Humans Are not made to travel into Space. Its a waste of Money.

[james bond]

Maybe he was referring to the Firstborn. I'm sure to humans they would appear to be God.

I didn't read the book, so Clarke may have meant the monolith to be different. Did he bring up the Firstborn? Is the book worth reading?

However, the director and producer Stanley Kubrick did not follow the book, and I think took it in another direction. While the monolith could be an object planted by extraterrestrial intelligent beings, it could represent human's relationship with God. In this case, it follows an evolutionary God who created chimps and they learned to use tools. He had them develop, thrive and become all they could be. There was that spectacular cut where we are shown they had reached the point of conquering outer space and bring in the world of high technology. At the end, humans evolved into a more advanced version of themselves as a star child. Well, it's one interpretation.

 

[james bond]

We should explore for the sake of exploration. That is in our genes, literally. We should try to learn as much as we can about the universe for the sake of knowledge itself. That is what makes us human.

Nah, that's a stupid waste of money. .....

Like it or lump it; that's part of being human. Go find another species if you don't like it.

Another species are easy to find. We have that natural selection, hybrid selection, breeding, genetic modification and more. We have developed to the point that one part of being human is to evaluate the best way to do something.

I think you're getting carried away by knowledge, in this case space and technology. That said, it seems you do not have enough knowledge to understand. Instead of stubbornly sticking to your own pov, why don't you listen and accept others? We have already sent a lot of probes to discover what is out there. Isn't that what we learn from movies like Star Wars or Star Trek?

List of Solar System probes - Wikipedia

We also have a lot of telescopes and high tech equipment which we recently networked to get an image of a black hole. What did you get from that? Most people would not think that was a stupid waste of money.

 

[rightwinger]

If God wanted us to travel in space, we would be born with jet packs

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Maybe he was referring to the Firstborn. I'm sure to humans they would appear to be God.

I didn't read the book, so Clarke may have meant the monolith to be different. Did he bring up the Firstborn? Is the book worth reading?

However, the director and producer Stanley Kubrick did not follow the book, and I think took it in another direction. While the monolith could be an object planted by extraterrestrial intelligent beings, it could represent human's relationship with God. In this case, it follows an evolutionary God who created chimps and they learned to use tools. He had them develop, thrive and become all they could be. There was that spectacular cut where we are shown they had reached the point of conquering outer space and bring in the world of high technology. At the end, humans evolved into a more advanced version of themselves as a star child. Well, it's one interpretation.

I always thought that part of the point was that we couldnt distinguish between gods and aliens.

Q: "Is it the work of gods, or aliens?"

A: "Whats the difference?"

 

[westwall]

Mankinds survival REQUIRES that we master space travel.

What is wrong with the planet we have?

It is singular. One big ass rock will end civilization, and possibly life on this planet at some time in its future unless we do something to prevent that. In all of this worlds history, we are the only creatures capable of preventing an asteroid strike.

In the event of a global cataclism, we are better suited to colonize the ocean floor than some distant planet

Think of the logistics of bringing supplies to build a colony a couple of hundred feet underwater vs light years away

Think of the logistics of trying to live underwater. That is an environment that is every bit as harsh as space. An asteroid strike of the size like that which wiped out the dinosaurs, would make the oceans uninhabitable as well.

Not necessarily unless it were a direct strike
The oceans provide a protective shield

It is easier to build and supply a community under water. You also have access to water and oxygen which may be scarce on a distant planet

Any asteroid strike that results in a end of life as we know it scenario, will be a direct hit. The oceans will provide no protection in the event of an asteroid strike. Absolutely none.

 

[westwall]

We should explore for the sake of exploration. That is in our genes, literally. We should try to learn as much as we can about the universe for the sake of knowledge itself. That is what makes us human.

Explore with robots

They are easier to feed and we don’t care if they are destroyed

That ain’t gonna cut it.

It has been cutting it

There are some things that drones can do very well. But, ultimately, they are a developmental dead end.

Hardly a dead end
With artificial intelligence they could function on a distant planet

Problem with humans is it costs so much to sustain them and we can’t just let them die

R2D2 is a better solution

Untrue. Drones are a dead end because the development will only proceed to a certain point. The reason why technology evolves more quickly with human involvement is because man is fragile. It requires great skill, and thought, to protect that fragile passenger. NONE of that is required for drones.

 

[westwall]

If God wanted us to travel in space, we would be born with jet packs

If God didn't want us to travel in space he wouldn't have given us a brain.

 

[Ruotsa]

If God wanted us to travel in space, we would be born with jet packs

If God didn't want us to travel in space he wouldn't have given us a brain.

