Life elsewhere? Who cares?

[Stargazer]

you can apply the same argument in other research areas too.

Absolutely, I would like much more funding for scientific research in many fields.

[Tim_Lou]

well, but sometimes things get ridiculous.

 

some people critize the space program in my mother nation, China...

considering billions of dollar being put into this program, while many northwest areas in China still suffer from proverty, lack of electricity and water shortage.......

 

well, the positive thing is that this gives China a "world" position and pride.......

[Stargazer]

There are a lot of things that should be dealt with, of course, many social issues and so on. I don't think that a space programme is a waste of resources for many countries. Much worse, then, is the huge amount allocated for military funding. Compared to that, the space programmes get very little.

[iacobus]

Well, here it is the 14th of December, and I have returned, as I said I might.

 

But my return is not to add anything more to this thread. Reading through the comments, it would appear that instead of having a logical discussion, some, or perhaps one, has become irked. That wasn't the intention.

 

So we get fruitless discussions like the one in this topic where the original poster doesn't want to discuss *why* we study the universe, but instead tells us why we shouldn't, because there are more important things (to him) which deserves more attention. He seems to believe that all astronomy, astrophysics, and cosmology is performed to look for life. He denies that the thoughts and ideas we provide as reasons are at all valid, and laughs at attempts to explain why we find it important.

I submitted my opinions, expressed as best I could, and attempted to remain cheerful about it. But since this was a "fruitless discussion", there would be little reason to continue it.

[Tormod]

I submitted my opinions, expressed as best I could, and attempted to remain cheerful about it. But since this was a "fruitless discussion", there would be little reason to continue it.

 

My apologies for stalling the discussion and turning against you. I can only blame myself for being overworked lately.

 

Sorry, iacobus. You are of course very welcome to post your opinions.

[TINNY]

My apologies for stalling the discussion and turning against you. I can only blame myself for being overworked lately.

 

Sorry, iacobus. You are of course very welcome to post your opinions

That's a great reply!so was iacobus'. I was holding my breath as i scrolled down from iacobus's post to yours, anticipating what you'll say.

hehe.. just to lighten up the atmosphere.

[pgrmdave]

How far away is the nearest star similar in size and age to ourselves? Since we can only look for life as we know it, we should look to places that seem familiar, i.e. terrestrial, containing water, orbiting a similar star, large 'guardian' gas giant further out. If the nearest star is too far away, aren't our efforts doomed to be in vain?

[TINNY]

Absolutely, I would like much more funding for scientific research in many fields.

the question is what sets aside astronomy from the other fields to enable it to get more funding than others.

suppose we allocate 10 billion and did find some sort of weird carbon molecule that we deem life. imagine what could be obtained with that 10 billion for biotech research to overcome the food shortage problem. and the 10billion to find ET might not even succeed. of course, the benefits are many even if you don't succeed. you get more equipment, more data about the universe, etc. so what's the answer here?

[pgrmdave]

That's a very good question. All the money that goes into astronomy studies takes away from money that could go to helping people who need it now, but it goes to a program that might help people later.

[Tormod]

That's a very good question. All the money that goes into astronomy studies takes away from money that could go to helping people who need it now, but it goes to a program that might help people later.

Astronomy helps people now. The study of the sun is one example - we learn how to cope with solar storms and the problems they cause.

 

Power blackouts are one example which can be prevented by being able to forecast solar activity.

 

SOHO has lots of information about this.

http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/

[pgrmdave]

I don't disagree that astronomy helps a lot of people, but the question is whether the money is better spent on bringing more of the world's population to a basic level of comfort with food, water, clothes, and shelter, then on increasing the standard of living of people who already have those things. I don't know. I would like to think that astronomy should get the money, seeing as that is something that I am very interested in, but it is troublesome to think of what that money could do if it went to buying food for a small nation.

[alxian]

would y'all agree though that sciences like astronomy help to debunk religion?

 

(doubts it)

[pgrmdave]

no, although some people use it as such.

[pgrmdave]

What it does do is force people to accept more on pure faith. When you don't know anything about your universe, it is easier to say that the lights in the night sky are holes into heaven, but with knowledge comes the debunking of that kind of belief. It also debunks fundamentalism, and bible literalism kind of stuff.

[alxian]

What it does do is force people to accept more on pure faith.

 

i came to that assumption a while ago..

 

but then while faith in the exploration of the unknown is cool that is rather than the staple fear of the unknown as being the devil religions, what do you do with the people? leave it up to gov't to properly maintain the masses in stupor with religions based on scientific faith while still subjugating the exploitation of the our potential or set the people free with the spoils of the exploitation of scientific fact?

 

i.e. making space ships and blowing this popsicle stand destination alpha centauri? sounds cool to me drop me off at mars, i'll open a hotel and pick apart the asteroid belt for fossils in my spare time.

 

or genetically modifying people to live in the ocean and finally figure out where all the sharks go to have fun... or whats under antartctic ice?? like the remains of ancient civilizations... and other missing pyramids like the one in the water east of japan?

 

all we seem to be doing is eating **** and sleeping night and day, making very little headway because of morale and ethical considerations.. bah and fie on all that BS science will empower the individual (think about what you would become with a google uplink by gigabit wifi directly to your visual cortex.. etc) those in power fear losing control worse than a thousand deaths.

[pgrmdave]

I think I understand what you are saying. You think that the potential is there for great advances in science to be made, if only the people in power would allow it. Advances that would make our lives a lot better in many ways, easier, faster. People could have more information at their fingertips. But because of people in power not understanding the benefits to mankind over their own selfish wishes, people aren't able to experiance them.

 

I think that this change must occur gradually, not quickly, lest we be unable to handle problems with the system. Remember, anything which can be put to good use can also be put to bad use. A google uplink would be great...until you got a virus. A genetic modification program would help a lot of people, but it would create an underclass of not modified people (like the movie Gattica). There is no way of knowing the full implications, but going slower will help us deal with them earlier.

[Stargazer]

the question is what sets aside astronomy from the other fields to enable it to get more funding than others.

suppose we allocate 10 billion and did find some sort of weird carbon molecule that we deem life. imagine what could be obtained with that 10 billion for biotech research to overcome the food shortage problem. and the 10billion to find ET might not even succeed. of course, the benefits are many even if you don't succeed. you get more equipment, more data about the universe, etc. so what's the answer here?

Well, I do agree with you that some problems and issues needs to be solved, such as hunger, lack of education, homelessness, persecution, torture, war, etc. etc. etc. Much of the space exploration do give us some spinoff products, or makes life easier, or makes it easier to make the world a better place (by monitoring the weather, etc.) But that's just a tiny part of why we should do it.

 

Anyway, I suppose I've said it before but I still believe it to be true: We're using way too much resources and we're putting way too much time and effort on making sure we have the capability to kill lots of people. It's bizarre to think about how much work we're putting into getting more power over a tiny little area on a tiny little grain of sand (Earth) when we could use all those resources, all that brain power, to improve life for everybody. I believe that it's possible to end world hunger, to have a civilization where everyone has a place to live, where everyone can get a decent education, and where we are more focused on what would make this world better than how to earn more money on other people's expense. But that wont happen unless most of us want it. It's not a waste of money to fund science, because even if some people don't care about how the universe works, they will still enjoy the technological spinoffs from scientific research. Science can be used to destroy lives but it can also be used to improve lives. The choice isn't too difficult for most people, I hope.

 

A peaceful exploration and colonisation of the solar system would benefit us all in many ways, and so I don't see that it is a waste of money. Science and exploration has always benefited humankind.