Already deep sea exploration is done worse by humans; better by machine. That change will only continue. Machines are already doing many jobs better. Over time, machines will do most jobs better. A worse environment means a machine's superiority only increases.

Purpose of Mars (like all exploration and discovery) is the advancment of mankind. That means machines must do more work and do it better. That means humans will no longer accomplish what only machines can fulfill. That is the change that so many have difficulty grasping.

Best colonists on Mars will be man's machines.

Huh.

So... I am sorry BigV and xoxoxoBruce for doubting you guys. Thank you for trying to warn me anyway.

Now I know TW is missing the point of the general discussion.
But away from this particular discussion, I can see his point. After all, why should we colonise another planet? Resources would be better resourced by machines.

Do we really need more space? There is plenty of space still on Earth. We should limit our population instead - even the richest countries in the world have parts of the population they are unable to support.

I'm not talking eugenics, merely population control.
And compare the cost of terraforming Mars to the cost of making - just examples - the Nevada desert or the Australian bush into reasonable habitats. They at least have oxygen and aren't 14 million miles away (sorry if that's wrong, I think I saw it on a move poster for The Martian!)

No... More real estate isn't quite the point either, any more then resources or research.

It is cheaper to dig deeper here for ores then to deliver them from Mars and it is cheaper to build higher and wider here then send people to Mars.

The value of mars real estate IS that it's far away. Which I suppose in turn creates a somewhat worrying possible answer to my initial question in the thread:

The drive might not be directly economical, but it can be political - Isolationists groups.

I have to admit that considering the spirit of our time, that's a very chilling vision. The Westboro Baptist Colony? :eek:

This discussion is predicated on a solution that is becoming less relevant with each decade. Number one objective of mankind is the advancement of mankind; not colonization. Advancement is no longer found in putting people on other continents or worlds. Advancement has changed; it is more about putting man's handywork and tools in places where knowledge can be expanded, resources might be obtained, and new materials might be discovered that become essential to mankind's existence and advancement.

This discussion is predicated on a bogus need. Long before some objective is defined, first, what is the strategic objective? What is necessary to do what is relevant - the advancement of mankind?

Many have automatically assumed colonization is necessary because once it was necessary. I did not miss the point. The point is this discussion ignores what must be accomplished - as if colonization (once considered necessary for the advancement of mankind) is the only solution. Once it was. Human presence is no longer necessary to advance mankind.

As usual, I am have gone beyond what some are unwilling or not ready to consider. Why is human presence essential? Once it was. Starting recently, colonization is better done with man's tools rather than with human presence. That is extremely difficult for some to grasp because it is a very new concept.

Point of this general discussion is fundamentally flawed.

BTW, we have plenty of space on earth for many more people. There is no shortage of real estate despite so many emotional fears that believe otherwise. Instead, what will advance mankind?

Absolutely right.
Fixed that for you. ;)
Bullshit, that's a fairy tale that's been used to justify funding, and fuckups, forever.
Oh, ninety million native Americans died of introduced diseases... um, we were just trying to advance mankind.
Oh, you have a thalidomide baby... well, we were trying just to advance mankind.
Oh, Sadam didn't have weapons of mass destruction... gosh, we were just trying to advance mankind.

Do you remember July 20th, 1969? I do, like it was yesterday. The Eagle has landed, motherfucker.
I also remember Curiosity rover's touchdown a couple years back, vaguely.

But, but, childish emotion has no place in the advancement of mankind.
It does when it's my nickel, bitch.

Hey, tw used to be my bitch; but, now you've made him yours. Oh well, what can I do, it's all for the advancement of mankind. :lol:

Actually, while tw's obstinacy continues, he has ostensibly been refraining from calling other adults children. Kudos tw.