You have not fired yet, freak?

 

[westwall]

If God wanted us to travel in space, we would be born with jet packs

If God didn't want us to travel in space he wouldn't have given us a brain.

You have not fired yet, freak?

Fired? Whatever do you mean little sock puppet?

 

[Ruotsa]

If God wanted us to travel in space, we would be born with jet packs

If God didn't want us to travel in space he wouldn't have given us a brain.

You have not fired yet, freak?

Fired? Whatever do you mean little sock puppet?

you still go to the American garbage.
I always keep my promises.
ban useless.

 

[westwall]

If God wanted us to travel in space, we would be born with jet packs

If God didn't want us to travel in space he wouldn't have given us a brain.

You have not fired yet, freak?

Fired? Whatever do you mean little sock puppet?

you still go to the American garbage.
I always keep my promises.
ban useless.

Yes, i expect you will be banned again soon. That's what happens to useless twerps. Like you.

 

[Flopper]

We should explore for the sake of exploration. That is in our genes, literally. We should try to learn as much as we can about the universe for the sake of knowledge itself. That is what makes us human.

Explore with robots

They are easier to feed and we don’t care if they are destroyed

That ain’t gonna cut it.

It has been cutting it

There are some things that drones can do very well. But, ultimately, they are a developmental dead end.

Hardly a dead end
With artificial intelligence they could function on a distant planet

Problem with humans is it costs so much to sustain them and we can’t just let them die

R2D2 is a better solution

In my opinion, the best solution is unnamed probes which can do most of what humans can do and in fact can go where no man can go.

However, there are limitations to unmanned vehicles. Humans can adapt to changing situations and repair malfunctions, probes can only execute their programming. As AI improves, unmanned probes will be able to handle more malfunctions but we are a long way from building machines with the flexibility of humans. Also, there is always the possibility of discovery of the totally unexpected which machines will not be programmed to handle since the the event is unexpected.

While space probes conduct good science and undertake useful missions, they do not capture the human imagination or ignite the same kind of excitement that a human physically exploring space does. Today, an manned mission is about as exciting to the public as a going out of business sale at a furniture company. Without public interest and support raising the money for space exploration can be almost impossible.

 

[Flopper]

Maybe he was referring to the Firstborn. I'm sure to humans they would appear to be God.

I didn't read the book, so Clarke may have meant the monolith to be different. Did he bring up the Firstborn? Is the book worth reading?

However, the director and producer Stanley Kubrick did not follow the book, and I think took it in another direction. While the monolith could be an object planted by extraterrestrial intelligent beings, it could represent human's relationship with God. In this case, it follows an evolutionary God who created chimps and they learned to use tools. He had them develop, thrive and become all they could be. There was that spectacular cut where we are shown they had reached the point of conquering outer space and bring in the world of high technology. At the end, humans evolved into a more advanced version of themselves as a star child. Well, it's one interpretation.

I read the book and found the movie much better, not because there was more explanation but because of Kubrick's direction. The space scenes with the Strauss waltzes, the scene with Hal calmly telling Dave that he was going to kill him, and the first scene where our human ancestor discovers using an animal bone as a weapon with the theme music in the background was great movie making.

 

[rightwinger]

What is wrong with the planet we have?

It is singular. One big ass rock will end civilization, and possibly life on this planet at some time in its future unless we do something to prevent that. In all of this worlds history, we are the only creatures capable of preventing an asteroid strike.

In the event of a global cataclism, we are better suited to colonize the ocean floor than some distant planet

Think of the logistics of bringing supplies to build a colony a couple of hundred feet underwater vs light years away

Think of the logistics of trying to live underwater. That is an environment that is every bit as harsh as space. An asteroid strike of the size like that which wiped out the dinosaurs, would make the oceans uninhabitable as well.

Not necessarily unless it were a direct strike
The oceans provide a protective shield

It is easier to build and supply a community under water. You also have access to water and oxygen which may be scarce on a distant planet

Any asteroid strike that results in a end of life as we know it scenario, will be a direct hit. The oceans will provide no protection in the event of an asteroid strike. Absolutely none.

Sure they would
On the opposite end of the earth

 

[westwall]

It is singular. One big ass rock will end civilization, and possibly life on this planet at some time in its future unless we do something to prevent that. In all of this worlds history, we are the only creatures capable of preventing an asteroid strike.

