🚀 go-pugleaf

umcroall@cc.umanitoba.ca (Stuart Croall) writes:

>>>    The only argument people need to go to space is the same one
>>>    used for any explorer / adventurer:  Because it's there.
>>>
>>>    If you think otherwise, you may as well pack everything up and
>>>    go home.  
       
	Perhaps the meaning was misinterpreted; I'm not sure.

	I suppose I'm extremely biased on this issue, but I find it
	very difficult to see it any other way. 
	What is the alternative?   I don't see any alternative, and
	you appear to accept the artificial limitations that certain
	people would impose upon humans.  I can't accept this.

>I don't know who posted the original of this, but here's an example of 
>hippocracy for the guy who called me a hippocrite before.  If I think 
>otherwise I should go home?  Not a very fair statement in a debate where 
>we respect others views, and acknowledge the existence of other 
>positions.  I don't honestly believe that "because it's there" is a 
>suffiecient condition to explore something, space or otherwise.  Was it 
>legitimate for Europeans to colonize North America and other countries 
>"because they were there"?  Would it be legitimate for the US to 
>unilaterally decide to explore and annex Canada becuae it's here?  I 
 
    Canada has pretty much been explored and developed all that it
    needs to be.  Bad analogy.
 
 >realize this may seem to be blowing things out of proportion, but the 
>same arguments were plrobalby used to defend the original colonization of 
>NA, even though the existence of Aboriginal nations was the same as the 
>existence of Canada is today.  Sure they didn't meet the Europeans 
>criteria as "cicilized people" but they hunted, farmed and trapped 
>specific territory and existed in clearly defined groups of people and 
>used the land.  It was theirs, the Europeans took it.  Are we going to 

   Yes, there were people, but most of the land was very sparsely populated,
   and technologies did not exist then to further utilize the natural
   resources that were available.  As a side not, the exploration of
   the Americas had a double benefit for the Europeans:  1.  More
   land and resources  2.  Technologies/ knowledge / were picked up
   from the native peoples.  Unfortunately, the first peoples did
   not gain proportionally as much since lifestyle and social structures
   of the two different societies couldn't be resolved.

>claim the universe on behalf of the world, or is the US and other wealthy 
>nations going to use this unclaimed resource for their benefit, leaving 
>the already poor countries at an increasing disadvantage?  Who's universe 
>is it to explore anyway?  Those who can afford it?  Should we all 
>benefit?  Should we use space exploration and the knowledge gained from 
>it for military purposes, to gain strategic advantage against other 
>nations on earth?  Really, I don't see this as so cut and dried.  Perhaps 

    Actually, it is pretty much cut and dried.  People are just afraid.
    The universe is to explore for those who want to, and those who
    want to do it can afford it.  Those who explore will benefit.
    If there is some military stragetic benefit, then that's the icing
    on the cake for societies who want greater security.  So far,
    space has helped unify people more than separate them.  

>someone can repond, with out dismissing my ideas as illegitimate (and 
>appologies to those who felt that's how I treated thier posts).
    
    It's kinda late for that.

>>>    People have a simple choice:  move forward, or backward.  

>We choose the status quo every year come election time.  Is there really 
>only two choices?
   
   No, you choose the status quo.  In truth, the status quo is really
   moving backwards.  If you stagnate, you regress.  It's like running
   on a treadmill.

   Blair

>>>    I'd rather move forward.

>>!
>-- 
>Stu, King of CSCSS
>umcroall@cc.umanitoba.ca

>"Sara dear, our carriage awaits!"