Healthcare professionals are trained to not call other adults children, refer to them as children; or, treat them as children even if those other adults are developmentally impaired or have dementia and behave like children. Studies have shown that treating any adult aged person in that manner is exceptionally counterproductive to effective communication. Whatever you may think of them, they are still adults with the lifetime experience of an adult, regardless of their intellectual status, who will summarily dismiss people that disrespect them in that way. You can call adults a lot of derogatory things; but, calling them children is a telltale hallmark of a poor communicator. Again, congratulations on the change: it hasn't gone unnoticed.

Battle of the titans :rolleyes:


Alright, I'll play*. Tw - how do you define the advancement of human kind? Scientific knowledge? Technology? Industrial capacity? Control and access to resources? Kardashev scale (energy)? Military might? Wisdom? The spiritual acceptance of Cthulhu? The number of alien babes on Captain Kirk's belt? What is the defining attribute for you?



*. It is promising to be a slow shift tonight and in waiting forever for groceries delivery yesterday I haven't caught enough hours of sleep for coding to be fun.

Let's start with 20 July 1969. What was accomplished? It was a very emotional event. But what was actually done that advanced mankind?

It was a game to proven who is better. Little science was achieved until a later flight when Schmidt (a geologist) arrives. Some tools were delivered (ie a mirror) that decades later resulted in the advancement of mankind - knowledge.

Meanwhile the Hubble has been one of the greatest tools to advance mankind. Do you know how much it has done for man? That is not a rhetorical question.

America in the past century has been home to some of the world's greatest advancer of mankind. Categories that define that advancement are numerous. But in every case involve the words innovation and invention. Because if that dos not happen, then mankind degrades - advancement is retarded or even diminished.

Almost all science in space is now done by robots and machines. Something like 8% of NASA's budget (for non-human space flight) accounts are almost all NASA's accomplishments.

The future is in man's tools to seek out and find new life - to go where no man has gone (and need go) before. Unfortunately the concept is still too new for many if not most.

Two questions here request an answer.

Nothing was done to that advanced mankind, because that wasn't the fucking objective, and neither is Mars: one way.
This is why you don't get it, you're so busy parroting the advance mankind principle you read somewhere, your in danger of losing your hat to points whizzing over your head. While you proselytize, that parrot is pining for the fjords.

Alright, so based on your examples I am getting that you define the advancement of humankind within the confines of accumulated scientific knowledge as it's own end goal.

Let's go with that and assume for a moment that's the case. How much value for mankind did the ashes have after the library of Alexandria got burned? Even if we value scientific knowledge and determine that nothing else matters, shouldn't protecting our ability to gain & store it and - dare I say be around to analyze it - be as vital as getting more of it?

You could use machines to build you a house... But would you use a machine to live in it for you?

I want to explore a hypothetical with you:

Let's say we successfully achieved a self-sufficient robotic industrialized R&D complex in space. Mining, refining, 3D printers building more robot that build 3D printers building rovers and sample collectors and telescope arrays and particle accelerators and millions of automated labs and even sending out von nueman probes, and they do a finer job then we could ever do. Hell, I'll even give you amazing creative and intelligent AI and computers that do better data analysis and theoretical modeling and experimentation and even internal peer review then the entire scientific community on earth ever could.

And yet... We aren't around to see any of that because we stayed here and some shit happened to Earth. How advance is humankind then? Is it sill advancing humankind?

Incorrect. Again, the post had two questions awaiting answers. Those answers were then where logic takes us to the next step.

So there's a lot of work ahead of us.


Cute... But no. You are overestimating my willingness to entertain you - The slow walk by the maze requires cheese you don't currently have, and frankly expresses that you need a rather superficial psychological advantage to form a sense of credibility that the logic of your conclusions can't gain on it's own merits.

If you want to use your podium here to anything more then mental masturbation, you are going to need to use the limited resources you have - yourself. You have answers in mind that convey the specific meanings you've built your thoughts on - provide them, describe your own process of arriving at your perspective. If you desire your notions entertained, let your thesis stand on it's own or crack in collision with reality.

