Mars: One Way

[it]

Battle of the titans


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.

[tw]

Originally Posted by traceur

Alright, I'll play*. Tw - how do you define the advancement of human kind? Scientific knowledge? Technology? Industrial capacity? Control and access to resources?

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.

[xoxoxoBruce]

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

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.

[it]

Originally Posted by tw

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.

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?

[tw]

Originally Posted by traceur

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.

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

[it]

Originally Posted by tw

Do you think you could answer some simple questions rather than fill the board with your manhood? 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:

Originally Posted by traceur

Tw - how do you define the advancement of human kind?

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?

[tw]

Originally Posted by traceur

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...

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.