Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Pointless thread
As I understand it, the biggest driver for finding another habitable planet is not any "pot of gold at the end of the rainbow", but avoiding extinction. Any number of apocalyptic events (nuclear war, chemical war, biological war, giant asteroid, super-virus, super-volcano, supernova, Gamma Ray Burst, etc... have a nice day!) could wipe out all human life on earth. Nice to have settled a spare planet or two, just in case.

I suspect there might be a subtle but universal attitude adjustment as well. If humanity's destiny is limited to this obscure little planet and who can steal more of it from the rest, well... not much point in getting out of bed in the morning, really. It's an enormous galaxy out there. So much of the squabbling over bits of land would seem silly if our eyes return to the skies and the endless prize that lurks beyond that far horizon.
Reply
I think the biggest driver right now is simple curiosity: are we alone or is life out there? Centuries ago people thought the Earth was the center of the universe, but observations and science showed that to be wrong. Until a couple of decades or so ago, we didn't know if planets formed around other stars, but now we know they do. Our solar system is no longer unique. But we don't know if life exists elsewhere or if we're unique, and if we discover life, then the next question is if it's intelligent life. That will answer centuries' of questions.

The search for a possible habitable planet for humans is a secondary issue and candidates may well be discovered during this process. Ultimately, we may have to move to other systems to survive, but it's not going to happen in our lifetimes.
Reply
Dakine is against the telescope because of his sycophantic dedication to the cause of the wronged Hawaiian, who would not even give him a vote. As a result he has to bend himself into an ideological pretzel, claiming to see no benefit in contacting another life form. Incredible.
Reply
You have to wonder if the first Polynesians to discover the Hawaiian islands were met with opposition before they sailed who said:

"Will we be better equipped to deal with our social problems? Will our energy and waste problems be solved? Will we have better food sources? Will wars end? Poverty?"

Just imagine our lives without fundamental research and exploration.
Reply
"As a result he has to bend himself into an ideological pretzel, claiming to see no benefit in contacting another life form. Incredible."

I would replace "contacting" with "detecting".
Reply
quote:
Originally posted by dakine

All this talk about how great it would be to have the TMT, and what a massive loss it would be to not have it, is missing one part of the equation for me, a product, something we can point to as the payback, the gain. <snip> Really what would be the upside?


All this talk about how great it would be to prevent the construction of the TMT, and what a massive win it would be not to have it, is missing one part of the equation for me, a product, something we can point to as the payback, the gain. Really what would be the upside of not having the TMT?

Would not having a TMT end war? Poverty? Etc.

Then let's have a TMT! Wink

Cheers,
Kirt
Reply
are we alone or is life out there?

If there were intelligent life in the universe, would it bother to contact us?

Seriously, look at how we behave.
Reply
quote:
Originally posted by TomK

I think the biggest driver right now is simple curiosity: are we alone or is life out there?

I completely agree, but that's just us. People who aren't into science just aren't terribly curious about such things. So, we try to appeal to a more basic motivation: survival.
Reply
Look on the bright side, kalakoa. Just think of the potential to take your chronic complaining to a much wider audience.
Reply
take your chronic complaining to a much wider audience

Anyone who thinks I'm merely "complaining" isn't reading carefully enough.

Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 25 Guest(s)