars? One shuttle, good for 100 missions (best case) with 7 people each. Or enough food, clean water, and other necesssities to feed Ethiopia for the next ten decades, easily. So what do space-faring nations prove when they invoke national prestige and the desire of humanity to expand, by consuming all that money and men-centuries? "I'm rich enough to do this and you're not, so there!". "My rocket is bigger than yours!". "We are leaving you behind to scratch the dust while we inherit the universe!" One man's glory is another man's humiliation. One man's wealth is another man's poverty. One man's livelihood is another man's serfdom. Why have satellites and information systems at all, except to invade the privacy and keep records on a captive populace? Why have land and weather satellites at all, except to take advantage of another nation's resources and vulnerabilities? Why explore the planets, interesting though they are, except to find more virgin landscape to despoil and riches to plunder? Why put a man, or a women for that matter, in space? What is so special about anyone that we must exhalt that person above all others in such an eletist fashion? Why shouldn't that person be put to a task that serves the world rather than that person's ego? The main problem with all of us is we are still essentially barbarians at heart. The Viking who was the explorer was also the Viking that also raped and pillaged. The Columbus who was the explorer was also the Columbus who converted people to his religion by force. The shuttle pilot who was the explorer was also the pilot who killed husbands, wives, and children in North Korea and North Vietnam. The wanderlust we all experience is just another word for the lust and coveting for the outside world that blinds us to the potentials of the inside world and the darkness of the soul that we need to correct. Do we really deserve to go "out there" when we have such a mess "down here"? Earth is enough for us, if we have the will to cooperate, to transcend the bigotries that confound us, the borders that seperate us, to dare to have peace instead of waging war, to share what we have as far as we can give it without anyone having to pay for it ( the concept of having to work for one's bread is deadly when there is not enough work to go around ), to recognize that the most humble peasant in Mexico or India is worth more to us than the President of the US or the Queen of England. If humanity can simply change from mere descendants of carnivorous apes to something totally gentle, altrustic, and noble, then Earth will be enough. We only try to escape the Earth because we try to escape our own natures. ***************************************************************************** I, personally, am in full support of the Shuttle, the Space Program, and the exploration and exploition of space, and it's eventual population by humanity. BUT NOBODY HAS EVER ASKED US THESE QUESTIONS, NOBODY HAS EVER CHALLENGED US TO QUESTION OURSELVES! We need to be able to answer them, especially if those who have not, question the motives of us, those who have. Somehow, net.space would benefit from a really in-depth discussion of our justifications of our actions in space and thier consequences. Andrew Jonathan Fine.
kendalla@orca.UUCP (Kendall Auel) (02/12/86)
In article <932@nmtvax.UUCP> fine@nmtvax.UUCP (Andrew J Fine) writes: >Let's ask ourselves a few questions: > >.....(lot's of questions)..... > >If humanity can simply change from mere descendants of carnivorous apes to >something totally gentle, altrustic, and noble, then Earth will be enough. >We only try to escape the Earth because we try to escape our own natures. Earth is enough for the gentle, altruistic, and noble. The image of the Adventurer is not one of gentility or nobility. What kind of person would want to scratch a meager existence out of the frozen dust of Mars? Scrounging another kilowatt hour from a set of balky solar cells? Hoping the hydroponics produce enough food to last until the next Earth shipment arrives? And, studying and learning more about the alien landscape than anyone had previously known. The meek will inherit the Earth. The rest of us will go to the stars! Kendall Auel
ins_akaa@jhunix.UUCP (Ken Arromdee) (02/13/86)
In article <932@nmtvax.UUCP> fine@nmtvax.UUCP (Andrew J Fine) writes: >I, personally, am in full support of the Shuttle, the Space Program, and >the exploration and exploition of space, and it's eventual population by >humanity. BUT NOBODY HAS EVER ASKED US THESE QUESTIONS, NOBODY HAS EVER >CHALLENGED US TO QUESTION OURSELVES! We need to be able to answer them,... >Let's ask ourselves a few questions: >****************************************************************************** >Does humanity (men and women) really *need* to populate space? Do we really >need to explore, in person or otherwise, other planets? Historically, >exploration and open boundaries only encouraged exploitation, slavery, and >genocide of indigenous peoples such as African, American Natives, and >East Asians. First, there are no other indigenous people in the solar system. Even if it should turn out that there is (say) life on Pluto, that wouldn't mean that we would enslave it in order to colonize the moon, asteroids, or L4/5 points. And I doubt very much we would exploit, enslave, or genocide, even to explore Pluto--we'd just go somewhere else. Space is BIG. And as for open boundaries, a good case can be made for the opposite-- dictatorships such as the USSR generally have borders much less open than democratic ones. >It widened the gap between the rich and the poor at home, and >the massive funds spent on ships and weapons in that previous era caused >more people to starve. How do you know that? Maybe the benefits of exploration made up for the supposed loss of funds to the poor. (i.e. new types of crops, increased trade) In fact, it could be argued that the delayed results of exploration eventually caused the end of that era. Anyway, how does exploration result in a loss of the poor's food? >It also increased the likelyhood of the lawless being >able to escape justice, for example Botany Bay and the HMS Bounty. Or being able to escape injustice (i.e. religious persecution). >So what do we buy with $2 billion dollars? One shuttle, good for 100 missions >(best case) with 7 people each. Or enough food, clean water, and other >necesssities to feed Ethiopia for the next ten decades, easily. The problem in Ethiopia is not just food, it's politics (i.e. the forced relocations, aid to rebels getting cut off, etc...), not