Sign in to follow this  
Aethon

2015 budget. NASA gets a raise! Wooo Hoo!

Recommended Posts

guess what ? you can not say " I want .... but, there is no rational justification for ... " If you think there is no rational justification, then you want not. You want the sensible economic decision.

.

Oh, and one more thing. You are talking about mere flags and footprints. Almost anyone else wants infinitely many times more. Permanent presence. Expansion.

Edited by MBobrik

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And while today's simple tools are mere extensions of ourselves, future sentient AIs would be independent beings on their own, not us. We may consider them our progeny, but they won't be us. You may be content with creating a species more resistant to the rigors of space travel, and leaving the future to them, but I am not.

See, this is what I simply cannot understand: Why are AIs being independent bad? Why is making/having another "species" (good grief that wording...) seemingly superior to humans a bad thing?

So far as I can tell, all this talk of "SUPER AIs BAD BAD EVIL DANGER TERROR" seems only to be based around an irrational superiority complex where some people simply can't stand the idea of not being on top of the food chain, not being "the chosen one". Huge ego much?

I personally think we will find a new priceless friend and partner in super AIs that are intelligent and sentient.

Edited by King Arthur

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
guess what ? you can not say " I want .... but, there is no rational justification for ... " If you think there is no rational justification, then you want not. You want the sensible economic decision.

.

Oh, and one more thing. You are talking about mere flags and footprints. Almost anyone else wants infinitely many times more. Permanent presence. Expansion.

Most kids learn pretty early in life that they cannot get everything they want. To want something doesn't mean you will get it. Just wanting something more doesn't provide justification for other people to pay for it. There are a lot of things that I want, but for which I can't formulate a rational justification, therefore I'm not getting them. That's life, and it sucks, but I can get over it.

The flags and footprints expression was colloquial. However, cloud colonies or space hotels simply aren't realistically possible today. Nobody is seriously planning them (and yes, I am aware of Elon Musk's twitter feed). So let's focus on what is possible and the decisions that we need to make today: sustainable infrastructure, semi permanent outposts, science stations, and exploration.

Edited by Nibb31

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why are AIs being independent bad? Why is making/having another "species" (good grief that wording...) seemingly superior to humans a bad thing?

No I never said that. Read carefuly. It was the "humans giving up on the rest of the universe" that I consider bad. Creating AIs and exploring the universe together is perfectly fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Most kids learn pretty early in life that they cannot get everything they want. ...blah...blah...

.

That was exactly the level of smugness I was expecting from you. The rest of your post can be summed up with three words. Negativism, greed and shortsightedness.

.

And one more thing. There is an obvious rational, even economic justification of not giving up on the rest of the universe. Its most pedestrian version goes like "what is the expected accounting value of the rest of the universe ?" It's just beyond the capability of shortsighted thinking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
.

That was exactly the level of smugness I was expecting from you. The rest of your post can be summed up with three words. Negativism, greed and shortsightedness.

.

And one more thing. There is an obvious rational, even economic justification of not giving up on the rest of the universe. Its most pedestrian version goes like "what is the expected accounting value of the rest of the universe ?" It's just beyond the capability of shortsighted thinking.

Who talked about "giving up the rest of the universe" ? You are using strawman arguments again. The "universe" is a big place, and it's not going anywhere, so there is no hurry. What difference does it make if we go interstellar in 200, 2000, or 20000 years? You and I won't be around to see it either way, and civilization itself will be very different by then. The point is, we are not ready yet. Humanity will get there if we need to and when the time comes.

Concretely, when talking about the universe, you are talking about intergalactic travel, which is something that is unimaginable when we are barely capable of sending unmanned interplanetary probes and interstellar travel is pretty much out of reach. If we still exist as a recognizable human species in 2000 years, then maybe we will want to spread out into our galaxy, but seriously, at this stage, it's pure fantasy.

May I remind you that this thread is about NASA's 2015 budget, not human colonization of Fomalhaut and Alpha Centauri, or Star Trek.

Edited by Nibb31

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What difference does it make if we go interstellar in 200, 2000, or 20000 years? You and I won't be around to see it, and civilization will be very different by then? The point is, we are not ready yet. We'll get there if we need to and when the time comes.

This is like saying you won't go tho the gym until you grow muscles. Guess how long will that take. By postponing indefinitely 'till we are ready' we won't get ready. Ever. It's the same as gym. The only way of getting ready is by putting effort into trying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No I never said that. Read carefuly. It was the "humans giving up on the rest of the universe" that I consider bad. Creating AIs and exploring the universe together is perfectly fine.

The problem is you keep wording your statements in such a way that for you it's apparently a foregone conclusion that AIs and robots will eventually turn against us or otherwise not be our friends and allies, up to and including more extensive unmanned space exploration as such a conclusion.

