5 ms·

This author seems to have a couple problems. One, they're complaining that we're going to pollute other worlds. I'm not sure that's a problem. I'm not even sur

by sargun 8y ago

This author seems to have a couple problems. One, they're complaining that we're going to pollute other worlds. I'm not sure that's a problem. I'm not even sure if we'll do it because of the delta-V requirement. Two, they have a massive problem with animal experimentation, which seems to be a bit of a tangent, because that's the case across many industries -- the examples they give are from some time ago. Three, the posit that there is life elsewhere in the solar system, which if it is the case, would be a good enough reason alone to explore the solar system. Lastly, they comment on the thirty-meter scope fight in Hawaii, and this is where I completely diverge in opinion from the author. The author posits that Mauna Kea is a poor location for the telescope, but as far as I know, it's one of the best. I don't understand why the Hawaiians are so negative about scientific progress. I know their land is small, but the 'scope will benefit all of humanity for years to come, along with economic incentives. What's wrong with that?

tzar 8y ago
> I don't understand why the Hawaiians are so negative about scientific progress. I know their land is small, but the 'scope will benefit all of humanity for years to come, along with economic incentives. What's wrong with that? If you don't understand it's because you don't share their perspective—understandably. I think one of the things the author is suggesting is that we make a better effort to do so. Perhaps your idea of benefiting all of humanity for years to come is different than theirs?
- natch 8y ago
  Or the tribes are engaging in, forgive me, tribalistic behavior where they fight for the pride and power of their own group without any regard to the bigger picture. It's like they see themselves as rivals to another sports team, only with race and supposed religion. I say "supposed," because, do they really practice it? So you could say they do have a bigger picture in mind, their religion, but you would be talking to a skeptic were you to say that. In the end, it may be their right to protect their perceived (or claimed, or claimed-perceived, each of which is different) interests... and we should protect that right to an extent. But it's sad that they are blocking science. And I think they're doing it just for the pride of letting their team win a contest which means nothing (aside from pride) to them, and a lot to astronomy. This was all super off topic but I find it pretty interesting.
NeedMoreTea 8y ago
Personally I have a lot of sympathy for the views expressed. The current dominant terrestrial culture has utterly obliterated any indigenous peoples and cultures that have lived more in harmony with the planet we inhabit. The language that the article picks on summarises that rather nicely. Point by point. I'm sure pollution is a problem. It certainly won't be noticeable when there's only a hundred colonists, but we're unlikely to constrain until it is becoming a problem - then we're simply repeating our mistakes. It's about mindset and attitude. We have to learn to live within the constraints of the ecosystem. Doesn't matter if that ecosystem is Earth, or it's a small size base on some other planet. Main difference is the extra-terrestrial ecosystem or life-support we create will be more fragile and easy to break for a long time. I'm certain we will pollute, for two reasons. First because we have not yet learnt not to, secondly because we can. The very second there's enough stuff been sent from earth to assemble a mining robot it will be done - to reduce the amount sent in future. From there it will escalate. There's a whole infinite, empty, lifeless (probably, maybe) planet - why bother with the expense of cleaning and keeping it tidy? Fast forward a thousand years and we've pushed two planets to the point of irreparable ruin. Maybe by then planet #1 is an overheated, uninhabitable wreck. The animal experimentation is again a fair summary of attitude. We're already exporting those industrial attitudes into space, and orbit. Perhaps there's no alternatives to mice experiments on the space station, I know not. Life is a good enough reason to explore. Is it? If that's all it is, sure. Except it will become, in short order, to exploit and affect. There is no way we'd leave somewhere alone because we discovered it had life. We can't even leave the Antarctic alone, despite the unique international treaties. "I don't understand why the Hawaiians are so negative about scientific progress". Who says they are? There are plenty of locations around the world where telescopes have been placed that aren't culturally or religiously significant. Why ride roughshod over the views of the indigenous people? Do they not matter? Is it always OK to ruin a bit more habitat for economic incentives? Seems like we need to learn to stop that before we wreck the entire solar system.
