6 ms·

Someone like Sagan who values collective human consciousness probably wouldn't meld with guys bent on militarizing space. Deep philosophical differences. Hard t

by kidme5 5y ago

Someone like Sagan who values collective human consciousness probably wouldn't meld with guys bent on militarizing space. Deep philosophical differences. Hard to judge your story without knowing what question exactly was asked.. Guess: "Is Space the ultimate high ground??"

thrashh 5y ago
It’s a pretty simplistic view to regard someone doing something that you don’t understand as irrational, especially when you’re not in or will ever be in their shoes. You’d think past some age, people wise up to the nuance of the world.
- kidme5 5y ago
  Carl Sagan had different existential assumptions. He constantly writes about the need for humanity to value it's collective and fragile existence as a whole, whereas the military cares more about WHO gets to exist and which group of people dominate the other. Excerpt: THE PALE BLUE DOT OF EARTH Image: NASA Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there--on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam. The Earth is a very small stage in a vast cosmic arena. Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that, in glory and triumph, they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot. Think of the endless cruelties visited by the inhabitants of one corner of this pixel on the scarcely distinguishable inhabitants of some other corner, how frequent their misunderstandings, how eager they are to kill one another, how fervent their hatreds. -CS
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - sandworm101 5y ago
    That is a radically simplistic view of the military. I can say from experiance that very few in armed service think that way, certainly nobody in leadership positions. The armed services see themselves as a tool of thier government. The life-taking part of the job is only ever done when asked by that government. People on the outside would be shocked to see how much effort goes into the preservation of all lives. Google "maneuver warfare" to get a better idea of realworld military thinking. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maneuver_warfare https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maneuver_warfare
    - kidme5 5y ago
      It's more fundamental. First sentence in that link talks about "enemies" as a kind of axiom. In light of Sagan's quote, such concepts are absurd.
      - sandworm101 5y ago
        A soldier does not pick their enemy. Politicians decide if an enemy exists and then points them out to the soldier. The existential concept of enemy has nothing to do with the soldier as they cannot create nor uncreate their enemy. Only politicians, and the people who elect them, control such things. Stalin actual toyed with the concept of a totally volunteer army, one where volunteer soldiers would elect their officers and only participate in actions with which they agreed. It didn't go well. Such an army is next to useless in the real world.
        amanaplanacanal 5y ago
        For myself, I can't imagine putting myself in a position to give politicians the power to tell me who to kill. Just... no. Are there really people who put that much faith in politicians? I don't understand that kind of thinking at all.
        5y ago
- KennyBlanken 5y ago
  I suspect Sagan understood the roots, purposes, and goals of the post-WW2 "war department" and US space programs at the time, far better than you do today. Go look up the origin of the phrase "military industrial complex" and you'll see how horrified people "in the shoes" felt about the state of the military at the time.

by kidme5 5y ago

thrashh 5y ago

It’s a pretty simplistic view to regard someone doing something that you don’t understand as irrational, especially when you’re not in or will ever be in their shoes. You’d think past some age, people wise up to the nuance of the world.

kidme5 5y ago
Carl Sagan had different existential assumptions. He constantly writes about the need for humanity to value it's collective and fragile existence as a whole, whereas the military cares more about WHO gets to exist and which group of people dominate the other. Excerpt: THE PALE BLUE DOT OF EARTH Image: NASA Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there--on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam. The Earth is a very small stage in a vast cosmic arena. Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that, in glory and triumph, they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot. Think of the endless cruelties visited by the inhabitants of one corner of this pixel on the scarcely distinguishable inhabitants of some other corner, how frequent their misunderstandings, how eager they are to kill one another, how fervent their hatreds. -CS
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- sandworm101 5y ago
  That is a radically simplistic view of the military. I can say from experiance that very few in armed service think that way, certainly nobody in leadership positions. The armed services see themselves as a tool of thier government. The life-taking part of the job is only ever done when asked by that government. People on the outside would be shocked to see how much effort goes into the preservation of all lives. Google "maneuver warfare" to get a better idea of realworld military thinking. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maneuver_warfare https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maneuver_warfare
  - kidme5 5y ago
    It's more fundamental. First sentence in that link talks about "enemies" as a kind of axiom. In light of Sagan's quote, such concepts are absurd.
    - sandworm101 5y ago
      A soldier does not pick their enemy. Politicians decide if an enemy exists and then points them out to the soldier. The existential concept of enemy has nothing to do with the soldier as they cannot create nor uncreate their enemy. Only politicians, and the people who elect them, control such things. Stalin actual toyed with the concept of a totally volunteer army, one where volunteer soldiers would elect their officers and only participate in actions with which they agreed. It didn't go well. Such an army is next to useless in the real world.
      - amanaplanacanal 5y ago
        For myself, I can't imagine putting myself in a position to give politicians the power to tell me who to kill. Just... no. Are there really people who put that much faith in politicians? I don't understand that kind of thinking at all.
      - 5y ago
KennyBlanken 5y ago
I suspect Sagan understood the roots, purposes, and goals of the post-WW2 "war department" and US space programs at the time, far better than you do today. Go look up the origin of the phrase "military industrial complex" and you'll see how horrified people "in the shoes" felt about the state of the military at the time.