to mention the detrimental effects of Communism, and a whole host of other political and so- cial problems not solvable just by buying food. Furthermore, getting the food and water isn't enough--it also has to be taken to the people who need it, also a political problem. And the 100 mission shuttle brings general benefits that have to be counted in for the comparison to be fair. >So what do space-faring nations prove when they invoke national prestige and >the desire of humanity to expand, by consuming all that money and >men-centuries? "I'm rich enough to do this and you're not, so there!". Money isn't "consumed", it's fed back into the economy. And is it wrong for somebody to do something beneficial just because they are actually capable, financially, of doing it? ("I'm rich enough, etc...") >"My rocket is bigger than yours!". "We are leaving you behind to scratch the >dust while we inherit the universe!" One man's glory is another man's >humiliation. One man's wealth is another man's poverty. One man's livelihood >is another man's serfdom. If somebody has to scratch the dust, but you can stand up, that's no reason for you to also scratch the dust. If taken to its logical conclusion, this argument indicates that all nations must crouch down to the level of the ones in the worst condition. It doesn't apply to space travel only--it's like saying that we shouldn't irrigate our farms, because it's an affront to other nations that don't have the water to irrigate with... >Why have satellites and information systems at all, except to invade the >privacy and keep records on a captive populace? You don't need satellites to control people, and in fact by helping inform people, satellites make them less captive. For instance, weather satellites can be an aid to people about to be threatened by a hurricane, or to farmers who need to know about weather patterns, etc.... Saying that our satellites are primarily used to keep our populace captive is demonstrably false. >Why have land and weather >satellites at all, except to take advantage of another nation's resources >and vulnerabilities? Land and weather satellites are useful within your own territory. >Why explore the planets, interesting though they are, except to find >more virgin landscape to despoil and riches to plunder? There's nothing wrong with "despoiling" land and "plundering" if there's no indigenous life there, and the land and riches could be useful to people. >Why put a man, or a women for that matter, in space? Putting a man is space may not seem beneficial in itself, but it's only a first step. >What is so special about anyone that we >must exhalt that person above all others in such an eletist fashion? Why >shouldn't that person be put to a task that serves the world rather than that >person's ego? The task does serve the world. And it's only seems "elitist" because only a few people are involved, but remember that the long-range goal is to have everyone involved. >The main problem with all of us is we are still essentially barbarians at >heart. The Viking who was the explorer was also the Viking that also raped >and pillaged. The Columbus who was the explorer was also the Columbus who >converted people to his religion by force. The shuttle pilot who was the >explorer was also the pilot who killed husbands, wives, and children in >North Korea and North Vietnam. We can't rape or pillage planets because there's nobody there. (see above). The term "space colonies" is actually a misnomer--"space settlements" is more accurate. Nobody's going to exploit any natives. Furthermore, generali- zation from people hundreds of years ago to people of today who do not share their desires is unwarranted. I don't rape, pillage, or convert by force, and I shouldn't be barred from doing something because someone else commits these actions. Such an attitude is essentially racial prejudice, except the race is the entire human race. >The wanderlust we all experience is just >another word for the lust and coveting for the outside world that blinds >us to the potentials of the inside world and the darkness of the soul that >we need to correct. You may in fact feel this way, but any attempt to claim these as someone else's motives is pure conjecture, without evidence. >Do we really deserve to go "out there" when we have >such a mess "down here"? It doesn't matter, because going "out there" does not make conditions "down here" worse. >Earth is enough for us, if we have the will to cooperate, to transcend the >bigotries that confound us, the borders that seperate us, to dare to have >peace instead of waging war, to share what we have as far as we can give it >without anyone having to pay for it ( the concept of having to work for one's >bread is deadly when there is not enough work to go around ), to recognize >that the most humble peasant in Mexico or India is worth more to us than >the President of the US or the Queen of England. There are things available only in space. You can't share them if you don't have them. And it seems strange to say that the Queen of England is worth less than a peasant--it's still elitism, only the peasant is on the top and the Queen is made the new peasant. Is it really right to say that ANYONE, even the Queen of England, is worth less than someone else? >If humanity can simply change from mere descendants of carnivorous apes to >something totally gentle, altrustic, and noble, then Earth will be enough. >We only try to escape the Earth because we try to escape our own natures. See above--you cannot prove someone else's motives just by stating what you think they might be. -- "We are going to give a little something, a few little years more, to socialism, because socialism is defunct. It dies all by iself. The bad thing is that socialism, being a victim of its... Did I say socialism?" -Fidel Castro Kenneth Arromdee BITNET: G46I4701 at JHUVM and INS_AKAA at JHUVMS CSNET: ins_akaa@jhunix.CSNET ARPA: ins_akaa%jhunix@hopkins.ARPA UUCP: ...allegra!hopkins!jhunix!ins_akaa
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (02/13/86)