AndrewKemendo 8y ago
Three, the posit that there is life elsewhere in the solar system, which if it is the case, would be a good enough reason alone to explore the solar system. This is the most interesting one because it begs many questions such as: Assuming we find life, then what? The purpose ostensibly would be to study it to understand our place in the universe better. But what if it doesn't want to be studied, or we don't have the scientific capacity to study it? What is gained? Why are humans, as opposed to robotic systems, the absolute right path to discovering other life forms? Is it even possible for humans to get anywhere worth investigating within reasonable distance in a human lifespan? I think the answer to all of these is, "Human spacetravel is the solution looking for the problem" because biologically, we aren't built or suited to multi-planetary existence in any kind of scenario where we would be effective. Musk, says it himself: He needs a reason to get up in the morning [1]. That's pretty much the primary answer for everyone I've ever seen make any kind of reasonable argument for manned travel to Mars. In other words, in the long run our engineered systems (robots etc...) will be more efficient at answering off-world questions than we are. That's not sexy or exciting so people don't argue it. [1] https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/16/elon-musk-on-inspiration-and-success.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/16/elon-musk-on-inspiration-and...
- sargun 8y ago
  Oh, I don’t have a strong opinion that we need to send humans, but I foresee that the goal of putting more humans driving better, and more robots in space. Don’t you think that the discovery of life outside of earth would have a profound effect on the people of earth, and how they operate? They might have new methods of agriculture, to grow things in the the soil of Mars that are applicable to Earth. They might have lots of things we can learn.
  - AndrewKemendo 8y ago
    Don’t you think that the discovery of life outside of earth would have a profound effect on the people of earth, and how they operate? Maybe. Depends on what kind of life. Finding a single cell amoeba on Titan won't do anything for the millions of Americans working two or three jobs trying to make rent. I'd argue finding an intelligent society or entity etc... wouldn't change much for them either. They might have new methods of agriculture, to grow things in the the soil of Mars that are applicable to Earth. Again, maybe, but this is a very anthropomorphic view. There is nothing that suggests that there are things outside of our atmosphere that can materially and positively impact humanity.
ken 8y ago
> I don't understand why the Hawaiians are so negative about scientific progress. I find it sad (but not surprising) that outsiders would rephrase an intrusion into a sacred place in this way -- especially after they specifically clarified that "We are not here to protest astronomy". The fact that they're against it despite "economic incentives" and "scientific progress" should give a clue how important their culture is to them. Has your culture ever been threatened? Have you ever read the first chapter of "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy"? Why do you think Arthur was so negative about the construction of an efficient new bypass? Do you think he would have phrased his position that way?
- sargun 8y ago
  My culture is that of a progressive Bay Area liberal, who’s the child of immigrants. It’s under threat, but it’s also constantly changing, and shifting based on the global socioeconomic circumstances. Admittedly, I’d be pretty unhappy if someone wanted to take my house away without compensation. If someone got rid of a place a visited often, I’d be unhappy, but would I stop them? No. I think from my childhood, the only two places that are still around that I visit are the Exploratorium, and Golden Gate Park — both dramatically changed over the past few decades. If someone said, sorry, we’ve gotta pave over GGP to build an observatory to further US science, and we can build it here, China, or Russia — I would be unhappy, but understanding. I guess, I understand why these people are unhappy, in a general sense, but I can’t reconcile that with the fact that they’re impeding scientific progress, and putting US science behind.
  - flashgordon 8y ago
    Well let us put it the other way. If scientific advancement was this important to you would you pay whatever price they are asking you to pay? (Assuming they and they alone come up with a price tag?)