I appreciate a good lampshade as much as anyone, but considering you've already demonstrated that you take your title description to heart, it's more likely that your beliefs stand on sticking to your guns no matter the peer review - which makes it questionable whether your ideas can stand without strings attached at the goal at all. This is your chance to demonstrate otherwise, show that you might have something of substance to offer, or... Choose not too. Either choice conveys information, you could have it be the information you intended to convey in the first place, or express the unfortunate implications of the information you didn't but truth didn't stop to give a shit.

You were asked two simple questions that lead to a simple reply. To explain what you clearly do not understand. A long nasty response like an indignant child is completely unnecessary and childish. I thought I was talking to an adult.

What was actually done on 20 July 1969 to advanced mankind? Do you know how much Hubble has done for man? Why is that so hard? Simple questions define a concept you have not yet grasped. Instead you jumped to conclusions that contradict what I have said. And then become nasty and indignant.

I do make angry adults who are still children by simply challenging them to expand their grasp. In this case to see the topic is larger. I did not expect an emotional child to post in what is only an adult and logical discussion. What you only assumed is "incorrect" - is not what I have said. Anwers to two simple questions would have demonstrated that.

Why are two simple questions too hard? You do not even know what is the advancement of mankind? Is that really so hard? Apparently. But simple answers would clarify what you know - or don't know. So as to explain something completely knew. Instead you want to discuss your dic just like a Sexobon.

Golly jeepers, without Hubble my life would have been so different. Not seeing those beautilicious photographs on the internet would have ruinized my emotional scrapbook.

Meh. Perhaps he views the discovery of organic chemicals in other solar systems, or the age and our place in the universe, or the thorough understanding of the likely fate of the universe, as essential to his theory. It can be so much, but I gather it is one of those people that view things in a very certain limited narrow way - like the mind of an old fashioned radar with a broken rotor.

I've encountered people like that in the past: He doesn't understand how the advancement of humankind can mean different things in different frameworks or how the discoveries of Hubble or the technologies developed in the Apollo program can have more implications and possible connections then the particular points they inspired for him. Such people can have very interesting perspectives at times with a lot of merit, but there are certain signs when they are there, and more transparently certain defensive strategies that come to play when they are not. So far, in this case there's only the later. It is the same kind of mental handicap that allows him to think of maturity as a linear process and thus easy measurement, which from sexabon comments I gather it's a handicap he likes to demonstrate a lot. I suppose exhibitionism comes in all flavors.

And just like a saxabon post, a knot of disconnected strings tied with fallacies and logical errors and degrees of irony so tight that I don't even know where to start puling from first, like a tiny shitty religion that got invented on the spot and packed into a paragraph. I was almost expecting an attempt at a spell correction victory or some other pathetic excuse for 1upmanship as a replacement for thoughtful investment and awareness, and it seems I got the later.

Anyway, you've made your choice:

The good new is that your choice can be undone - if you are capable of seen yourself within your own maze or have a portion of the maturity you pretend too, you can always stop to think about what you were actually doing and go back to review your choice.

The bad news is that option is available to you regardless of whether you choose to consider it or not. Every single portion of time in which you could have chosen to demonstrate that your theory has substance is another line on a chart where your name and 0% exists next to a time stamp, with the 2nd column marked "substance demonstrated". Tick tock, another piece of evidence against the theory that tw has something of substance to demonstrate got timestamped on the clock, every hour is an experiment to find signs of merit to your thoughts (or beliefs resulting from with lack thereof), and every hour that passes without it is another experiment that found nothing.

I'm glad tw is xoB's bitch now instead of mine. Tw's developmental impairment is manifesting itself again. Poor tw has failed his Kobayashi Maru in the Mars; One Way thread because of it. He just can't win. I hope his form of handicap spares him from ruminating over it like a traceur. :rolleyes:

Do you think you could answer some simple questions rather than fill the board with your manhood?
Apparently my ethics software blockes that picture of your penis. Was it relevant?

So to be clear:
- berating people for acting like children and not been adult enough for a mature logical discussion is something that you've outright become famous for...
- You try to support the above by accuse people of flapping their e-penis at your face.