In article <932@nmtvax.UUCP> fine@nmtvax.UUCP (Andrew J Fine) writes: >Does humanity (men and women) really *need* to populate space? Do we really >need to explore, in person or otherwise, other planets? Historically, >exploration and open boundaries only encouraged exploitation, slavery, and >genocide of indigenous peoples such as African, American Natives, and >East Asians. It widened the gap between the rich and the poor at home, and >the massive funds spent on ships and weapons in that previous era caused >more people to starve. It also increased the likelyhood of the lawless being >able to escape justice, for example Botany Bay and the HMS Bounty. This agrees with no history I have ever read. The truth appears to be that it was the desire to exploit which originally drove some explorations, and not the other way around. This isn't even true in all cases, there being a sufficient number of expolrations for exploration's sake. As for widening the gap between rich and poor-- a dubious conclusion. If one takes the USA as an example, it is unclear that its colonization increased English poverty-- and American prosperity, brought out of the poor we received, is truly remarkable. My guess is that the porr would starve no matter how the rich choose to squander their funds. THe mere choice not to spend on one "luxury" simply meant squandering it on another. >So what do we buy with $2 billion dollars? One shuttle, good for 100 missions >(best case) with 7 people each. Or enough food, clean water, and other >necesssities to feed Ethiopia for the next ten decades, easily. How much is the annual budget of N.M. Tech? Why don't we spend it all in the same manner? >So what do space-faring nations prove when they invoke national prestige and >the desire of humanity to expand, by consuming all that money and >men-centuries? "I'm rich enough to do this and you're not, so there!". >"My rocket is bigger than yours!". "We are leaving you behind to scratch the >dust while we inherit the universe!" One man's glory is another man's >humiliation. One man's wealth is another man's poverty. One man's livelihood >is another man's serfdom. Nonsense. Even the poor of today enjoy a much higher standard of living than their anscestors did. >Why have satellites and information systems at all, except to invade the >privacy and keep records on a captive populace? Why have land and weather >satellites at all, except to take advantage of another nation's resources >and vulnerabilities? How about our own resources and weather? >Why explore the planets, interesting though they are, except to find >more virgin landscape to despoil and riches to plunder? Why put a man, or a >women for that matter, in space? What is so special about anyone that we >must exhalt that person above all others in such an eletist fashion? Why >shouldn't that person be put to a task that serves the world rather than that >person's ego? I, for one, think it is vitally important to continue this sort of "useless" research. I firmly believe that "man does not live by bread alone"; mere survival cannot begin to compare with the richness of culture and knowledge, however debased. A number of studies have shown that people persistently retain some "essential" luxuries, even though they may have to cut back on essentials to do so. >The main problem with all of us is we are still essentially barbarians at >heart. The Viking who was the explorer was also the Viking that also raped >and pillaged. The Columbus who was the explorer was also the Columbus who >converted people to his religion by force. The shuttle pilot who was the >explorer was also the pilot who killed husbands, wives, and children in >North Korea and North Vietnam. The wanderlust we all experience is just >another word for the lust and coveting for the outside world that blinds >us to the potentials of the inside world and the darkness of the soul that >we need to correct. Do we really deserve to go "out there" when we have >such a mess "down here"? Deserve? WHo appointed you God? And what about yourself? YOu seem to be willing to infinitely debase survival so that it may be (supposedly-- I doubt its practical application) had be all. Is this really such a great good? >Earth is enough for us, if we have the will to cooperate, to transcend the >bigotries that confound us, the borders that seperate us, to dare to have >peace instead of waging war, to share what we have as far as we can give it >without anyone having to pay for it ( the concept of having to work for one's >bread is deadly when there is not enough work to go around ), to recognize >that the most humble peasant in Mexico or India is worth more to us than >the President of the US or the Queen of England. I'm afraid that, in many matters, the President or the Queen is much more valuable than any peasant. The Queen, for instance, serves as the rallying point for many British charities engaged in the work you seem to favor. I really see no justification for this rather Luddite viewpoint, especially in light of the irony of its transmission over a computer net whose net contribution to world survival is likely to nil. This net, in fact, attests to the wrongness of Mr. Fine's position. It produces almost nothing. Its sole purpose is as an exchange of ideas and opinions, and it thus testifies to the human need for knowledge, entertainment, and the other mental activities which raise man above mere survival. Certainly we have an obligation to improve the human condition. Ending the space program will not do it. The money will simply be diverted to DOD where it can be used directly to subsidize destruction. C. Wingate
andre@nrcvax.UUCP (Andre Hut) (02/14/86)
In article <932@nmtvax.UUCP> fine@nmtvax.UUCP (Andrew J Fine) writes: >Let's ask ourselves a few questions: > >****************************************************************************** >Does humanity (men and women) really *need* to populate space? Do we really ...Why do you even get out of bed? -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ihnp4-\ sdcsvax-\ \ Andre' Hut sdcrdcf!psivax!nrcvax!andre hplabs--/ / ucbvax!calma-/ Network Research Corporation 923 Executive Park Dr. Suite C Salt Lake City, Utah 84117 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
ahv@masscomp.UUCP (Tony Verhulst) (02/14/86)
> >First, there are no other indigenous people in the solar system. Even if it >should turn out that there is (say) life on Pluto, that wouldn't mean >that we would enslave it in order to colonize the moon, asteroids, or >L4/5 points. And I doubt very much we would exploit, enslave, or genocide, >even to explore Pluto--we'd just go somewhere else. Sure. Just like the future Americans did when indigenous people were found on this continent. Sorry about the sarcasm but history does show that humans do have a tendency to enslave and/or suppress natives who have the misfortune to reside on a piece of property that a stronger people have an eye on. I am personally not convinced that the trend will stop when (not if) we colonize space. In time we may evolve and mature. But - not yet.