On the other hand, it would seem that we both agree that humans and advanced AIs can act together as friends, so that only furthers my confusion as to why you seem to lean on the side of "evil robots".

For the record, when people argue for more extensive unmanned space exploration programs it's not because we as humans have given up on space exploration. We're arguing for unmanned because it's far more practical to send unmanned crafts such as probes, rovers, and space telescopes on long-duration missions than it would be to send humans or other forms of life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, it's like saying you won't go to the gym until you learn to walk. We can barely crawl.

And who is talking about postponing anything? I'm talking about using the best learning tools we can afford today within the budgets that we have available today.

Edited by Nibb31

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The problem is you keep wording your statements in such a way that for you it's apparently a foregone conclusion that AIs and robots will eventually turn against us or otherwise not be our friends and allies, up to and including more extensive unmanned space exploration as such a conclusion.

No, I am saying, if we set them free to evolve roaming the galaxy, but we stay put here stagnating, at some point we will stop being equal partners to them. All that I am saying is, that the "we stay put here stagnating" part is bad. And is bad on its own irrespective of sentient AIs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your point is moot because we are not sending sentient AI probes to evolve freely throughout the galaxy anytime in this century.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, it's like saying you won't go to the gym until you learn to walk. We can barely crawl.

Even walking can one learn only by putting effort into trying.

And who is talking about postponing anything? I'm talking about using the best learning tools we can afford within the budgets that we have available.

Look who's talking:

The problem is that what any of us "wants" is irrelevant. The point is that there is no rational justification for manned exploration in the foreseeable future

So no rational point to try walking in the foreseeable future. Stick to crawling. Perhaps in another 20000 years when obstructive attitudes like mine wane.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is like saying you won't go tho the gym until you grow muscles. Guess how long will that take. By postponing indefinitely 'till we are ready' we won't get ready. Ever. It's the same as gym. The only way of getting ready is by putting effort into trying.

You're misrepresenting arguments again. I am pretty confident that pretty much everyone on this forum is a fan of space exploration. To use your analogy, everyone here likes to go to the gym. But there's a difference between building fitness in a healthy manner that is supported by knowledge of human physiology, and pumping up on 'roids. Rome wasn't built in a day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The foreseeable future is something like the next 20 or 30 years. Not 20000. There is no point in discussing stuff that might or might not happen beyond 20 or 30 years, because we have no idea what sort of world we will be living in by then. You're just being obtuse here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If proto-romans said "we are not ready to build a big city like that, perhaps we start in another 20000 years" there would be no Rome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The foreseeable future is something like the next 20 or 30 years. Not 20000. There is no point in discussing stuff that might or might not happen beyond 20 or 30 years, because we have no idea what sort of world we will be living in by then. You're just being obtuse here.

No you are being obtuse. If we restrict ourselves only to things that are surely pay back in the next two-three decades, like you are suggesting, there won't be any long term future worth speaking of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just think that people don't want to be responsible for more astronauts' deaths by sending them blindly to space. Robots can be replaced. Astronauts...well, they can be replaced too by time, but you don't want to look like you don't care about human lives the way we do with kerbals' lives.

Like anything involving human lives, we should practice first before doing the real thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If proto-romans said "we are not ready to build a big city like that, perhaps we start in another 20000 years" there would be no Rome.

Who here is saying we shouldn't or aren't "building Rome"? Advocating for a practical approach to increasing our capabilities in and knowledge about space is not the same thing as advocating that we do nothing. There are missions that robots can do better than people, there are missions that people can do better than robots and there are missions where using robots is currently our only alternative to doing nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's the point. Nobody said "let's build the biggest city of Antiquity". Rome evolved incrementally over centuries to suit the gradual demands of an increasing population. That's what the proverb means.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Who here is saying we shouldn't or aren't "building Rome"? Advocating for a practical approach to increasing our capabilities in and knowledge about space is not the same thing as advocating that we do nothing. There are missions that robots can do better than people, there are missions that people can do better than robots and there are missions where using robots is currently our only alternative to doing nothing.

This si maybe you are advocating. Nibb is more like "there are no missions that people can do better, so send in only robots"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This si maybe you are advocating. Nibb is more like "there are no missions that people can do better, so send in only robots"

No it isn't. But have you are so determined to put words in my mouth that you might as well have it your way if that's what you really want.

Edited by Nibb31

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, in the spirit of the hundredth anniversary of the Christmas Truce, Merry Christmas, Frohe Weihnachten and Joyeux Noël to both of you!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On that happier note, I'm shutting this thread down as it has moved well off the topic of NASA's new budget. Whatever your feelings on the politics and purpose of space exploration, please remember to keep your posts about the merits of the ideas and not the people you are discussing them with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this