 |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
kayjatta
2978 Posts |
 Posted - 27 May 2008 : 10:10:00
|
http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/rss/topstories/*http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080527/ap_on_sc/phoenix_mars
Amazing, Phoenix has traveled 422 million miles over ten months to land on Mars.
There are two other rovers on Mars already, Spirit and Opportunity.
Phoenix's mission is to check for melted ice and sample the soil for organic compounds on the Martian arctic polar surface.
This information will add to the growing literature on the past or present habitability of Mars.
While some politicians are pushing for more manned missions to space, many space scientists believe that the future of space exploration will be dominated by rovers like this one.
Many politicians also argue that the huge amount of money, 420 million dollars spent on Phoenix for example, should be used to alleviate poverty and other social problems on earth rather than shipping it to space. Do you think this is a valid argument? Why?
|
Edited by - kayjatta on 27 May 2008 10:13:42 |
|
|
tamsier
United Kingdom
557 Posts |
Posted - 27 May 2008 : 19:14:17
|
| I am all for the advancement of science, but the billion of Dollars spent of space shuttles/travels should be spent on the disasters facing our own planet. Although some scientific results are used for the benefit of human kind e.g. medicine, etc, the majority or at least a huge amount of it, is for warfare - [more advance technological weapon] and this is where i have a huge problem. But hey! each to their own. If they want to kill each other and end planet earth who am i to stop them. |
Tamsier
Serere heritage. Serere religion. Serere to the end.
Roog a fa ha. |
 |
|
|
kayjatta
2978 Posts |
Posted - 28 May 2008 : 01:43:05
|
Right Tamsier. Medicine is the biggest beneficiary of space technology today.
Interestingly, the amount of money spent on the space program appears huge, but it is very small comapared to other non-essential human endavors. For example NASA's annual budget is far less than the annual pet related expenses in the U.S. I will provide the exact figures here shortly... |
|
|
|
tamsier
United Kingdom
557 Posts |
Posted - 28 May 2008 : 09:45:22
|
If that is right Kay, then that would really surprise me. I look forward to your figures. However, deep-down, I get a 'niggling'feeling that your anticipated figures may be right, because of the huge amount of money American celebrities and rich Americans spend on their animals. They are mental over there. They can love their animals by-all-means, but they shouldn't try to turn them into humans by over-pampering them. On the other hand, those figures 'may be' cooked [you know what they say about statistics].
Therefore, when providing the figures, I would like to know:
1. the figures themselves
2. who provided the statistics
3. how independent from the American Government are those staticticians. How they arrive at those figures is easy to ascertain, it is pure economic sense so dont bother yourselve with that.
|
Tamsier
Serere heritage. Serere religion. Serere to the end.
Roog a fa ha. |
Edited by - tamsier on 28 May 2008 10:37:06 |
|
|
|
kayjatta
2978 Posts |
Posted - 28 May 2008 : 11:15:47
|
1. NASA's budget for 2004 15 billion.
2. pet-related sales for 2004 (U.S.) 31 billion.
3. Holiday gifts for pets,( 2004) 5 billion. More than 820 million for two space ships, Spirit and Opportunity.
4. Gambling expenses 586.5 billion, 2004
Figures provided by Virgilius Pop, a PhD candidate at Glascow, and member of Council in Support of the U.N. Program on Space Applications. |
Edited by - kayjatta on 28 May 2008 11:16:44 |
|
|
|
kayjatta
2978 Posts |
|
|
tamsier
United Kingdom
557 Posts |
Posted - 28 May 2008 : 13:14:44
|
Thanks for that Kay. That is really surprising. It just goes to show you were some people's morals lies.
Having said that, I got the following quotes from NASA [the website you posted above]:
question: the main goals of the Phoenix mission?
answer:'to find out if the landing site has an environment suitable for life'.
question: what's the next step if Phoenix finds out their are ingredients for life?
answer:'the Martian arctic region would suddenly be an attractive site for future exploration'.
Call me silly if you wish, but his signals to me the potential for colonisation -, something I am totally against. it seems to me that human beings of the last hundred years or so are contributing towards the distruction of our planet and once this planet can no longer cope, we are looking to relocate elsewhere. I know this is far-fetche and may be silly to some, but it is possible. for example, who would have dreamed that TV,Telephone, Internet etc, would exist 900 years ago? Also, as the worlds population increases, and food production diminishes, as well as the toxic generated by man,they [the scientist] may wish to grow certain crops outside planet earth. This is still another form of colonisation, which may explain why the scientist are looking for signs of water and organic compounds - 'the essentials of life'.