kwan@smeagol.UUCP (Richard Kwan) (02/16/86)
In <3192@umcp-cs.UUCP>, C. Wingate writes: > Nonsense. Even the poor of today enjoy a much higher standard of living > than their anscestors did. This is not intended as a chastisement of Mr. Wingate. But I just can't let this one go. It is perhaps true that the standard of living for poverty level in the U.S. is better than for poor of the past. HOWEVER, there is a large segment of the poor who are starving to death in Ethopia and elsewhere. If it is available in your area, turn on your late night TV and look at the pleas for donations from WorldVision or other select groups (I certainly don't endorse all of them). If you haven't been anesthetized by the media already, it will make your stomach craw. By the way, I favor WorldVision. I also favor the U.S. space program. Don't ask me to harmonize that. And I hope not to say any more about that in this newsgroup. Rick Kwan JPL Spacecraft Data Systems
fine@nmtvax.UUCP (Andrew J Fine) (02/16/86)
Ok, I was deservedly and richly twitted. But discussion takes all kinds of forms and all kinds of viewpoints. And some viewpoints can be essentially unfriendly to a group of gung-ho people such as ourselves. I asked questions not because I agreed with the questions, but because we needed to answer them. I believe I had made that crystal clear in the "Scuttle" posting. Andrew Jonathan Fine
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (02/17/86)
In article <932@nmtvax.UUCP> fine@nmtvax.UUCP (Andrew J Fine) writes: >Let's ask ourselves a few questions: > >****************************************************************************** >Does humanity (men and women) really *need* to populate space? Do we really >need to explore, in person or otherwise, other planets? Yes, we do. The resources of the Earth are finite and limited. The resources of the Solar System, though finite, are orders of magnitude larger than those of the Earth. As hard as it is to imiagine, we will eventually burn the last drop of oil and the last speck of coal. We will one day mine the last gram of iron ore. Eventually every spare corner of this planet, including our last remaining wildernesses, will be turned over to farming, and people will still be starving. Outer Space is the only frontier left to us. > It also increased the likelyhood of the lawless being >able to escape justice, for example Botany Bay and the HMS Bounty. > Poor examples. The Botany Bay was a *deliberate* action, and Australia was exile. And the crew of the Bounty *was* caught and most were punished. >So what do we buy with $2 billion dollars? One shuttle, good for 100 missions >(best case) with 7 people each. Or enough food, clean water, and other >necesssities to feed Ethiopia for the next ten decades, easily. > And where are we going to get that food? and how are we going to get it to Ethiopia. Are we going to make Ethipoia permanently dependent on outside charity? Something must be done about the famine, and it *is* being done. There are people in that area now, spending thier time and effort to *teach* the Ethiopians how to better use the resources thay have. There are groups working to import new types of crops into the area which wil grow with little water. These are much better, more lasting solutions than buying them train loads of food and giving it to them(even if the government didn't commandeer the gift). >So what do space-faring nations prove when they invoke national prestige and >the desire of humanity to expand, by consuming all that money and >men-centuries? "I'm rich enough to do this and you're not, so there!". >"My rocket is bigger than yours!". "We are leaving you behind to scratch the >dust while we inherit the universe!" Or, how about, "We are taking the risks to pave the way so you may follow later in greater safety." Remember, the US has been a haven for oppressed and exiled peoples throughout most of its history, and it exists because Spain saw fit to finance a crazy project to sail to China by going west! > >Why have satellites and information systems at all, except to invade the >privacy and keep records on a captive populace? Why have land and weather >satellites at all, except to take advantage of another nation's resources >and vulnerabilities? > Well, actually, I think it is so that I, living in southern California, can talk to my parents in Kansas once a week or more! A century ago living that far apart meant we could only communicate by letters a few times a year, and could only visit each other every few years! Then, of course, there my ability to find out what the President is saying without having to wait several months, so that I can make a more intelligent decision when election time comes around. Need I go on. I would not trade away our modern communication for anything, I get too much personnal benefit from it. >Why explore the planets, interesting though they are, except to find >more virgin landscape to despoil and riches to plunder? How about so that we will not have to plunder every square inch of our own planet, but leave *some* of it in its pristine beauty for others to enjoy. Partial exploitation of many planets is preferable to total exploitation of one. > Why put a man, or a >women for that matter, in space? What is so special about anyone that we >must exhalt that person above all others in such an eletist fashion? Matybe because we would would like to be in the same position, but lack the courage, or the determination, or the necessary skills. It is for the same reason we laud the great musician, or the first rate painter, they are doing something we cannot. > Why >shouldn't that person be put to a task that serves the world rather than that >person's ego? > Actuall, I think it *is* a task serving mankind. Besides, risking ones life for pure ego sounds mighty silly, and if that is the main reason they are in the program, they belong in an asylum. > >Earth is enough for us, if we have the will to cooperate, to transcend the >bigotries that confound us, the borders that seperate us, to dare to have >peace instead of waging war, to share what we have as far as we can give it >without anyone having to pay for it ( the concept of having to work for one's >bread is deadly when there is not enough work to go around ), to recognize >that the most humble peasant in Mexico or India is worth more to us than >the President of the US or the Queen of England. If there is not enough to go around, then even sharing will not help, we must find a way to produce more, and Outer Space is *part* of the answer to that. > >If humanity can simply change from mere descendants of carnivorous apes to >something totally gentle, altrustic, and noble, then Earth will be enough. >We only try to escape the Earth because we try to escape our own natures. I think exploring and conquering space will help us do just that. If it becomes obvious that there *is* enough of everything to go around then there will be one less reason to fight, and all the more reson to cooperate. And in Space, as immense as it is, there is amply enough to go around, and to spare. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) UUCP: {ttidca|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|quad1|nrcvax|bellcore|logico}!psivax!friesen ARPA: ttidca!psivax!friesen@rand-unix.arpa
mike@peregrine.UUCP (Mike Wexler) (02/18/86)
