Nasa...who Needs It?

[Nihil Obstat]

Of course. :) Everyone has reasons for doing what they do. But that's what I'm trying to figure out...what are the noblest motivations? Can noble motivations be counterproductive? Should we put limits on our motivation / ambition?

Who should be the one who decides which motivations are worthy and which are not?

[Era Might]

Who should be the one who decides which motivations are worthy and which are not?

 

Now we're getting somewhere. Ultimately, each person must decide for themselves. But we also live in society, and we think and act socially. There are a number of possible answers to your questions. One could look at it politically...should kings decide? The people? One can look at it professionally...should engineers and scientists decide? Taxpayers? One could look at it personally...should I make my own motivations? Should I adopt the motivations of those around me?

 

Marketing and myth are not just about tapping into motivation, but creating it. One can look at the heavens and market it as a mysterious and glorious wonder, an object of admiration and contemplation. But one could look at the heavens and market it as the final frontier, the unconquered wilderness, the scarce resource. Space exploration has to be marketed...it has to be sold. Should we question the marketing? Should we go with the flow and accept it as the way things are? Those are the real problematic issues as I see it...from a practical perspective, there's no doubt that there is much to be gained from space exploration. But from a human perspective, what does space exploration mean for the human experience? For human perceptions? For human wants and desires? For human future?

 

There is more at stake here than the things that concern scientists and engineers.

Edited March 2, 2013 by Era Might

[Laudate_Dominum]

L_D dropping knowledge.

 

One question: what is the purpose / goal of human knowledge? Is it to know everything? To pursue everything as though we could know everything? To pursue all knowledge and then conceive a way to use it?

 

I think the story of the tower of babel is relevant to the discussion.

 

We're in no danger of knowing everything. Hehe. One of the things that is exciting about scientific discovery is that it tends to open up entirely new sets of questions that were previously inconceivable (one of my favorites is dark energy).

 

I don't think there is a single purpose/goal of human knowledge. Why does a student strive to become a cancer researcher? Why does a child wonder why the sky is blue? Why does the explorer risk his life to map the Andes, or visit the South Pole? Why do I often wonder about planetary systems elsewhere in the galaxy? Why does the field scientist study lichens in Nepal, or ice cores in Greenland, or the rain forest's canopy? Why hunt for fossils? Why explore the properties of matter under extreme conditions? What prompted Eratosthenes to calculate the circumference of the Earth? Or Galileo to look at the heavens through a telescope? Why did Mendel spend so much of his time fussing with peas? What prompted us to develop the Voyager spacecraft? Why try to understand earthquakes? Et cetera. Ad nauseum.

Of all the things that human beings can do with their brief lives I think that exploring and working to understand the world - adding truth and beauty to the sphere of human experience and perhaps leaving behind something of benefit to humanity - is among the more worthy. Of course there are less noble reasons for studying the world or inventing new things. 

I'm not really sure where you're coming from. Do you think that the simple desire to understand reality is wicked? To me this might imply that you think humanity would be better off with narrow, short-term thinking, blindness about the way things work, indifference to nature and the cosmos, and so on. 

Also, how is the tower of babel relevant? I sort of think that the hubris interpretation is anti-humanistic and eisegetical, but maybe debating exegesis is beside the point here. I actually think rejecting the pursuit of new knowledge and new horizons could be fittingly characterized as hubris - at least fear of the unknown. What are your thoughts?

[Laudate_Dominum]

Live and let live? I guess, but their choices affect me. When men start to conceive of a society of ferraris and highways, that is going to impact how I experience the world. Ditto with space exploration.

 

I think human beings can certainly dream up anything. Suppose we wanted to install cameras to observe and record data on everyone in the world 24 / 7? Is that beyond the limits of knowledge? Does the ability to do something, whether it is spy on people 24 / 7 or stretch humanity into space, justify doing it?

 

Regarding the last sentence: I don't think I've read anything space-related that claimed or implied that we should stretch humanity into space simply because we can. I'll call that the "Kirk of the Mountain" argument. "Because it's there." 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkBVDh7my9Q

[Nihil Obstat]

What L_D said. :P

[Laudate_Dominum]

Of course. :) Everyone has reasons for doing what they do. But that's what I'm trying to figure out...what are the noblest motivations? Can noble motivations be counterproductive? Should we put limits on our motivation / ambition?

 

I can understand this. E.g., Nuclear technology creating the threat of a nuclear holocaust; DIY genetic engineering implies some obvious risks; etc. Basically, the dystopian science fiction genre, some of which seems increasingly plausible. This could be a fun topic. I follow the Future of Humanity Institute at Oxford, which you might also find interesting.

But crap. I really need to close this tab and focus on work. Sorry if I'm slow to reply after this.

[Era Might]

We're in no danger of knowing everything. Hehe. One of the things that is exciting about scientific discovery is that it tends to open up entirely new sets of questions that were previously inconceivable (one of my favorites is dark energy).