In the event of a global cataclism, we are better suited to colonize the ocean floor than some distant planet

Think of the logistics of bringing supplies to build a colony a couple of hundred feet underwater vs light years away

Think of the logistics of trying to live underwater. That is an environment that is every bit as harsh as space. An asteroid strike of the size like that which wiped out the dinosaurs, would make the oceans uninhabitable as well.

Not necessarily unless it were a direct strike
The oceans provide a protective shield

It is easier to build and supply a community under water. You also have access to water and oxygen which may be scarce on a distant planet

Any asteroid strike that results in a end of life as we know it scenario, will be a direct hit. The oceans will provide no protection in the event of an asteroid strike. Absolutely none.

Sure they would
On the opposite end of the earth

Wow, you really are anti science. I suggest you actually do some research before you respond. You are remarkably ignorant.

 

[rightwinger]

Explore with robots

They are easier to feed and we don’t care if they are destroyed

That ain’t gonna cut it.

It has been cutting it

There are some things that drones can do very well. But, ultimately, they are a developmental dead end.

Hardly a dead end
With artificial intelligence they could function on a distant planet

Problem with humans is it costs so much to sustain them and we can’t just let them die

R2D2 is a better solution

In my opinion, the best solution is unnamed probes which can do most of what humans can do and in fact can go where no man can go.

However, there are limitations to unmanned vehicles. Humans can adapt to changing situations and repair malfunctions, probes can only execute their programming. As AI improves, unmanned probes will be able to handle more malfunctions but we are a long way from building machines with the flexibility of humans. Also, there is always the possibility of discovery of the totally unexpected which machines will not be programmed to handle since the the event is unexpected.

While space probes conduct good science and undertake useful missions, they do not capture the human imagination or ignite the same kind of excitement that a human physically exploring space does. Today, an manned mission is about as exciting to the public as a going out of business sale at a furniture company. Without public interest and support raising the money for space exploration can be almost impossible.

The public grew tired of moon landings. That is why the final ones were cancelled

We should explore space because there is a useful reason to do so. Not to amuse the public

 

[rightwinger]

In the event of a global cataclism, we are better suited to colonize the ocean floor than some distant planet

Think of the logistics of bringing supplies to build a colony a couple of hundred feet underwater vs light years away

Think of the logistics of trying to live underwater. That is an environment that is every bit as harsh as space. An asteroid strike of the size like that which wiped out the dinosaurs, would make the oceans uninhabitable as well.

Not necessarily unless it were a direct strike
The oceans provide a protective shield

It is easier to build and supply a community under water. You also have access to water and oxygen which may be scarce on a distant planet

Any asteroid strike that results in a end of life as we know it scenario, will be a direct hit. The oceans will provide no protection in the event of an asteroid strike. Absolutely none.

Sure they would
On the opposite end of the earth

Wow, you really are anti science. I suggest you actually do some research before you respond. You are remarkably ignorant.

Nice comeback

Shows you are losing the argument. How do you account for the fluidity of water?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

How do you account for the fluidity of water?

Water transmits energy waves quite well. And the more shallow your settlement, the worse you will get pounded, as the waves compress longitudinally when they reach shallower waters. Also, if your settlememt is fixed to the seabed, you will have to contend with the earthquakes.

 

[westwall]

Think of the logistics of trying to live underwater. That is an environment that is every bit as harsh as space. An asteroid strike of the size like that which wiped out the dinosaurs, would make the oceans uninhabitable as well.

Not necessarily unless it were a direct strike
The oceans provide a protective shield

It is easier to build and supply a community under water. You also have access to water and oxygen which may be scarce on a distant planet

Any asteroid strike that results in a end of life as we know it scenario, will be a direct hit. The oceans will provide no protection in the event of an asteroid strike. Absolutely none.

Sure they would
On the opposite end of the earth

Wow, you really are anti science. I suggest you actually do some research before you respond. You are remarkably ignorant.

Nice comeback

Shows you are losing the argument. How do you account for the fluidity of water?

You're not helping yourself, dude. Fluidity is not a concern when an asteroid impacts at 55 kilometers per second. BTW, if it hits land that is waaaaay the hell better than if it hits in the ocean.

Why?

 

[Votto]

Many studies have shown that space travel is not good for Humans beings. We are Earth bound creatures not born to travel into the zero gravity of space. All the money being spent on space travel, could be best spent on Earth. We still have world hunger and many problems here on Earth. Lets stop all this Mars rover missions, and spaceEX launches now.!!

Nonsense!

Socialists just know that there is other life forms out there, and when they find them, they will infiltrate them, subvert them, and make them pay for real universal health care coverage.

No wonder they hide from us and kidnap us and stick things up our arse.

I suppose I would to considering the entire globe leans left.