Do you not see the irony of that? At all? Can something so lowly transparent seriously fly so high above your head?

I asked you first:
It's not even a particularly informative question, it's showing interest in your mental framework, despite everyone in the thread saying there's no point. All it requires is some minimum degree of self-inquiry within your own thinking.
Instead of answering, you asked your own questions in turn, which can work under certain conditions, except when that here you can provide a dozen answer each depending entirely on how you define the very variable which I asked you about: The selection of which potential answers demonstrate that the hubble telescope provided more advancement to humankind then to the apollo program depends on how you define the advancement of humankind in the first place, if you think there is an obvious answer that can make the question into a useful leading question it demonstrates your answer is built - or at least supported by - really transparent circular logic.

Now, are you going to sexabon this, or are you going to provide an answer?

So many questions, so few answers, so much sexobon envy (astute enough not to ask questions of those who like to hear themselves talk) ... it's good to be the sexobon.

Hey now, making the prediction that we aren't going to get along very well was my mindbaby, you don't get to be astute for making a decision that was made for you :p:

You can believe that if you like; but, I've been doing the same with the kindred Read? I only know how to write. types since long before you got here.

Now you don't believe in timestamps? :p:
My prediction http://cellar.org/showpost.php?p=935237&postcount=20
Your response http://cellar.org/showpost.php?p=935312&postcount=25

Your response even has my prediction in the quote...

After how long of actually arguing with him? :p

So far he isn't quite as bad as you, I don't see anyone else stretching the fabric of space-time to try to justify a compliment they gave themselves. Your favorite go-to line so far is blaming other people for loving to hear themselves speak too much and yet here you are defending your own reflection for the compliments and kind words it gave you. Frankly I think your trying a bit to hard, if you want a relationship you should probably try to build it on honesty instead, and if it's a one night stand you're after it really shouldn't be that difficult to get into your own pants ;)

Berating is what you started. I simply defined what you are doing - acting like an adult who is still a child.

Two simple questions. You could not even answer them. Instead you posted a tirade that only a child having a tantrum would post.

Of course, you could grown up, answer those two simple questions, and then we might have an adult conversation. Apparently you cannot. That would be admitting to your tirade.

Satire always escapes you.

Ok, I think at this point I should probably check, so before we continue I am just going to ask: Are you autistic? Or rather have you ever been diagnosed as such by a professional (regardless of whether you agreed with it)?

Mind you, that question in itself isn't intended as an insult, one of my closest friends and probably the most admirable minds I know is of a quantum biologist with autism.... You are nothing like him, obviously, but I have also been in a similar situation in the past with someone else where what appeared to me as stubborn willful ignorance similar to yours turned out to be a poor bastard who really had no idea what was going on around him out of no choice of his own, not extreme enough autism to make it obvious through the internet but not high functioning enough to be able to adapt coping strategies that transcend it's limitations either.

Frankly I am hoping for a "no" so I can continue to have fun with you, but I want to check first.

Sexobon has cloned himself...

Heh, not surprising, but I am guessing it's different motives: Sexobon was more likely to try to force a positive diagnosis of his own as a play on it's own, I am taking a step back to avoid any existing positive diagnosis so that I won't feel like shit about playing with someone with disabilities.

Sounds commendable anyway.

I am taking a step forward to avoid any loss of entertainment value so that I won't feel like shit about not playing with a charlatan who has second world ethics.

What kind of wine would you like with your cheese?

Traceur, you should have seen us trying to get TW to admit that Vise-Grips are a hand tool...:lol2:

loving this thread almost more than a trip to mars.

Oh yea, fucking "enlightened" culture of ethics you have there :rolleyes:
http://dontpaniconline.com/media/mag...2015_35_39.png
Sure, I'll adapt temporarily for your comfort of mind.

Trigger warning:
Suicide, euthanasia, entitlement, hypocrisy, grammar nazi, racism, self-love, sexobonic masturbation, solipsism.

