> Michael Turner may have observed that, in an effort to maintain our level of discourse,
"Level" is susceptible to more than one measure. One can politely speculate that we have all dreamed of whales on Europa. And one can scathingly point out that some of us have not, for reasons that should be obvious to anyone with more than a passing acquaintance with the subject. Having just attended a scientific conference, I can tell you which quality-of-discourse measure matters in real life: light generally counts for more than heat, which is expected in any case (light being less dependable). As the old saw goes, if you can't take the heat .... > I have abstained from responding to his prior attacks. The religious > fanatic/cultist argument, however, has worn. My main point was to indicate where optimism unmoderated by realism (or where optimism that has soured into opportunistic cynicism, or defensive fanaticism) can lead. I'll take realism, thank you. > More importantly, it is not persuasive. I'd let history answer that one. > If indeed Mr. Turner's definition of a cultist is one who is optimistic > about the future of humanity's ability or the wonders of our unexplored > universe, then I proudly fit that definition. It's not my definition of a cultist, of course, but it is dismaying how often the incurable optimists find themselves a long way down that road. > I suppose Carl Sagen would as well. A good question. I haven't read _The Demon-Haunted World_, but that's where I'd look for clues. > My definition, however, would be somewhat more conventional. > For some thoughts on interstellar travel outside of the cultist community, > see here. > > http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/PAO/html/warp/possible.htm Ah, a web search on Transdimensional Technologies (source of the last paper listed, in the "not necessarily endorsed by BPP" section), really makes me wonder about this characterization of "outside the cultist community." ("But it must be serious, peer-reviewed literature -- I found it referenced on a NASA website!") > While I will concede that "visibly on our horizon" may not be > supportable by current science, the point is the same. Interstellar travel > will come. This, I'm afraid, is an article of faith. I'd like interstellar travel to come, but I don't take it as a fait accompli. > This, and many things that may seem like magic or fantasy now, > will not seem that way in our future. Likewise, many things that we've been led to believe will happen by science fiction, and by the speculations of some scientists, will be proven impossible. The universe doesn't yield up miracles simply because we've imagined them, and have had some wonderful progress along certain lines of speculation. > Back to Europa: I applaud the scientific community for the > hard and practical work many are doing every day to find real > answers to what, if anything, may be there. Please don't become > too practical, however, to maintain healthy level of fanciful > speculation when you take a break from doing hard science. I really don't think they need this advice -- disciplined speculation has yielded far more useful results than fanciful speculation. And disciplined speculation comes from an understanding of limitations as well as possibilities. It also channels excitement along genuinely useful and productive directions. For example, Arthur C. Clarke is rightly credited with forseeing a commercial use for geosynchronous satellites communicating over the radio spectrum (even if he didn't exactly come up with the concept); his specific prediction, that television would be the initial 'killer app', wasn't quite right, but it did eventually come along. It was a communications theorist, John Pierce, however, who figured out that long-distance telephony was the more sensible and likely initial application. Clarke got it wrong in another (hopelessly optimistic) way: he thought the TV comsat was also *manned spaceflight's* killer app -- without people up there, who would change all the vacuum tubes as they burned out? But I guess he can't be faulted for not predicting the transistor. After all, that would have taken someone with real scientific training, not a former RAF technician. Still, if he hadn't framed the idea in such fanciful terms, it might have gotten more attention earlier. And if he'd looked at a more mundane application (like telephony) rather than one that was still finding its feet (television), prospects might have been better still. If not prospects, then at least credibility. -michael turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael Turner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 10:10 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: No life detected in Atacama Desert in Chile > > > > > > I wonder whether Galileo may have found interstellar travel, now visibly > on our horizon, > > similarly inconceivable > > For all I know, he was more optimistic about it than we are now. After all, > Giordano Bruno was very optimistic about the chances for civilizations > beyond our solar system -- so much so that he asserted it as an > absolute certainty, which I think is more than any rational SETI enthusiast > would do. > > (Interstellar travel as "now visibly on our horizon."?! Which direction > should > I look?) > > > or what Thomas Jefferson would say to the improbable suggestion of an > > untethered book like machine with a display linked to the four corners > > of the globe. > > Probably something like "I *knew* Franklin's experiments with electricity > would come to something, someday." There isn't anything in laptop computers > with WiFi cards that would have defied the laws of physics of their time > (such as it was.) Jefferson was, after all, an inventor. And in that time, > naval architects who criticized American transatlantic ship design for > their planned obsolescence were told that technology was improving > so fast that designing ships to last more than about 4 years was simply > silly. They were hardly unacquainted with speed of technological > change. > > > My aim is not to be contrary, but to point out that our conception of > > what is possible should not be limited by the limits of our current > > information and understanding. > > Sometime in the early 70s, it was conceivable, as Eric Drexler and > others proposed, that weightlessness would extend human > life. Now we know that it's a health hazard. There was nothing > wrong with this hypothesis in terms of the "current information and > understanding" of the time -- but there is something wrong with not > recognizing that it was optimistic. Even when you limit your > conception of what is possible to current information and understanding, > you still end up with many hypotheses that don't pan out. If you > don't put such limits on your speculations, well ... you might as well go > write Riverworld novels. Or if you're really ambitious, go start a > cult based on interstellar communication with pure energy beings > who were civilized long before human beings evolved -- > if you're successful (and some have been), you'll make a lot more > money than Philip Jose Farmer ever did. > > -michael turner > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Schmidt Mickey Civ 50 ES/CC [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 12:06 PM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: RE: No life detected in Atacama Desert in Chile > > > > > > > > If we are looking for non-corporeal life forms, I think we may be relying > > upon science fiction a little too much. It is true we don't know every > thing > > about nature but one of the necessary properties of living things is that > it > > must use energy and release energy (metabolize). It is hard to imagine a > > non-physical entity being able to "gather" energy and make use of it to > > maintain itself or to reproduce or even protect itself. It is also > difficult > > to imagine intellectual activity occurring without a structure of sorts to > > maintain connections and memory. > > > > I find the whole idea highly unlikely. > > > > Mickey D. Schmidt, > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Ingrassia, John R. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2003 8:57 AM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: RE: No life detected in Atacama Desert in Chile > > > > > > I agree. As a non-scientist watching eagerly from the sidelines, I wonder > > why we even start with the proposition that 'life' would have to be > physical > > in nature at all, rather than some form of energy, or other as yet > > undiscovered component of our universe. I realize that the physical, > > organic, carbon based beings may be easiest for us to discover, but surely > > we don't think that that's everything, do we? > > > > > > == > > You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/ > > > > > > > > _______________________ > > Confidentiality Notice: The information contained in this e-mail and any > attachments may be legally privileged and confidential. If you are not an > intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, > distribution or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have > received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender and permanently > delete the e-mail and any attachments immediately. You should not retain, > copy or use this e-mail or any attachment for any purpose, nor disclose all > or any part of the contents to any other person. Thank you. > > > > > > > > == > > You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/ > > > > > > == > You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/ > > > > _______________________ > Confidentiality Notice: The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments may be legally privileged and confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender and permanently delete the e-mail and any attachments immediately. You should not retain, copy or use this e-mail or any attachment for any purpose, nor disclose all or any part of the contents to any other person. Thank you. > > > > == > You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/ > > == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
