sophiecentaur said:Likewise, there is no Law of Physics that says we should expect to be able to survive for an unlimited time. Experience tells us that there are variations in circumstances and if one doesn't get you, the next one may. Frankly, I don't have any problem with facing personal mortality nor the mortality of the human race. That doesn't mean I have no will to survive or that I would just lay back and let it happen (just to forestall any Straw Man response). I think it is amazingly over optimistic to assume that humans will not do themselves harm that will put an end to them.
How many PF members is the "we" referring to? You seem to have an almost religious fervour about this belief. What's it based on?nikkkom said:make sure we remember
sophiecentaur said:There goes the straw man again. A pessimist is a realist, seen from the standpoint of an optimist who isn't a realist. You have absolutely no basis for assuming that we will survive for ever. The only thing that historically teaches us is that nothing lasts for ever.
The 'worthiness' or otherwise cannot be based on the assumption that it is worth while aiming at prolonging the life of the human race indefinitely. As you say, we have a finite history so we cannot extrapolate to an unlimited extent. The Worth of a project must be based on something tangible. Some limited exploration could be justified after a very extended period of unmanned surveying. There is no mad hurry; the enthusiasts of 2017 may have to go without the buzz of it happening in their lifetimes - or their grandchildren's lifetimes. Technology may deliver a way of getting there much cheaper. We will always be needing to improve and cheapen our near Earth space experience - for good reasons. So Mars could be a spin off of that.nikkkom said:"We" refers to those humans which do think that colonizing Mars is a worthy goal.
A finite history which contains an example of something surviving forever is an impossibility. In a finite history, everything is either "already ended" or "so far continues to exist".
That's a reasonable conclusion but people on the parallel thread seem to reckon that living on the Moon might be harder than living on Mars. Of course, getting back would be a lot less trouble when takeoff from the larger body is included.Chronos said:It makes much more sense to colonize the moon first
sophiecentaur said:Some limited exploration could be justified after a very extended period of unmanned surveying. There is no mad hurry; the enthusiasts of 2017 may have to go without the buzz of it happening in their lifetimes - or their grandchildren's lifetimes.
We won't have to wait millions of years for a Bay of Pigs or a North Korea situation that will actually not be recovered from.
You guys are very fond of your straw men, aren't you? What are you saying I "hoped" for?nikkkom said:The above two quotes are yours, and they contradict each other. . . . etc
sophiecentaur said:I recommend delay rather than a precipitate rush to Mars.
What does the term "worse" mean? We could do things - just for the sake of it and because we can afford to - would that be 'better' or just foolhardy and poor value?nikkkom said:how much worse do you want it to be?
Why? Nikkkom, you are essentially taking it as an assumption or article of faith that we should go to extreme lengths to perpetuate the species. But you haven't even clearly articulated why. I agree with sophie that this sounds like a religious argument, and besides being beyond the scope of the forum won't win any points in a battle for votes and funding, which ultimately is what this issue comes down to. In other words; if proponents of a Mars mission want to convince others to support, vote for and fund it, you will have to come up with an explainable reason why.nikkkom said:It depends on what you mean by "OK".
I define "OK" as surviving. Not surviving (both for lifeforms and for societies) is a failure. I am going to operate in this coordinate system.
Dinosaurs are dead and by the above definition, they failed.
If we look at them not as species surviving standalone, but as branch of life, an attempt by Nature to create a versatile, survivable life form adaptable for various conditions, they failed when "various conditions" become too harsh, but life continued on.
Now is our turn. This time evolution tries a new way to have a versatile, survivable life form adaptable for various conditions: a very *clever* animal.
It's up to us what we do now. I take it some people are okay with failing. I am not.
sophiecentaur said:Why? Nikkkom, you are essentially taking it as an assumption or article of faith that we should go to extreme lengths to perpetuate the species. But you haven't even clearly articulated why.
I agree with sophie that this sounds like a religious argument
Does your logic statement take us anywhere?nikkkom said:Which part of "if you do not survive, you do not survive (aka 'you die out')" needs explaining?
You're making good arguments and I'll mostly leave you to them, but I think you need to flip this one over. The cost is well defined and projects do get canceled if they cost too much -- like Space Station Freedom, before it morphed into the ISS, or Reagan's Star Wars. What is questionable isn't the cost, it is the value. "International cooperation" has at best a nebulous value. There are few people in touch with the issue who really believe that the science value is in-line with the cost of the ISS...but apparently we have some in the thread...sophiecentaur said:The international nature of the ISS means that there is less argument needed to justify open ended costs; it's a symbol of international co operation and would be funded at almost any cost. It's equivalent to an arms race or a cold war because no one can pull out without embarrassment.
Again, both together *might* be true (I'd be curious to know the actual tasks), but what is *certainly* true right now is that there are lots and lots of tasks that *must* be done separately and therefore *cannot* be done by humans in our current level of development.mheslep said:However, there are certainly tasks that can not be partitioned into simpler steps. For the near future at least, and perhaps into the distant future, some of these tasks remain too complex for a many-hands approach, or the domain of human experts.
The part you are missing is that right now and for the forseeable future, what we need is dozens of babies and therefore it cannot be accomplished with a single mother."When a task cannot be partitioned because of sequential constraints, the application of more effort has no effect on the schedule. The bearing of a child takes nine months, no matter how many women are assigned." Source.
sophiecentaur said:What does the term "worse" mean? We could do things - just for the sake of it and because we can afford to - would that be 'better' or just foolhardy and poor value?