So again, it brings me back to my previous point to some extent - we should be concentrating our efforts on our own planet. By all means research, but not at the detriment of our own planet and the life that exist in it. Even the mere fact of landing on other planets and researching is a degree of colonisation in itself. Perhaps there are degrees of colonisation, but I strongly believe more should be done about planet earth itself.
What do you think? |
Tamsier
Serere heritage. Serere religion. Serere to the end.
Roog a fa ha. |
Edited by - tamsier on 28 May 2008 13:33:51 |
|
|
|
kayjatta
2978 Posts |
Posted - 29 May 2008 : 08:30:43
|
Colonizing the outer space or another olanet or the moon is still a science fiction. In theory, it might appear feasible, but in the practical sense for the foreseeable future, it is more tenable to repair this broken planet earth than to relocate to another world.
The discovery of life on Mars or elsewhere in the universe will help us understand better our own orgins of life on earth.
Well, landing on the moon or Mars is an exploration, not a colonization. It is perhaps like the voyages of Mungo Park, Ferdinand Magelland, Columbus, Amerigo Vespucci, Cecil Rhodes, Alvise Cadamosto , and others... |
Edited by - kayjatta on 29 May 2008 08:33:25 |
|
|
|
tamsier
United Kingdom
557 Posts |
Posted - 29 May 2008 : 10:28:44
|
| I get your point Kay. However, exploration leads to colonisation [Mungo Park, Columbus, etc]. And as regards to understanding our past, aren't the scientist looking in the wrong place? Shouldn't they start with planet earth? There are so many parts under-explored - e.g. the oceans, etc. The likelyhood of repearing planet earth is long gone. We can minimise the damage, but that's as good as it gets. Another area to work on is to end the wars and starvations - [a few percent of people owns the wealth of the entire world whilst the majority starve and die]. However, I dont see this changing in my life time. |
Tamsier
Serere heritage. Serere religion. Serere to the end.
Roog a fa ha. |
Edited by - tamsier on 29 May 2008 10:30:51 |
|
|
|
kayjatta
2978 Posts |
Posted - 29 May 2008 : 10:57:18
|
| That is very true, Tamsier. Well I am not a big proponent of Spencer's "survival of the fittest" doctrine,(although I do in the Darwinian sense) but I understand that inequality, war, and disease, have always been part of this world; and perhaps will always be... |
|
|
|
tamsier
United Kingdom
557 Posts |
Posted - 29 May 2008 : 11:33:35
|
Very true, but sad. That just goes to show you the wickedness of man. I appreciate that animals also kill each other, but when they kill it is mainly to feed, or in special circumstances to mate. Humans on the other hand kill for silly reasons.
I have always heard the phrase 'the survival of the fittest' but I have never associated it with Spencer. Perhaps you can enlighten me about him - time permitting. |
Tamsier
Serere heritage. Serere religion. Serere to the end.
Roog a fa ha. |
|
|
|
kayjatta
2978 Posts |
Posted - 29 May 2008 : 12:14:54
|
To put it in a nutshell, Herbert Spencer was a British sociologist who applied Darwin's concept of the biological evolution of species to human beings. Spencer argued that people who are more successful economically and socially are genetically superior to those who fail. These was a huge concept, because finally someone has come up with a reason to justify why inequality has persisted among human beings, and because of that the rich do not have to feel guilty about their success. This idea, as controversial as it sounds, became very popular among economic conservatives (capitalists).
The phrase "survival of the fittest" is attributed by many to Darwin, but it is actually Spencer's. |
Edited by - kayjatta on 29 May 2008 12:19:11 |
|
|
|
tamsier
United Kingdom
557 Posts |
Posted - 29 May 2008 : 13:54:29
|
| Thanks for that Kay. very informative. |
Tamsier
Serere heritage. Serere religion. Serere to the end.
Roog a fa ha. |
|
|
|
kayjatta
2978 Posts |
Posted - 30 May 2008 : 02:32:42
|
It is very interesting to also compare Spencer's "social Darwinism" to the ideas of Veblen. If you ever heard of the term "conspicuous consumption"; it was coined by Thorstein Veblen, one of America's greatest social critics (J.K.Galbraith).
Veblen was one of just a few scholars who studied and wrote intensely about the wealthy (the so-called leisure class), but perhaps not so favorably. No doubt, he was very much influenced by both Charles Darwin and Herbert Spencer, but Veblen, it appears might sit more comfortably in the company of Karl Marx than either Darwin or Spencer...
|
Edited by - kayjatta on 30 May 2008 02:41:16 |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
| Bantaba in Cyberspace |
© 2005-2024 Nijii |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