 

I don't think there is a single purpose/goal of human knowledge. Why does a student strive to become a cancer researcher? Why does a child wonder why the sky is blue? Why does the explorer risk his life to map the Andes, or visit the South Pole? Why do I often wonder about planetary systems elsewhere in the galaxy? Why does the field scientist study lichens in Nepal, or ice cores in Greenland, or the rain forest's canopy? Why hunt for fossils? Why explore the properties of matter under extreme conditions? What prompted Eratosthenes to calculate the circumference of the Earth? Or Galileo to look at the heavens through a telescope? Why did Mendel spend so much of his time fussing with peas? What prompted us to develop the Voyager spacecraft? Why try to understand earthquakes? Et cetera. Ad nauseum.

Of all the things that human beings can do with their brief lives I think that exploring and working to understand the world - adding truth and beauty to the sphere of human experience and perhaps leaving behind something of benefit to humanity - is among the more worthy. Of course there are less noble reasons for studying the world or inventing new things. 

I'm not really sure where you're coming from. Do you think that the simple desire to understand reality is wicked? To me this might imply that you think humanity would be better off with narrow, short-term thinking, blindness about the way things work, indifference to nature and the cosmos, and so on. 

Also, how is the tower of babel relevant? I sort of think that the hubris interpretation is anti-humanistic and eisegetical, but maybe debating exegesis is beside the point here. I actually think rejecting the pursuit of new knowledge and new horizons could be fittingly characterized as hubris - at least fear of the unknown. What are your thoughts?

 

I agree with all those questions you ask and more. Why does one become a cancer researcher? Why does one calculate the circumference of the earth? I don't think any of these things is "wicked" per se, I just don't assume they are good.

 

I don't think I would use the word "hubris" but rather "ambition." Are there limits to ambition?

 

I understand that the desire to know and to ask is the driving force behind human exploration. It is a certain sort of relativism, the willingness to question and test everything. That relativism has gotten progressively deeper and more advanced over the centuries, culminating in modern times and the disappearance of religion and the rise of technocracy.

 

I think the overarching question here is why we exist? I am more inclined to seek an answer in the simple and natural...birth, death, love, growth, wisdom. That is where I would draw a distinction, between knowledge and wisdom.

 

There is no doubt that human beings can conceive and do almost everything. They can leave their own planet. They can exchange parts of their own bodies. They can create powerful computer systems. They can create powerful bombs. This is all the fruit of modern knowledge and new horizons, but I think it requires a non-teleological worldview. The original Christians had no time for such pursuits, they were awaiting wisdom, not knowledge.

 

That doesn't make knowledge bad, but you're right I suppose that my worldview is not "humanistic." Humanism is a modern form of thinking...perhaps I just need to get with the program. But I think other ways of viewing and experiencing the world are closer to humanity than modern scientific humanism. In the same way that I value dying well over living well, I would value wisdom over knowledge.

 

I admit, I look at these things through a simple lens. I am more interested in what it means for me to wake up every day, and experience the world, than I am with pursuing distant knowledge in the cosmos. I don't think knowledge can be pursued outside of a personal and social context...your worldview will motivate your pursuit of knowledge. I guess I just don't view the world from the vantage point of the Hubble Telescope...not saying I'm right, just don't see the world that way, and can't.

Edited March 2, 2013 by Era Might

[Era Might]

Regarding the last sentence: I don't think I've read anything space-related that claimed or implied that we should stretch humanity into space simply because we can. I'll call that the "Kirk of the Mountain" argument. "Because it's there." 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkBVDh7my9Q

 

hahahaha that's going to give me nightmares.

[Laudate_Dominum]

Era,

 

I completely respect where you're coming from. I think there is room in a Catholic (Christian, if you prefer) worldview for a great deal of diversity (from the simple agrarian monk to the space explorer). I think that wonder at the universe and a love of scientific discovery is compatible with Christianity. I think Christian humanism predates modern secular humanism. I don't share your cynicism about the future of religion in modern society. Not that I claim any competence at predicting the future. 
I too value the simple and the natural. One of the reasons why I think space is important is because of this fact. I think you have some misconceptions about where I'm coming from. 
I guess there's a lot of heavy stuff to discuss. I wish we could do it over some beers instead of in posts..

 

Peace brother.

Edited March 2, 2013 by Laudate_Dominum

[StMichael]

NASA didn't invent anything, the private sector did. NASA created needs and as we know necessity is the mother of invention.

 

NASA as we know it is dead. Killed by the current administration. 

[4588686]

NASA didn't invent anything, the private sector did. NASA created needs and as we know necessity is the mother of invention.

NASA as we know it is dead. Killed by the current administration.

Honestly, what that flippity floppy are you talking about?

[LouisvilleFan]

Both of them believe that the space program is probably the biggest waste of tax payers money. 

 

They hold quite a favorable opinion of our federal budget.

[Nihil Obstat]

They hold quite a favorable opinion of our federal budget.

No kidding.

[God the Father]

How can the government justify investing so much in extraterrestrial science, when that money could be used to buy hundreds of thousands of votes?

[Not The Philosopher]

I just want my own moonbase kthx