And did it badly, mostly via strawman and misdirection. You're not making apples to apples comparisons and then treating the answers as if they are. For example:mfb said:Or I just considered a different aspect than you?
Comparing one real mission that doesn't do what you want to another mission that is fictional is just silly, mfb. Can rovers collect and return samples? Answer: yes, they can. Can humans return samples? Answer: yes, they can. So if that's what you want to compare, compare it. Make a hypothetical mission profile where both are doing the same mission and compare them fairly.The rovers don't collect samples, they make measurements and then discard whatever they studied. In terms of samples that can be studied in more detail on Earth, a rover has 0 unless we make a sample return mission.
I'm aware. Are you aware that Spirit and Opportunity landed some 5,000 miles apart?The Apollo 17 crew covered 35 km (more than twice the total distance of Curiosity, although humans have to drive back again, so let's say they are about equal) and collected 741 samples in 3 days.
Until it happens, what you see SpaceX doing is essentially just fantasy. Like the fantasy of $1000/lb launch costs that people have been talking about for 40 years. You can't base new missions and policy off of fantasy if you want them to have a chance of succeeding.And I don't think you can get all the things you listed for the price of a manned Mars mission (with >1 year on the surface). Wait 10 years, then buy it from SpaceX.
It was me you were quoting, not sophie.nikkkom said:Which part of "if you do not survive, you do not survive (aka 'you die out')" needs explaining?
Sure -- but that doesn't make it meaningful.The statement of the form "If A is true, then A is true" is valid in any system of logic.
So far, I disagree with both of those, but again, please feel free to try to come up with a logical argument to replace the article of faith you are currently operating on.It is a logical argument, not a religious one. I am an atheist.
russ_watters said:Anyway, the answer to your question is: all of it. It is basically just a meaningless tautology, not a logical argument.
> It is a logical argument, not a religious one. I am an atheist.
So far, I disagree with both of those
Nikkkom, it is starting to look like you are purposely evading the question and giving purposely vexatious non-answers. You need to improve the quality of your discussion.nikkkom said:Exactly: it is not a logical conjecture.
If I would be saying "from A follows B", I would need to explain why do I think so. I could be mistaken about it.
However, "from A follows A" is always true. I do not need to prove it...
Are you disagreeing with "from A follows A" statement or you disagree that I am an atheist? :D
russ_watters said:[edit]
I'm having a little trouble believing you don't see just how silly the above is, so let me give you an example of an answer to the question I asked:
[sample]
We should go to extreme measures to prevent our species from dying-out because dying-out is "very bad".[/sample]
Now, hopefully you can see that "bad" is a value judgement and that logic doesn't really play a role in the core of such an argument.
Thank you! Was that so hard?nikkkom said:You are right. I am simply choosing a value judgement where "dying-out is very bad". I think that's how evolution sees it.
If you prefer to see dying-out as "very good", or "irrelevant", or whatever, you can do so, I certainly can't and won't tell you what your value judgements should be.
No, evolution does not have consciousness and therefore does not make value judgements. What you describe sounds a bit like Gaia Theory, which is basically a religion of a deity of nature.I think that's how evolution sees it.
Ryan_m_b said:If your primary concern is the species not dying out then space colonisation is surely waaaay down the list of initiatives to achieve that goal.
The type of event that could wipe out everyone on the planet is exceedingly rare; whether it be a one in hundred million years massive asteroid impact or the eventual dying of the sun.
Ryan_m_b said:There are far more immediate concerns like ecological degradation, climate change, resource shortages and global tension.
Investing in countering those is a bigger priority than spending trillions so that a very small number of people can live off Earth.
nikkkom said:It's not like we "Mars colonizers" demand that every last dollar of every country of the Earth must be spent on Mars program. Don't worry.
nikkkom said:If you define "exceedingly rare" as "will surely happen", yes. Sun will surely fry this planet.
Year 2000 was exceedingly rare right up until 31 Dec 1999. In fact, thousands of programmers were evidently operating under assumption it won't ever happen. :D
Ryan_m_b said:No but it will be extremely expensive. We're talking about an ecological and economical closed-system built in space. That's vastly more complicated than a few inflatable huts for a science outpost (which would also be hugely expensive). Unless automation progresses to the point where humans barely have to do anything such a colony would essentially be a city-state. Considering the ISS cost over $100 billion dollars
Ryan_m_b said:We have hundreds of millions of years before the Earth becomes uninhabitable due to changes in the Sun's life cycle.
I tried that argument way back but it somehow doesn't seem to count and the fact that it benefits everyone, rather than a few enthusiasts, doesn't seem to count either.Ryan_m_b said:There are far more immediate concerns like ecological degradation, climate change, resource shortages and global tension.
Doesn't that give a clue about how future programmes could well be managed? Why? Because that sort of programme has the usual problem of its basic agenda which is to do both with the glamour of Space and the glamour of 'International Co operative Endeavours'. As with modern weddings and holidays, the real cost benefit comes way down the list of considerations. All big projects risk the same sort of problems unless something more tangible is involved and when the vanity aspect gets some tight control from the suppliers of the money.nikkkom said:I consider NASA manned space program and ISS in particular to be a very badly managed program.
sophiecentaur said:Doesn't that give a clue about how future programmes could well be managed? Why? Because that sort of programme has the usual problem of its basic agenda which is to do both with the glamour of Space and the glamour of 'International Co operative Endeavours'.