In article <932@nmtvax.UUCP> fine@nmtvax.UUCP (Andrew J Fine) writes: >Let's ask ourselves a few questions: > >****************************************************************************** >Does humanity (men and women) really *need* to populate space? Do we really >need to explore, in person or otherwise, other planets? Historically, Depends on what you mean by need. Do people need cars? Do people in warm climates need homes? Also do people need to grow and learn new things. Would you be satisfied if you where locked in a 3 meter by 3 meter by 3 meter room and supplied with food, water, and warmth? >exploration and open boundaries only encouraged exploitation, slavery, and >genocide of indigenous peoples such as African, American Natives, and >East Asians. It widened the gap between the rich and the poor at home, and Exploitation, slavery, and genocide exist even where there is no exploration. Who are we going to genocide in space anyway? The people driving the UFOs? >the massive funds spent on ships and weapons in that previous era caused >more people to starve. It also increased the likelyhood of the lawless being >able to escape justice, for example Botany Bay and the HMS Bounty. People have also been fed through exploration. There are many people that are now feed by foods grown in the Midwestern portion of the United States. Do you think that it shouldn't have been explored? > >So what do we buy with $2 billion dollars? One shuttle, good for 100 missions >(best case) with 7 people each. Or enough food, clean water, and other >necesssities to feed Ethiopia for the next ten decades, easily. Can you justify this claim? > >So what do space-faring nations prove when they invoke national prestige and >the desire of humanity to expand, by consuming all that money and >men-centuries? "I'm rich enough to do this and you're not, so there!". >"My rocket is bigger than yours!". "We are leaving you behind to scratch the >dust while we inherit the universe!" One man's glory is another man's >humiliation. One man's wealth is another man's poverty. One man's livelihood >is another man's serfdom. > >Why have satellites and information systems at all, except to invade the >privacy and keep records on a captive populace? Why have land and weather >satellites at all, except to take advantage of another nation's resources >and vulnerabilities? How about to allow communication between people(Comsat), to make better use of our own resources(landsat), or to save lives(navigation satellites). > >Why explore the planets, interesting though they are, except to find >more virgin landscape to despoil and riches to plunder? Why put a man, or a >women for that matter, in space? What is so special about anyone that we >must exhalt that person above all others in such an eletist fashion? Why >shouldn't that person be put to a task that serves the world rather than that >person's ego? You are assuming that space exploration doesn't serve the world. This in not necessarily true. We can use it to create solar power more efficiently and not despoil virgin(or even non-virgin) territory. What better way can someone serve humanity than to find ways to supply the resources people want, without destroying nature in the process. > >The main problem with all of us is we are still essentially barbarians at >heart. The Viking who was the explorer was also the Viking that also raped >and pillaged. The Columbus who was the explorer was also the Columbus who >converted people to his religion by force. The shuttle pilot who was the >explorer was also the pilot who killed husbands, wives, and children in >North Korea and North Vietnam. The wanderlust we all experience is just >another word for the lust and coveting for the outside world that blinds >us to the potentials of the inside world and the darkness of the soul that >we need to correct. Do we really deserve to go "out there" when we have >such a mess "down here"? Yes we do deserve to go "out there" and it may even help us clean up our mess down here. I have never killed anyone, nor do I plan to ever do so. I would love to be a pilot for the Shuttle or whatever replaces it in the future. How many of the pilots of the shuttle or other rockets have been involved in wars? (I don't know the answer to this, they may all have been as far as I know.) > >Earth is enough for us, if we have the will to cooperate, to transcend the >bigotries that confound us, the borders that seperate us, to dare to have >peace instead of waging war, to share what we have as far as we can give it >without anyone having to pay for it ( the concept of having to work for one's >bread is deadly when there is not enough work to go around ), to recognize >that the most humble peasant in Mexico or India is worth more to us than >the President of the US or the Queen of England. Even if Earth is enough for us, why not have/create more. Space will provide more jobs so that people can work for there bread. Why is a humble peasant worth MORE than the President of the US or the Queen of England. How do you determine who is worth most? (Are you saying poor people without power are worth more than rich people with power?) > >If humanity can simply change from mere descendants of carnivorous apes to >something totally gentle, altrustic, and noble, then Earth will be enough. >We only try to escape the Earth because we try to escape our own natures. See above. >***************************************************************************** > >I, personally, am in full support of the Shuttle, the Space Program, and >the exploration and exploition of space, and it's eventual population by >humanity. BUT NOBODY HAS EVER ASKED US THESE QUESTIONS, NOBODY HAS EVER >CHALLENGED US TO QUESTION OURSELVES! We need to be able to answer them, >especially if those who have not, question the motives of us, those who have. These question have been asked many times. They are though over every time congress sets up a budget for NASA and have been talked about many places, for instance Arthur Clarke(I don't remember the title of the book). > >Somehow, net.space would benefit from a really in-depth discussion of our >justifications of our actions in space and thier consequences. > This seems to be a very philosophical debat. I AM REDIRECTING FOLLOWUPS to net.philosophy. >Andrew Jonathan Fine. -- Mike Wexler (trwrb|scgvaxd)!felix!peregrine!mike (714)855-3923 All of the preceding opinions are solely those of the author and do not represent the views of any other being, sentient or abstract.
phillips@cisden.UUCP (Tom Phillips) (02/18/86)
In article <877@masscomp.UUCP> ahv@masscomp.UUCP (Tony Verhulst) writes: >>First, there are no other indigenous people in the solar system. Even if it >>should turn out that there is (say) life on Pluto, that wouldn't mean >>that we would enslave it in order to colonize the moon, asteroids, or >>L4/5 points. And I doubt very much we would exploit, enslave, or genocide, >>even to explore Pluto--we'd just go somewhere else. >Sure. Just like the future Americans did when indigenous people were >found on this continent. >Sorry about the sarcasm but history does show that humans do have a tendency >to enslave and/or suppress natives who have the misfortune to reside on >a piece of property that a stronger people have an eye on. I am personally ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I'm just dying for a beach house on Pluto. >not convinced that the trend will stop when (not if) we colonize space. >In time we may evolve and mature. But - not yet. -- Tommy Phillips From the banks of the great grey-green greasy Limpopo River, all set about with fever-trees. cisden!phillips
jef@LBL-RTSG.ARPA (02/20/86)
In reply to Andrew J fine's long message about learning to live with
ourselves here on Earth before we think about moving out into space...
First, I found the tone of the message fairly offensive. Mr. Fine
assumes that he is the only one asking these kinds of questions - which
he's not - and that only he has the right answers - which he doesn't.
He assigns all sorts of evil motivations to those who would disagree with
him. Well Andrew, I'm one of those people, and I consider myself to be
an extremely moral being, so tone it down, ok?
As for answering the substance of the message, REM posted a sufficient
answer just a few days ago. It appeared in the space digest yesterday,
and it ably refutes the idea that we should get clean up Earth before
moving to space. I've appended an answer of my own, that I wrote a few
weeks before the Challenger explosion. In it, I attempt to show that
we *must* move out into space *now* - it's a moral imperative.
