|
 |
Groupes de discussion : rec.arts.sf.misc, rec.arts.sf.science, sci.space.history, sci.space.news.sci.space.tech, sci.space.shuttle
De : pau...@merope.saaf.se (Paul Schlyter)
Date : 1998/10/09
Objet : Re: For and against space exploration
In article <john.bingham-ya02408000R0810981316300...@nntp-server.bcc.ac.uk>,
John Bingham <john.bing...@ucl.ac.uk> wrote: The amount of life saved this way is an insignificant fraction of all life > In article <6vgqo8$4s...@merope.saaf.se>, pau...@merope.saaf.se (Paul > Schlyter) wrote: >> In article <john.bingham-ya02408000R0710981225170...@nntp-server.bcc.ac.uk>, >>>>> Yes but as above it's all we know at the minute and so we should >>>> Why "should" we do it? We might *want* to do it, but it's no duty. >>> Yes it comes down to ethics which you mention and seem to support below. >> In what way does ethics make spaceflight to other stars mandatory? > Well if "your" ethics is to preserve life then getting off an ultimately on Earth.... >>>>>>> and so we should ensure it's survival (no matter what we evolve into). True, however pets, cattle and crops are not human. Thus we haven't >>>>>> ...ehm... before planning what to do in 5 billion years, don't you think >>>>>>> Also maybe Earth will get whacked by an asteroid sometime in the >>>>>> That's because I never argued for not going. I merely pointed out >>>>> Obviously we dont know and I wouldnt like to guess as to probabilities. >>>> Dream on..... >>>> We have done that with our pets, our cattle, and our crops. But to >>> Huh why am I dreaming? you've just said that we as a species have taken >> Partially -- our dogs, horses, cows, etc wouldn't be here if we > Partially or not its still there and breeding of domesticated animals is a so far taken control of our own evolution, as you claimed above, but only over the evolution of our pets, cattle, and crop. >> In Nazi Germany, Hitler had similar plans for humans.... Is this fact uncomfortable to you, or what? > Ho-hum here we go....... >>> Here's where you mentioned ethics and I apply that to me point above. Did I claim you mentioned them? >>> No it's not considered unethical, >> Not by nazi's, but everyone else will considered controlled breeding > Did I mention the nazi's?? > It really is a bit of a cliche to bring nazi's into it. I wasnt going on You talkend about "control of evolution" -- so far we've done that > about controlling breeding on an individual basis on a large scale only through controlled breeding, but not on humans. The nazi's planned controlled breeding on humans too, and since you claimed "control of evolution" on humans was ethical, it was quite appropriate to point to a group of people - the nazi's - who indeed agreed with you on that point. > (are you deliberately mis-intrepreting me?) but as a species since we are I never claimed we have no effect on our own evolution. I merely argued > keeping people alive that would have previously died before being able to > have children we ARE having an effect on evolution, a logical conclusion > yes? against your claim that we control it. We don't... > You really have got the wrong end of the stick I am in no way advocating Good -- then please stop claiming we are controlling our own evolution. > controlling the choice of partner etc and in for the record I'm socialist > (what are you?) I completely agree with you here. > But as we learn more about the human genome and discover more 'disease I don't know what the net effect of that will be. We have the > genes' we are going to have more of an influence over evolution. Downs > Syndrome is regularly screened for and terminations occur. Are you saying > this isnt having an effect on evolution? technology to make a decision here: either such an individual is terminated before birth, or else it's born and then our technology will help it survive longer. Both happens, and neither you nor I know which one is dominating. However the important question here is: will an individual having Dows > (I've read that some have gone onto have children themselves) How many times have this happened? And will those children be able to have children? If not, this effect on the evolution will be transient and short-lived. > Again before you come out with it I'm not saying they havent got Of course it influences it, but in ways we have little control > the right to have children (IMO they have) but it is influencing > evolution. over, and to an extent that's unknown to us. Therefore this is in no way a "controlled" evolution. >>> somatic cell line gene therapy has been passed by medical ethics By existing mostly in the fantasies and hopes of humans. >>> groups and is in trial for various ailments (CF and MS). Germ cell >>> line therapy IS considered unethical at the moment, principally >>> because we dont know the long term consequences. Also any medical >>> treatment which allows people to live and propagate is having an >>> affect on evolution >> "DNA surgery" is mostly science fiction so far. It's not through > Yeah right!! > it exists and is being used the technique works for some genes but OK, I need to rephrase myself: > obviously we need more knowledge. "DNA