I'm OK, You're OK

Post Reply New Topic

How about cutting all funding to origins research and instead spending that otherwise wasted money on the development of interstellar travel?

That doesn't make any sense, we can easily have both.

It sounds drastically dumb to think we'll be able to understand other worlds when we can't understand ours. I also don't think that taking a "lalala god created us" stance regarding origins would really help us with inducing critical thinking and science to the kids that would one day invent a ship for better space exploration...

No, input equals output. Here is an area where if research into atheistic models of origin are funded they are considered science but if non-atheistic models are funded it is considered "propaganda". And neither really increase our knowledge of how the world works, but just increase the quantity of superfluous trivia to memorize. Chemistry and physics explain and mathematically predict and demonstrate how the universe works, so funding should be given to these and not to aid in the cause of either creationist or atheistic propaganda. As per critical thinking, the most you can really learn from studying the origins issue is, "If I argue against this side when proponents of this side have power, then I will be abused as a heretic."

La résistance has already started to form.

I should note that important lessons in geology (which help people predict oil deposits) and gene therapy would be utterly obliterated if this approach were adopted as well (if you have such sensabilities) any hope at nature conservation.

Oil? We should stop being dependent on that anyway. As for gene therapy, most of that can be determined by post hoc ergo propter hoc mixed with Mendel, chemistry, and computers, all the term "evolution" is there for is to take credit for it and to provide marketing support by being one of the most overused buzz words for getting research grants.

Nature conservation? We really need to attribute an origin to something in order to determine how to best care and provide for it? "You are from Russia, and it is cold in Russia so you need to be cold."

In general, I am in full agreement that interstellar exploration should be in the forefront of our efforts. In the light of this I would suggest you volunteer to be frozen and shipped out on the first probe to the nearest star so that we can await your success by attending to more pressing problems on this very troubled planet.

I've never heard of this book. But as for the Ice Age hype being replaced by the Global Warming hype, that's really a matter of what is presented by the media as being "more scientific". In this modern high tech "is it a good idea to microwave this" culture, science has been deified, so whatever is presented as having approval by the "majority of true scientists" will be accepted practically without thought and held onto as tightly by the public as any doctrine ever could hope to be.

Before I do that, you must have your fingers and larynx amputated voluntarily for the benefit of all internet communities.

I'll surely let you know when I feel the impulse to volunteer for that. You may have to wait a bit.

How will you conquer the universe if interstellar travel if still flawed enough to warrent further funding?

I mean, the universe is pretty big. You'd need some *****'n interstellar travel to conquer the whole thing.

That's the place to start from.

The problem is when another person is a threat to other people. Or to himself, and you want to help him. Since he has freedom on himself, you should let him. Since other people also have freedom, It's their responsibility, and their problem. So they say.

I disagree. However, I don't believe in indoctrination, nor in making people do something by force. I believe my theories are right, and better for human beings. Therefor, I wish to present them to everyone, and make them possible to reach for everyone. I want to live next to them, and show them how I live, because I feel I'm happier. I want them to talk to me about my weird way of life, and then I want to explain it to them. I want to explain why my way of life is better, as I see it. I want to listen to them, and if I'm right, in the end I can convince enough people. I truly believe that.

But how do I know that I'm right? Well, how does anybody know that he's right? The most important thing to me is that even people that I convince, don't follow my "directions", rather use it as an advice. I want people to think for themselves, because I think we will have a lot of less violence and bad feelings in the end of this. I don't think it's effective nor convincing to force them to it, I don't think there's any point in indoctrination saying "you have to be nice", but rather have people who are genuinely nice, and I don't think I'm appointed by God to judge.

Nonetheless, I am a human being, who has the right to express his theories, just anyone else does. Lucky for me, my beliefs and theories say nothing about hurting other people, or about revenge, or justified anger that should be used physically. So I have revolutionary ideas - and I want them accomplished, either in my time, or after it, because I think it will benefit the human race. I despise the sense of anarchist people who want revolution, when the public doesn't want it. As an anarchist, I'm fighting ideas, and forms of thought, not people!

My world can be achieved only when people believe in it. Not by force. Not by brainwashing. If someone doesn't want to listen to me, it's his right. But when he hurts another person, or brainwashes another one, isn't it my duty to think about a way to spread my theory and beliefs?
(Including discussing it with other people and getting it better)

Well, not the whole universe at first. It would take nearly 50 years to reach Proxima centauri currently, but we could still establish relay satellite networks to increase communication signal strength so that even though it would take us half a century of travel by ship a light based signal would take four years from there. The tristar system might not be the best choice, but who knows.

Perhaps sending Daedalus type probes ahead to the star systems would be in order so as to determine if there are any planets as habitable as Mars in orbit.

Though 50 light years would currently be out of reach, here is a star map of 50 lightyears radius of Sol: http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/50lys.html

Since we seem unable to "conquer" the Sahara Desert, why would anybody want to take over places far less hospitable? Sending robot probes to take a look might make sense. The Moon is relatively in our own back yard and seems not much of a juicy plum lately. Why bother?

Africa in general is a political nightmare, so the Sahara Desert is fairly moot. The deserts in Arizona or Nevada would be more relevant.

You're right about the Moon's proximity though. It would be a logical stepping stone for establishment of a logistics, mining, manufacturing and even hydroponics bases. Its proximity to Earth, stability of orbit, presence of noticeable surface gravity (yet much lower escape velocity than Earth) would make the Moon an ideal base of operations.

Why bother though? Why not? Aside from just being cool to explore things out there, it is a chance to visit other planets and other star systems. Why is there such a lack of interest nowadays in what used to be cool when I was a kid? People are so boring today.

Cool. Yeah, cool. Wouldn't it be cool to stop killing people in the Middle East? Wouldn't it be cool to save the thousands of babies that starve to death each day? Wouldn't it be cool to discover how to really take advantage of the plenitude of raw materials right here on Earth that could be used in new ways to replace the ones we're running out of? Wouldn't it be cool to give everybody qualified a university education free to utilize the lost talents now thrown away? Yeah, cool.