Last time we argued it was because you felt entitled to make your loved ones suffer in ridicules amounts of pain even when there is little to no chance of it getting better just so that you can procrastinate a feeling of loss. Luckily for you, that post had a grammar mistake, which magically made the hypocrisy it pointed out in your ethics go away by the same rule with which old people feel entitled that every taxi driver will "Learn some god damn english" whenever they hear an accent.

This time, you were fighting to defend a compliment you gave yourself based on a conclusion you've claim to have reached yourself after your very own post has quoted that very conclusion, all while whining about how other people's self love is interfering with the date your trying to have with yourself.

What you have demonstrated so far is that your ethics is contextual and the specific contextual rule is... As long as it doesn't apply to you or anything you feel do or say that contradicts said ethics. The problem with that rule is that other people's "you" is not the same person, your ethical framework would work fantastically if you were the only human being in the universe and there was only one subjective perspective to account for, but doesn't work in any universe that has other people... Which kind of misses the point of ethics altogether.

It also puts you in a position where it would be impossible for you to actually understand my ethics at all, which to a large extend revolve around the understanding of how destructive self-deception of your kind can be, and how vital it is to understand the overall dynamic people put themselves in and break away from simple narratives that serve to sooth the ego at the expense of reality and all it's other inhabitants.

....I don't even....

I kind of want to see that if you have a link. What was even the counter argument? Are they the mandibles of robotic amputees?

[Paraphrasing mine]

You're so needy. The rumination continues long after everyone else has moved on. Continued vying for attention by putting egocentric spin on regurgitated conversations while knowing your folly is just someone else's entertainment is just pathetic. I pity the fool. You can take the traceur out of the second world; but, you can't take the second world out of the traceur.

Long after? Like... 27 hours after? ;)


You know what, I am not going to even explain that one - if someone understands it they understand it and if they don't then they are probably you. Go and pet yourself on the back, do whatever it is you do on such wonderful occasions in your life. Whatever you do, make sure you do not accidentally develop a rudimentary understanding of time. I think you are safe, but just in case.

Why yes, I do. That's why you keep coming back, to find out what; because, your second world ethics prevent you from having a clue. You are unable to interpret your perceptions accurately. That leaves you in need.

What, science at the ISS???

The wine is less important than the cheese for me.
I expect a mixture including blue, soft, hard, goats' or ewes', and flavoured.

Oh, sorry, wrong thread ;)

... because it does not attack someone.

The ISS has had some of the most disappointing scientific discoveries of the century. Like finding that chicken hatched in space are born normal.

I had high hopes for this when I was a kid, but seems they did not pan out: No problems forming a skeleton, no embryo-like legless chicken or difficulties breathing, just... Normal freaking chicken. Screw you nature.

We had two choices - each for $8 billion. A Super Collider in TX or the ISS. As more politicians become less knowledgeable, more emotional and more driven by rhetoric, then glory was in an ISS. So people who advance science had to go to France and Switzerland to perform science.

The LHA is not as powerful as the Super Collider would have been. But one of the great discoveries occurred there - Higgs Bosom. Meanwhile the ISS can do no science until a fourth person is deployed. By that time, the US no longer had any vehicles to carry men into space - due to myopic and extremists rhetoric that pushed Orion, Ares, and Constellation - all examples of bad science.

An $8 billion ISS has cost more than $80 billion. In part, because its purpose was glory - an emotion; not science.

When I was growing up, a transistor was clearly the future for everyone. As the car, light bulb, and electric motor was the future for everyone in 1900. Today, everyone's future is in quantum physics. When a Tevatron in Fermilab in IL closed in 2011, the US no longer had any major quantum science machines. The contempt for science has grown that large. Stanford Linear accelerator is only used for other low power experiments. So who will see the jobs generated by fundamental science (invention)? The transistor developed in 1948 created massive jobs in the 1970s and 1990s because America was driven by science - not profits.