---
Jef
Long-Term Viability
by Jef Poskanzer
The only long-term way to assure the viability of Earthlife, including
whales, gorillas, cephalopods and everything else as well as humans, is
to get off this planet. As long as Earth is the only place we live, we
are vulnerable to extinction. There are all sorts of nasty things that
could wipe out all life on this planet. A really large comet could hit
us, pasteurizing the planet. Sirius could go supernova. Maybe a new form
of life could evolve, poisoning and replacing us the way we poisoned and
replaced hydrogen-breathing life a billion years ago.
Furthermore, we have a time limit. Our sun is getting hotter. It has been
getting hotter, very slowly, for as far back as we can measure - billions
of years. So far, the biosphere has managed to keep the local temperature
constant by steadily decreasing the proportion of greenhouse gasses in the
atmosphere - carbon dioxide, water vapor, methane, etc. However, if the
sun continues to get hotter for only another 100 million years, that
solution will no longer work - even getting rid of every last molecule would
still leave the planet too hot. There will be a runaway greenhouse effect
leaving Earth looking something like Venus. Not a place you'd want to live.
So, you may ask, why am I worrying about events that won't happen for 100
million years? Surely we've got plenty of time to start colonies in the
asteroids and begin moving out to the stars.
Well, we actually don't have very much time at all - 100 years, 200 at the
outside. Humans have been using up the natural resources of this planet
at an amazing rate, and now we're running out. Soon we're going to have
to fall back to a low-energy, renewable-resource, labor-intensive way of
life. I have two objections to this. One is the immediate loss of life.
Ecotopia can't support five billion people. Maybe one billion. That
means four billion people must die - which is about fifty times more than
have died in all wars so far combined.
My second objection is that if we go to a low-energy life-style now, we will
never be able to reverse that decision. The easy resources are gone. The
close-to-the-surface ores, the coal, the oil - we've used it up. Now it
takes high-tech energy-intensive machinery to extract the resources needed
to keep the high-tech machinery going. We can keep going like this for
a little while longer, but if we give up high-tech we won't be able to
start again. We would have to wait for continental drift to expose new
ores, which would take a hundred million years or so, and by that
time - you guessed it - runaway greenhouse effect.
So, if we back off now, we are putting a permanent, irrevocable ceiling on
the number of human individuals who will ever live. One billion people
for 100 million years means at most five times ten to the fifteenth people
will ever live.
If, on the other hand, we spread Earthlife to the stars, then the next
100 million years will see the birth of at least ten to the twenty-fourth
humans, plus unguessable numbers of intelligent descendents of the gorillas,
dolphins, octopodes, etc.
A short-term benefit of moving out into space is that by making use of
asteroidal resources, we can avoid the catastrophic collapse of Earth's
civilization. We can spread out the transition to world-wide Ecotopia
over the next 500 years. This will allow us to reduce the population to
the necessary level through birth control and emigration instead of war,
famine, and disease.
It's kind of frightening to me that within the next two centuries, we will
collectively make a decision that will allow or prevent the existence of
many septillions of people.barb@oliven.UUCP (Barbara Jernigan) (02/21/86)
In article <932@nmtvax.UUCP> fine@nmtvax.UUCP (Andrew J Fine) writes: >I, personally, am in full support of the Shuttle, the Space Program, and >the exploration and exploit[at]ion of space, and it's eventual population by >humanity. BUT NOBODY HAS EVER ASKED US THESE QUESTIONS, NOBODY HAS EVER >CHALLENGED US TO QUESTION OURSELVES! Nobody? I wrestle with angels -- and thus with my own soul -- a great deal. I have come to the realization that we humans are a two-edged blade, with as much capacity for GOOD as for NOT-GOOD ("Evil" is overused). Andrew makes a lot of blanket statements, but then he's propounding an extreme position -- which is not *necessarily* his own (can't put words in your mouth, Andrew, but your disclaimer quoted above gives a hint). I don't like blanket statements because I'm a believer in situations. And situations are never as simple as generalities. For example, I feel badly for the famine stricken in Ethiopia -- but it's going to take more than money to save them. Sending them $Mil.s of dollars and food *is* *not* going to resolve a situation caused by, greatly, overgrazing. It's much the same problem as plagues the coral reefs of the Caribbean -- advances in technology without the lessons for using them wisely (a good example of this premise is the Star Trek episode *Where No Man Has Gone Before*, a character 'instantly' given the powers of a "god" without going through the eons of evolutionary lessons that should accompany such power). But I digress into subjects best left for other news-groups. I support the Space Program IN THE FACE of Andrew's examples, because, for one, the SPACE PROGRAM has helped us diagnose the blight of technology/advance/ (to use Andrew's word) EXPLOITATION without conscience -- and it *may* help find the ANSWERS to repair the damage *and* in the same breath *alleviate* the poverty (by discovering new resources, teaching us to better use the ones we have, etc.). As for our environmental morals, from space there are no boundaries, the Earth is One. We *need* to understand that. When one man (excuse me) pisses in the ocean, he must realize that it affects the ecosystem of the world -- and, in the light of this, there may result a new Imperialism of ENFORCED RESPONSIBILITY. Again, I digress. >So what do space-faring nations prove when they invoke national prestige and >the desire of humanity to expand, by consuming all that money and >men-centuries? "I'm rich enough to do this and you're not, so there!". It is only elitism if we kept the information to ourselves. At least superficially, the Space Ventures (save military, which is another dimension entirely) have been operating in an *attitude* (I cannot speak for the *reality*) of shared knowledge. >One man's wealth is another man's poverty. One man's livelihood >is another man's serfdom.... O, it is excellent To have a giant's strength; but it is tyrannous To use it like a giant. . . . [Two Gentlemen of Verona] >Why have satellites and information systems at all, except to invade the >privacy and keep records on a captive populace? Or, as another poster said, to *free* a 'captive' populace. Nothing binds so much as ignorance. There was a lot of resistance to putting the Bible in the hands of the 'Common Folk' -- heaven forbid we should be allowed to think and interpret for ourselves! >The main problem with all of us is we are still essentially barbarians at >heart. The Viking who was the explorer was also the Viking that also raped >and pillaged. Or was it the Vikings that followed in his steps? See below. >The Columbus who was the explorer was also the Columbus who >converted people to his religion by force. The shuttle pilot who was the >explorer was also the pilot who killed husbands, wives, and children in >North Korea and North Vietnam. [Although he did not kill in the performance of his duty as a shuttle pilot -- bad example, he was *not* "exploring" ('conquering new frontiers') in Korea and Vietnam.] I will admit, I am a hunter -- note my canine teeth for tearing meat. But I also harken to the dictates of Reason. I would describe myself as a Warrior-Healer -- the power of destruction and creation, with the ability to CHOOSE my path between them. [Do I contradict myself? Very well then, I contradict myself. (I am large, I contain multitudes). -- Walt Whitman] I am not ashamed of what I am -- and I will not be shackled by past injustice, so long as I have learned enough to breed RESPONSIBILITY toward (and of) myself, my actions, and fellow travellers (animate and inanimate) in Creation. YES there has been exploitation in the past! A shameful lot of it! Does that mean there HAS to be exploitation in the Future? Am I to refrain from walking because I might take a misstep? Not if I LEARNED from the last time I tripped. But have we LEARNED? THAT is the question to ask. And those of us who HAVE "learned" should nip at the heels, like unresting sheepdogs, of those who haven't. (No matter *how* the "rams" may bruise us!) (;-) >The wanderlust we all experience is just >another word for the lust and coveting for the outside world that blinds >us to the potentials of the inside world and the darkness of the soul that >we need to correct. Can I not merge the inside AND outside worlds? Why should one be "enough"? In me is both artist and scientist -- should I forsake one for the other? Can I be Whole if I do? Why should I limit myself? The following are the lines that *really* bother me: >If humanity can simply change from mere descendants of carnivorous apes to >something totally gentle, altrustic, and noble, then Earth will be enough. >We only try to escape the Earth because we try to escape our own natures. Escape? Or Embrace? The first "man" out of the trees was no doubt cajoled as a fool by his/her fellows in the branches -- and we might have been 'better' if we'd stayed in the trees (not that I think so). But the question is moot -- we didn't, and we've survived through (and perhaps by) our curiosity, our constant quest to KNOW MORE!!!! Excuse me, I've digressed more than I intended, the risk of writing of subjects felt so strongly -- the original purpose of this posting was (and remains) to put forth the nature of "The Explorer" in words rather more accomplished than my own. Yes, the Explorer could be seen as a creature without conscience, opening the way for the exploiters and slavers. I do not make excuses here -- either for the Explorer or Kipling's overlay of Empire- philosophy. Each step forward is both good and bad -- every light casts a shadow. WE have the troubling power of *choice*, Free Will some call it. And we *will* wield that power for BOTH good and ill -- like it or not, it is our nature, which may or may not be changing, and varies from individual to individual. But enough of this preamble. With your permission, _The Explorer_, by Rudyard Kipling. Barb THE EXPLORER -- Ruyard Kipling 1898 "There's no sense in going further -- it's the edge of cultivation," So they said, and I believed it -- broke my land and sowed my crop -- Built my barns and strung my fences in the little border station Tucked away below the foothills where the trails run out and stop: Till a voice, as bad as Conscience, rang interminable changes On one everlasting Whisper day and night repeated -- so: "Something hidden. Go and find it. Go and look behind the Ranges -- "Something lost behind the Ranges. Lost and waiting for you. Go!" So I went, worn out of patience; never told my nearest neighbours -- Stole away with pack and ponies -- left 'em drinking in the town; And the faith that moveth mountains didn't seem to help my labours As I faced the sheer main-ranges, whipping up and leading down. March by march I puzzled through 'em, turning flanks and dodging shoulders, Hurried on in hope of water, headed back for lack of grass; Till I camped above the tree-line -- drifted snow and naked boulders -- Felt free air astir to windward -- knew I'd stumbled on the Pass. 'Thought to name it for the finder: but that night the Norther found me -- Froze and killed the plains-bred ponies; so I called the camp Despair (It's the Railway Gap to-day, though). Then my Whisper waked to hound me: -- "Something lost behind the Ranges. Over yonder! Go you there!" Then I knew, the while I doubted -- knew His Hand was certain o're me. Still -- it might be self-delusion -- scores of better men had died -- I could reach the township living, but . . . He knows what terror tore me . . . But I didn't . . . but I didn't. I went down the other side. Till the snow ran out in flowers, and the flowers turned to aloes, And the aloes sprung to thickets and a brimming stream ran by; But the thickets dwined to thorn-scrub, and the water drained to shallows, And I dropped again on desert-blasted earth, and blasting sky. . . . I remember lighting fires; I remember sitting by 'em; I remember seeing faces, hearing voices, through the smoke; I remember they were fancy -- for I threw a stone to try 'em. "Something lost behind the Ranges" was the only word they spoke. I remember going crazy. I remember that I knew it When I heard myself hallooing to the funny folk I saw. 'Very full of dreams that desert, but my two legs took me through it . . . And I used to watch 'em moving with the toes all black and raw. But at last the country altered -- White Man's country past disputing -- Rolling grass and open timber, with a hint of hills behind -- There I found me food and water, and I lay a week recruiting. Got my strength and lost my nightmares. Then I entered on my find. Thence I ran my first rough survey -- chose my trees and blazed and ringed 'em -- Week by week I pried and sampled -- week by week my findings grew. Saul he went to look for donkeys, and by God he found a kingdom! But by God, who sent His Whisper, I had struck the worth of two! Up along the hostile mountains, where the hair-poised snowslide shivers -- Down and through the big fat marshes that the virgin ore-bed stains, Till I heard the mile-wide mutterings of unimagined rivers, And beyond the nameless timber saw illimitable plains! 'Plotted sites of future cities, traced the easy grades between 'em; Watched unharnessed rapids wasting fifty thousand head an hour; Counted leagues of water-frontage through the axe-ripe woods that screen 'em -- Saw the plant to feed a people -- up and waiting for the power! Well I know who'll take the credit -- all the clever chaps that followed -- Came, a dozen men together -- never knew my desert-fears; Tracked me by the camps I'd quitted, used the water-holes I'd hollowed. They'll go back and do the talking. *They'll* be called the Pioneers! They will find my sites of townships -- not the cities that I set there. They will rediscover rivers -- not my rivers heard at night. By my own old marks and bearings they will show me how to get there, By the lonely cairns I builded they will guide my feet aright. Have I named one single river? Have I claimed one single acre? Have I kept one single nugget -- (barring samples)? No, not I! Because my price was paid me ten times over by my Maker. But you wouldn't understand it. You go up and occupy. Ores you'll find there; wood and cattle; water-transit sure and steady (That should keep the railway-rates down), coal and iron at your doors. God took care to hide that country till He judged His people ready, Then He chose me for His Whisper, and I've found it, and it's yours! Yes, your "Never-never country" -- yes, your "edge of cultivation" And "no sense in going further" -- till I crossed the range to see. God forgive me! No, *I* didn't. It's God's present to our nation. Anybody might have found it, but -- His Whisper came to Me!