by sargun 8y ago

tzar 8y ago

> I don't understand why the Hawaiians are so negative about scientific progress. I know their land is small, but the 'scope will benefit all of humanity for years to come, along with economic incentives. What's wrong with that? If you don't understand it's because you don't share their perspective—understandably. I think one of the things the author is suggesting is that we make a better effort to do so. Perhaps your idea of benefiting all of humanity for years to come is different than theirs?

natch 8y ago
Or the tribes are engaging in, forgive me, tribalistic behavior where they fight for the pride and power of their own group without any regard to the bigger picture. It's like they see themselves as rivals to another sports team, only with race and supposed religion. I say "supposed," because, do they really practice it? So you could say they do have a bigger picture in mind, their religion, but you would be talking to a skeptic were you to say that. In the end, it may be their right to protect their perceived (or claimed, or claimed-perceived, each of which is different) interests... and we should protect that right to an extent. But it's sad that they are blocking science. And I think they're doing it just for the pride of letting their team win a contest which means nothing (aside from pride) to them, and a lot to astronomy. This was all super off topic but I find it pretty interesting.

NeedMoreTea 8y ago

Personally I have a lot of sympathy for the views expressed. The current dominant terrestrial culture has utterly obliterated any indigenous peoples and cultures that have lived more in harmony with the planet we inhabit. The language that the article picks on summarises that rather nicely. Point by point. I'm sure pollution is a problem. It certainly won't be noticeable when there's only a hundred colonists, but we're unlikely to constrain until it is becoming a problem - then we're simply repeating our mistakes. It's about mindset and attitude. We have to learn to live within the constraints of the ecosystem. Doesn't matter if that ecosystem is Earth, or it's a small size base on some other planet. Main difference is the extra-terrestrial ecosystem or life-support we create will be more fragile and easy to break for a long time. I'm certain we will pollute, for two reasons. First because we have not yet learnt not to, secondly because we can. The very second there's enough stuff been sent from earth to assemble a mining robot it will be done - to reduce the amount sent in future. From there it will escalate. There's a whole infinite, empty, lifeless (probably, maybe) planet - why bother with the expense of cleaning and keeping it tidy? Fast forward a thousand years and we've pushed two planets to the point of irreparable ruin. Maybe by then planet #1 is an overheated, uninhabitable wreck. The animal experimentation is again a fair summary of attitude. We're already exporting those industrial attitudes into space, and orbit. Perhaps there's no alternatives to mice experiments on the space station, I know not. Life is a good enough reason to explore. Is it? If that's all it is, sure. Except it will become, in short order, to exploit and affect. There is no way we'd leave somewhere alone because we discovered it had life. We can't even leave the Antarctic alone, despite the unique international treaties. "I don't understand why the Hawaiians are so negative about scientific progress". Who says they are? There are plenty of locations around the world where telescopes have been placed that aren't culturally or religiously significant. Why ride roughshod over the views of the indigenous people? Do they not matter? Is it always OK to ruin a bit more habitat for economic incentives? Seems like we need to learn to stop that before we wreck the entire solar system.

AndrewKemendo 8y ago

Three, the posit that there is life elsewhere in the solar system, which if it is the case, would be a good enough reason alone to explore the solar system. This is the most interesting one because it begs many questions such as: Assuming we find life, then what? The purpose ostensibly would be to study it to understand our place in the universe better. But what if it doesn't want to be studied, or we don't have the scientific capacity to study it? What is gained? Why are humans, as opposed to robotic systems, the absolute right path to discovering other life forms? Is it even possible for humans to get anywhere worth investigating within reasonable distance in a human lifespan? I think the answer to all of these is, "Human spacetravel is the solution looking for the problem" because biologically, we aren't built or suited to multi-planetary existence in any kind of scenario where we would be effective. Musk, says it himself: He needs a reason to get up in the morning [1]. That's pretty much the primary answer for everyone I've ever seen make any kind of reasonable argument for manned travel to Mars. In other words, in the long run our engineered systems (robots etc...) will be more efficient at answering off-world questions than we are. That's not sexy or exciting so people don't argue it. [1] https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/16/elon-musk-on-inspiration-and-success.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/16/elon-musk-on-inspiration-and...

sargun 8y ago
Oh, I don’t have a strong opinion that we need to send humans, but I foresee that the goal of putting more humans driving better, and more robots in space. Don’t you think that the discovery of life outside of earth would have a profound effect on the people of earth, and how they operate? They might have new methods of agriculture, to grow things in the the soil of Mars that are applicable to Earth. They might have lots of things we can learn.
- AndrewKemendo 8y ago
  Don’t you think that the discovery of life outside of earth would have a profound effect on the people of earth, and how they operate? Maybe. Depends on what kind of life. Finding a single cell amoeba on Titan won't do anything for the millions of Americans working two or three jobs trying to make rent. I'd argue finding an intelligent society or entity etc... wouldn't change much for them either. They might have new methods of agriculture, to grow things in the the soil of Mars that are applicable to Earth. Again, maybe, but this is a very anthropomorphic view. There is nothing that suggests that there are things outside of our atmosphere that can materially and positively impact humanity.

ken 8y ago

> I don't understand why the Hawaiians are so negative about scientific progress. I find it sad (but not surprising) that outsiders would rephrase an intrusion into a sacred place in this way -- especially after they specifically clarified that "We are not here to protest astronomy". The fact that they're against it despite "economic incentives" and "scientific progress" should give a clue how important their culture is to them. Has your culture ever been threatened? Have you ever read the first chapter of "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy"? Why do you think Arthur was so negative about the construction of an efficient new bypass? Do you think he would have phrased his position that way?

sargun 8y ago
My culture is that of a progressive Bay Area liberal, who’s the child of immigrants. It’s under threat, but it’s also constantly changing, and shifting based on the global socioeconomic circumstances. Admittedly, I’d be pretty unhappy if someone wanted to take my house away without compensation. If someone got rid of a place a visited often, I’d be unhappy, but would I stop them? No. I think from my childhood, the only two places that are still around that I visit are the Exploratorium, and Golden Gate Park — both dramatically changed over the past few decades. If someone said, sorry, we’ve gotta pave over GGP to build an observatory to further US science, and we can build it here, China, or Russia — I would be unhappy, but understanding. I guess, I understand why these people are unhappy, in a general sense, but I can’t reconcile that with the fact that they’re impeding scientific progress, and putting US science behind.
- flashgordon 8y ago
  Well let us put it the other way. If scientific advancement was this important to you would you pay whatever price they are asking you to pay? (Assuming they and they alone come up with a price tag?)