surgery" on humans is mostly science fiction so far. Agreed? > You really are picking nits when you bring up that humans have controlled Sure, but it's a far cry from control over human evolution. > evolution so far by breeding rather than other methods. So what? the end > result is still an influence over evolution. > This "partially taken control" that you mention will only increase as Of course it is! But how well do we know these effects? > we find more ways to influence things. I guess eradicating smallpox > isnt affecting anyhitng either! > As to 100+ science fiction care to name some that I should read? how about Now you're deliberately choosing a few sci-fi novels where the > Jules Verne and the trips to the moon? how about Metropolis with it's > robots and automation? a bit nearer to home how about Arthur C. Clarke and > his satelites? authors happened to be approximately right. You could also read e.g.: Cyrano de Bergerac: "A Journey to the Moon", where the main figure goes H.G. Wells: "The First Trip to the Moon", where a crazy inventor Olaf Stapledon: "Last Men and First Men", which as a story actually > You can read almost anything into literature if you try hard enough I merely wanted to point out that our expectations of the future frequently > (Nostradamous anyone?) and so your argument means absolutely nothing on > this front. You really seem to be trying to make me out as some clueless > dreamer arent you. becomes quite different from what actually happens in the future... A a schoolkid, in 1967 (that's 2 years before Apollo 11 landed on the >>> Yes it is to a degree, see my above point. For good or bad people are Yes, we are arguing semantics. To me "control" implies at least some >>> living with previously lethal diseases and having children. I call that >>> science having an affect on evolution and that level of control >> To "have an effect" is quite different from "having control". >> If you shoot someone, that will certainly have an effect on the inner >> The "effect" you mention here is comparable rather to random > Sigh, the control is on an immediate level i.e. we can keep people alive or level of predictability. Suppose you're driving a car which starts to malfunction severely. If you turned the steering wheel to the left, the car could go right, it could go backwards, or it could stop -- you didn't know. Braking it could make it turn left, to accelerate, or perhaps even decelerate -- you didn't know. What you did to the car would surely have some effect on it -- but do you think you'd be able to control such a car? Wouldn't it then be "out of control"? >> None of these events will wipe out *all* earthly life though. They've So are the cockroaches, the ants, the bees, .... >> already happened numerous times to the Earth, and life is still >> flourishing here... > Yes I know that and I suppose the cockroaches for one are going to have one > and have a relatively developed infrasctructure/culture anything that This would of course be a catastrophy for the human species - no > disrupts the earth to such an extent that this culture is destroyed > is in a fashion destroying the species (on one level) I dont consider > it good to let the human race degenerate to the cave-man days again, > do you? argument about that! But to most other species (our pets and cattle probably being the only exception) this could be a Good Thing, since it would mean that their worst enemy suddenly got much less dangerous to them. Therefore an impacting asteroid, which shattered the human civilization, could in the end be a Good Thing for many other species, and could even allow a future new species to create an advanced civilization. Much like that cretaceous asteroid which probably hit the Earth some 65 million years ago, killing the dinosaurs, turned out to be a Good Thing for us... Please try to distinguish what's "good" for the human species from >> But you just said you wanted to go *now* !!! Why not first find out where If so, the Earth too is in space..... >> to go, or if there's anyway to go at all? > Yes and it had a smiley after the comment. If we need to find other places >>> Also the technology/experience of this exploration would POSSIBLY allow To some reasonable extent I of course support it. But I find it >>> us to live in somekind of spacestation if we didnt find a suitable planet >>> for direct habitation. > Anyway since I'm doing all the defending on my side of the argument I'm pointless to now plan to go to other stars in 4-5 or so billion years --- that's a task for generations in the far future. And they will not care the slightest bit about whatever "decision" we make about that today -- much like we don't care at all in today's space exploration about what sone age men might have wanted to do to try to "reach the stars"... -- Vous devez vous connecter pour pouvoir envoyer des messages.
Pour envoyer un message, vous devez dans un premier temps rejoindre ce groupe.
Veuillez mettre à jour votre pseudonyme dans la page Paramètres d'abonnement avant de publier des messages.
Vous ne disposez pas de l'autorisation nécessaire pour publier un message.
| |||||||||||||