Did we go to the moon in 1969

But so what? I'm not talking about the resources as the prize, I'm talking about the journey as necessity. Who's to say it's a there-and-back again scenario? At some point we need to realise that Conquest in the Viking sense is an old hat notion. Bringing back goods, jewels, spices, fabrics and resources to the Independent Republic Of Earth can no longer be the motivation of human endeavour. We used to think there was Heaven, and Earth. Earth was ours to do what we want with and Heaven would be waiting for us if we did it right.

This must seem like folly to anyone with even a reasonably rational mind

If the human race is to survive/evolve/perpetuate beyond the apparently limited scope of our earth-bound existence then we must get moving. Even things like global warming are insignificant when we consider what (very eventually) happens to our Sun. So we will have to spread. If we disregard this simply on the basis of scale (because it's too big and scary to contemplate), then we may as well give up now.

We're unique among Darwin's species in that we can control our own evolution. In nature, it's not something magic that happens under the table, it's an observable feedback loop, it is cause and effect. It takes many generations and individuals, but it's driven, not some sort of happenstance. Yet we can do it artificially, in labs, manipulating DNA in test tubes, or we can do it the old-fashioned way, by choosing partners for reasons other than their ability to procreate... BUT we are not bound by the rules of natural selection because we understand them. When the time comes we can truly stop cancer, we will have made the mechanism of evolution obsolete. The difference between us and every other species, extant and extinct, is that we know the difference between those two states.

I'm rambling a bit, all I'm trying to say is that even though the task is almost unfathomable, we will have to be up to it IF we are to carry on, and I think that net profit in resources is a sad motivation when looking at things like going to The Moon, Mars, or LV426...

Not just because of this post, but most of what you have written...

If I'm ever in the same corner of the univers as you, you must allow me to buy you a drink!

Imagine, if you will, two sides of a coin; on the one side we have science, knowledge, what we have discovered AND observed in a rational, quantifiable and qualifiable manner. Science here is a broad field, but is basically anything we can create to our design, or observe and explain. Science is not conjecture, 95% of us might not understand that science, but that's because we need to accept that we're not a sharp as we think we are, and some things cannot be dumbed down enough. Some science may appear genuinely contradictory, but that is not down to the facts being un-real, only that our understanding is inadequate, which brings us to... On the other side of this coin, is simply the stuff we're still working on. The 'science' we know might not explain or control it, but 'some science' will and who knows we may get to the stage where own 'that science'.

(Oh, hang on, some may have expected religion, belief, creationism, superstition, conspiracy lizard people etc. to be on the other side of the coin... I'm afraid not. That's a totally different currency. It's what some use, either to explain the unknown or discredit the known... it's a particularly low value currency, because it's everywhere, it's called B-$.

Edited By Steven Greenhough on 28/05/2017 20:46:17

Please can we not bring religion into this discussion?

N.

Y'know. I don't agree with that. If people's beliefs are demonstrably wrong and have a negative impact on other people or things, they should be shown up as the fallacies that they are.

In a world of well established scientific knowledge based on observation of facts and experience, carefully reasoned explanations and peer review etc etc, it is ludicrous that beliefs, whether they be based on millenia-old texts written by those bereft of scientific method, or based on personal opinion gleaned from the local pub or the internet, should somehow be given equal creedence and for some reason should be respected.

Ignorance should be called out for what it is: ignorance. Allowing ignorance to gain the same value as science in public debate is going to take us back to the dark ages. The fact that someone believes in that ignorance gives it no protected status.

That's what i believe, anyway.

Hi, I agree, however, beliefs that condone persecution are not acceptable in my view.

Regards Nick.

Well said Hopper. And why is the greatest scourge of the world, religion, off limits for discussion?

.

Same reason in pubs years ago there was often a sign (usually in the bar or 'tap room' side) that stated words to the effect :-

"No talk of religion, politics or money lending."

Reason I suppose without a great deal of imagination it often led to fall outs and fisty-cuffs.!

As a side note and off topic I know. Why were tap rooms in pubs called such.???

Nick

.

Presumably because the best ale is/was delivered in small casks [Pins] which were then tapped.

MichaelG.

Two things destroy the good harmony of internet forums: politics and religion.

Both are matters of faith, opinion and personal commitment with no provable right or wrong. Impassioned discussion, of them inevitably ends up in offence, often to people who don't join in but simply turn away.

Some of the comments made above could have already left people feeling insulted and upset.

Who would like their sincerely held and fundamental world-view to be classed with loony conspiracy theories?

This thread will have to close.

Neil