Today, great sources of innovation (and wealth, jobs, power, etc) such as the RCA Sarnoff Labs, HP labs, Xerox Palo Alto Research, Bendix labs, and of course the most famous Bell Labs were sold off for profits. Because what creates jobs and profits does not appear on spread sheets for ... well how many decades did it take for transistors, lasers, communication satellites, fiber optic communication, Shannon's communication theory (that make digital communication possible), PCM, C programming language, etc to finally create jobs and products? According to business school graduates, those were all costs - not profitable.

It is not foolishly spending money on ISS or Mission Accomplished that created problems. It is what got quashed and driven out of America that resulted from directing our resources towards emotional (extremists) and much less productive activities. At the expense of what actually made America great.

ISS is simply another example - created at the expense of the Super Collider.

Well the ISS does one useful experiement. AMS was canceled when extremists canceled much science to redirect funds to Mission Accomplished. The AMS, that could have been carried by most unmanned science vehicles, was finally mounted outside of the ISS.

For the most part I agree with that.

I don't think "contempt to science" is quite the right description of that - while that does exist as a growing social trend on it's own right (Currently believing that the entire scientific community has met one Monday to coordinate their conspiracy plans to lie about environmental data and fighting against the teaching of evolution in schools), but I doubt how much weight that has on those in power. I think the actual problem is the weight placed on a short term gain model at the expense of long term gains, which are - as you expressed yourself - a lot more difficult to model on a spreadsheet.

As of right now, the industries that stand to gain the most out of scientific progress have the difficult problem of, well... Not existing yet, which makes it very difficult for them to form a strong lobby.

.

So I've given that some thought Bruce - and I am not sure it applies when its not about a specific innovation or even set of innovations, but about the drive to innovate in general.

Nobody is saying that we should all replace our ovens with the next thing that can heat stuff for no other reason then the fact it's the next thing, we're just saying that we need to drive forward to find what the next thing might be. There is only so much juice you can squeeze from a basket of fruit before having to go back to the tree and reach higher, or at least start planting new fruit trees for the future.

Electric motor, demonstrated about 1880, saw no real value until after the 1900s. Transistor in 1948 finally started making its real value apparent in the mid 1960s. Laser was a wonderful invention that has no real purpose until well after 20 years later. Newton's calculus and others of his time (in and after 1600s) did not have appreciable value until the 20th century.

Some inventions result in innovation almost immediate - same decade -especially when it is a solution to an existing problem. Others can have no apparent value for generation or even centuries. Especially when it is a solution looking for a problem to solve.

In the 1800s, experimenters discovered a charge inside a glass jar could be discharged by applying ultraviolet light. A solution to a late 1960s problem - eraseable computer memory chip or EPROM.

Einstein's equations were revealed 100 years ago. Resulting jobs, wealth, economic power, industries, markets, and innovations are only just beginning to exist.

It may have been official before, but now it's public.

My brother won this Mars engineering contest. His frozen mud martian igloo plan got first place.

Impressive!

glatt, you must be so proud. I'm proud just knowing you.

Yeah. I'm super proud. He's had lots of unique ideas over the years and they have been mostly ignored or failed to work out. He designed a lunar habitat and submitted it for a NASA grant but didn't get it. He designed an underwater hotel and abandoned the idea when he realized the safety issues for untrained guests were insurmountable. (A few underwater hotels are being built in other parts of the world where safety standards are more lax.)

Article about him in my hometown paper. It's good because it goes into more detail about the design and has a picture. But there are a few typos. Small town journalism.

Not what I pictured from the description. It says artists rendering, but I wonder if it's his vision, or the artists?

It's basically his version. An acquaintance of his made that rendering for him.

I bet in reality, one of these things would more closely resemble this:
Attachment 53615

He said flat panels are a problem so maybe more rounded at the ends, but I think you're right on the flat bottom.

Or like this, except more cylindrical. And no windows.
Attachment 53616

Ah, didn't think of that approach. Guess that's why I didn't win anything. :lol:

So cool glatt. You should be proud!

Thats teh awesum!