As we know though, life is deviod of porpuse save that which we individualy give to it. Unless one is religiously minded, but that of course won't satisfy those who are not religisosly minded.
On May 19, 5:00 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > http://www.ted.com/talks/david_brooks_the_social_animal.html?utm_sour... > > I had in mind notions of science giving us reason to have better lives > with purpose other than the money-grubbing Allan mentions. The link > above is to a short video on man as other than rational and recent > advances in that. I might carp that nothing much is added since Hume, > but there's a fair summary of recent brain research. It's over- > simplification, but nonetheworse for that! > > Amongst garbage I was taught, from the invasion of Britain by Julius > Caesar (who couldn't get his lads on the boat) on, was the notion that > science somehow only provided the bleak ending of the heat death of > the universe. This was dung based on false understanding of the > second law of thermodynamics. My own sense of science is deeply > spiritual, if at the same time I don't want this based on any literal > interpretation of fairy tales. > > A key problem for spaceflight is 'space friction'. At very high > speeds, space becomes full of 'nasties'. In Dune you needed ESP to > pilot the things. Even if Gliese whatever number is habitable and we > get there, we aren't answering deep questions that can be asked or > found in genuine consciousness. I'd just like more fellowship on > rational ground I guess. Columbus is just some guy in history and his > great voyage short in comparison with much older human abilities to > hike around the world (for that matter, algae manage it). > > What we have at the moment feels to me like a world devoid of purpose > - one in which only can only live happily by avoiding the bulk of what > goes on. Rationality such as we have it, doesn't work. > > On May 19, 2:51 pm, allan deheretic <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > If you think the politicians hold the purse strings ,,,you > > have another think coming.. > > they are not much more than overpaid sheepeople for sale to the highest > > bidder... > > with rare exception. > > Allan > > > On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 3:45 PM, Chuck Bowling < > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > Since the politicians hold the purse strings that goes without saying. > > > > On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 5:00 AM, [email protected] < > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Indeed political and fiscal. > > > >> On May 19, 1:37 am, Chuck Bowling <[email protected]> > > >> wrote: > > >> > I think right now the technology will only allow us to tell if a planet > > >> is > > >> > rocky or a gas giant. And even then only if it is a relatively massive > > >> > planet. The last time I read anything on the subject the smallest > > >> > planet > > >> > found was something like 3 times the size of the Earth. > > > >> > IMO, the analogy with Columbus doesn't hold. 17th century technology > > >> allowed > > >> > humans to travel anywhere on the Earth - albeit slow and wrought with > > >> > hazard. If the analogy is that a neighboring star is like a new > > >> continent > > >> > then we are more like cavemen discovering that a log can float. At the > > >> rate > > >> > we're going it might be a thousand years before we can actually mount > > >> > an > > >> > expedition to another star. > > > >> > I think the primary reason we are so far from actually exploring other > > >> stars > > >> > is mainly political rather than technological. But, I think you are > > >> right. > > >> > It is a project worth attaching too. Now if we could just make the damn > > >> > politicians see it that way... ;) > > > >> > On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 4:58 PM, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> > > I'm not sure how accurate they can be in revealing planets enough > > >> > > like > > >> > > ours to offer possibilities of a new promised land. They claim there > > >> > > is one 20 light years away, or 300,000 years at current space travel > > >> > > speeds. One can feel that this at least puts us somewhere near the > > >> > > position of 'Columbus'. Our current 'tin-foil' technology won't do, > > >> > > but at this kind of distance we are talking about something other > > >> > > than > > >> > > worm-holes, 'relativity flight' or the kind of physics in which > > >> > > distance is an illusion. > > > >> > > For someone like me who can't take god-stories seriously and quite > > >> > > likes the idea of a human future (or at least the idea of evolution > > >> > > not just ending through catastrophe), there is an opportunity to > > >> > > believe in something distant in time and a need for us to direct > > >> > > ourselves towards it. A time, perhaps in which a form of conscious > > >> > > life can live very differently from now, and a project worth > > >> > > attaching > > >> > > to - perhaps a reason for spirituality. Comments on this or the > > >> > > technology welcome.- Hide quoted text - > > > >> > - Show quoted text - > > > -- > > ( > > ) > > I_D Allan > > > If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken > > Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