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (02/24/86)
In article <877@masscomp.UUCP> ahv@masscomp.UUCP (Tony Verhulst) writes: > >Sure. Just like the future Americans did when indigenous people were >found on this continent. Ah, but why did this happen. I think it was a result of resource competition between a growing, expanding culture that was running out of room and another, less aggressive one. In space there are tow things that will prevent this. Space is *enormous*, so it will remaoin cheaper to simply go elsewhere than to fight for a very long time. Second, aliens that like the environment on Pluto would not be interested in any of the same resources we are, and we would have no need for anything that they had, so what would there be to fight about? -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) UUCP: {ttidca|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|quad1|nrcvax|bellcore|logico}!psivax!friesen ARPA: ttidca!psivax!friesen@rand-unix.arpa
elt@astrovax.UUCP (Ed Turner) (02/25/86)
Andrew J. Fine writes >Does humanity (men and women) really *need* to populate space? Do we really >need to explore, in person or otherwise, other planets? Historically, ... >The main problem with all of us is we are still essentially barbarians at >heart. The Viking who was the explorer was also the Viking that also raped From net.poems >FIRST STEPS > >On the cool September morning >after rain >in an old house >shuttered against the unexpected weather >the baby stands over and again >and walks and falls. >Though it is much easier to crawl >from one point to another, more efficient, safer >the baby stands over and again >and walks and falls. >I see in her how many millions? >Man must walk, man must raise >the aristocracy of his hands >reachers for far, high things, >man must sieze his Adam. >On the cool September morning >with this one gesture the jungle is put by, >the ritual of our deepest instinct >repeats itself: the race rises from its knees >to claim dominion: the baby walks. I think that this poem both answers Fine's question as stated in the first excerpt and agrees (in its last line) with his evaluation of our motives stated in the second excerpt. It rings true to me. To make the same point in prose: Whether we deserve to or not and whether it is a "good thing" or not, we will surely try to populate space. Some think that our success is inevitable, but this is merely hubris in my opinion. Ed Turner astrovax!elt PS - On a side issue, several people have offered the opinion that dispersal of people throughout the Solar System and/or to the stars would offer us protection from self-destruction. Surely this is a failure of imagination; it seems inevitable to me that our capability for destruction will grow as fast (faster if history is a guide) as our other capabilities. Of course, the time scales may change but that is a different issue. I imagine the various historical colonizers of remote regions of the Earth must have felt that putting "eggs in a different basket" would guarantee the safety of their societies in a similar way.
pmm1920@ritcv.UUCP (02/26/86)
In article <497@nrcvax.UUCP> andre@nrcvax.UUCP (Andre Hut) writes: >In article <932@nmtvax.UUCP> fine@nmtvax.UUCP (Andrew J Fine) writes: >>Let's ask ourselves a few questions: >> >>****************************************************************************** >>Does humanity (men and women) really *need* to populate space? Do we really > >...Why do you even get out of bed? >-- Good Point !
jkw@lanl.ARPA (Jay Wooten) (02/26/86)
> PS - On a side issue, several people have offered the opinion that dispersal > of people throughout the Solar System and/or to the stars would offer us > protection from self-destruction. Surely this is a failure of imagination; > it seems inevitable to me that our capability for destruction will grow as > fast (faster if history is a guide) as our other capabilities.... True, but dispersal would protect against (localized) natural calamaties, such as a large comet or meteor impact. Humans would have to be spread pretty widely to hold out against a supernova within a few light-years of Earth, tho... ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ Round the decay of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare ~ ~ The lone and level sands stretch far away................. ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Jay Wooten Los Alamos National Lab ARPA:jkw@lanl.ARPA
desj@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (David desJardins) (03/11/86)
In article <860305153340.481402@HIS-BILLERICA-MULTICS.ARPA> Jong@HIS-BILLERICA-MULTICS.ARPA writes: > >Of course, if we encounter another civilization out there, the >odds are it won't be anywhere near the level we're at. Most >likely, we would encounter an unimaginably more advanced >civilization. I see this kind of statement a lot, and it really seems pretty silly to me. It is both anthropomorphic (assuming that all alien races would behave in the same way people do) and egocentric (in its implicit assumption that we know everything about the universe and how it is put together). And besides how can you expect the unimaginable? Why not just say, "If we were to encounter an much more advanced alien civilization...," and avoid all of my flaming. -- David desJardins