S. Hawking on Bush, Stemcell, Mars and the Universe
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
All they wish to do is satisfy their intellectual curiosity.
Most of the advances in Science that have been made have been made by curious minds searching for answers to satisfy their intellectual curiosity. Quantum mechanics, Relativity, number theory, chemistry - much of the progress made wasn't for any specific purpose, but from these we have medicine, and computers, and those very space craft that will allow men to fly to other planets in seach of hope. This is a perfect example of why non-scientists who do not understand the potential of research should not be allowed to dicate that research. cheers, Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
Chris Maunder wrote:
Most of the advances in Science that have been made have been made by curious minds searching for answers to satisfy their intellectual curiosity.
Not to downplay the role of the great theoretical scientists throughout history, but ... If you look at the actual development of many of these areas, you'll find a different agent was the primary driving force. Modern chemical engineering was developed as a real science in a large part from the need to develop the ability to refine petroleum on a large scale. This was a military need. Similarly much of the major research that laid the growndwork of modern chemistry -roughly from the early 1900s to the early 1950s was sponsored directly by the military. Ditto for materials science. I think the history of aeronautics speaks for itself. As does the development of nuclear technology.
-
ediazc wrote:
When asked about his thoughts on President Bush's proposal to put a man on Mars within 10 years, Hawking simply replied: "Stupid. Robots are cheaper to send, and you don't have to bring them back."
That is a perfect example of why scientist, even brilliant ones, should not be put in charge of something as important as the space program. All they wish to do is satisfy their intellectual curiosity at (massive) tax payer expense and publish some papers to boost their egos and their careers. There may be no logical reason to send people rather than robots, but maybe it ain't about logic, maybe its about hope - as forlorn as it might be.
And God Forbid we should ever have to LEAVE the planet. All we would not how to send into space would be robots, and what would be the point of that :rolleyes:
-
This is a perfect example of why non-scientists who do not understand the potential of research should not be allowed to dicate that research. And I'll reiterate, a perfect example of why we shouldn't let scientists without common sense shouldn't dictate all research. You do realize how upset Einstein was after helping to create a nuclear weapon when it was used by the government in ways he didn't approve of? If he was so smart, how come he continued doing what he was doing, with him knowing what kinda of entity the government is beforehand? For the potential of research? Now we have nukes. Yes I understand the good aspects of nuclear energy, but I understand the bad too. Irregardless, don't assume scientists always make the right choice simply because the research has to be done for curiosity's sake. Some people should learn, some things ought not to be fooled with -- and scientists especially tend to loose focus on that. Jeremy Falcon
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
You do realize how upset Einstein was after helping to create a nuclear weapon when it was used by the government in ways he didn't approve of? If he was so smart, how come he continued doing what he was doing, with him knowing what kinda of entity the government is beforehand? For the potential of research? Now we have nukes.
You're picking on the wrong person. Al wasn't involved in teh actual development, his involvement was limited to getting FDRs attention, a number of the scientists who actaully made it did have similar reactions though.
-
Chris Maunder wrote:
Most of the advances in Science that have been made have been made by curious minds searching for answers to satisfy their intellectual curiosity.
Not to downplay the role of the great theoretical scientists throughout history, but ... If you look at the actual development of many of these areas, you'll find a different agent was the primary driving force. Modern chemical engineering was developed as a real science in a large part from the need to develop the ability to refine petroleum on a large scale. This was a military need. Similarly much of the major research that laid the growndwork of modern chemistry -roughly from the early 1900s to the early 1950s was sponsored directly by the military. Ditto for materials science. I think the history of aeronautics speaks for itself. As does the development of nuclear technology.
We have microwave ovens because of intent to devleop better aircraft radars. Heck, they were actually called 'radar ranges' at first.
-
You're also putting words into Hawking's mouth, presumably based on an assumption on your part of what you want to believe to be true. So, let's act like a scientist then and stick to what he did say rather than make something up and go off of it. Jeremy Falcon
Hawking's comment: "Stupid. Robots are cheaper to send, and you don't have to bring them back." Rereading what I wrote - I did speak to his point. It's far more cost effective and far less risky to send robots into space than Men. Period. Perhaps a better question is why do people feel the need to spend billions to send men to Mars? Sure, if we've done all the R&D and have determined that we want to attempt coloization of it ... but we're no where near that point, and won't be 10 years from now either ... Jermey - for the most part, our rocket technology hasn't improved much beyond the 60's and 70's when we sent men to the Moon, yet we're saying let's send Men to mars. Seems like that's putting the cart before the horse ... and yes, that's stupid.
:..::. Douglas H. Troy ::..
Fold with us|Development Blogging|viksoe.dk's site -
I agree. But suppose we concentrated on robots instead. Advancing robotics to a point where a robot would be a suitable substitute for a human on Mars holds a fascination in and of itself, I'd say. Then those robots would be used to replace minimum wage jobs, and below average intelligence people will have to find employment elsewhere. Maybe they'll rebel or turn to a life of crime because they can't get an honest job -- who really knows for sure. Yeah I know robotics will replace people on many fronts one day, irregardless of the space progarm. But, if I was poisoned by a snake bite, should I get another snake bite to help speed the poison along? I don't think so. Jeremy Falcon
I agree. But suppose we concentrated on robots instead. Advancing robotics to a point where a robot would be a suitable substitute for a human on Mars holds a fascination in and of itself, I'd say. Then those robots would be used to replace minimum wage jobs, and below average intelligence people will have to find employment elsewhere. Maybe they'll rebel or turn to a life of crime because they can't get an honest job -- who really knows for sure. Oh, wait a minute... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4413964.stm[^]
-
Chris Maunder wrote:
Most of the advances in Science that have been made have been made by curious minds searching for answers to satisfy their intellectual curiosity.
Well,geez, thanks for the enlightenment. :rolleyes: The point remains that it isn't all about science. The science exists to serve humanity in ways that might have nothing to at all to do with scince itself. Obviously we want those active, curious minds out there answering all those important questions. But for someone like Hawkins to declare any one 'stupid' for proposing a plan that has a goal aside from pure scientific research is just self serving at best. -- modified at 14:31 Tuesday 15th November, 2005
Oh please. Hows it going to help him? Robotic implants, I think not. Admit it. Bush wants a legacy, and why not try an emulate JFK, with his 'vison' to go tot the moon. You don't think it was politically self serving of Bush to say it? More more of a sucker than I though you were Stan.
Stan Shannon wrote:
But for someone like Hawkins to declare any one 'stupid' for proposing a plan that has a goal aside from pure scientific research is just self serving at best.
Again, a goal asside from pure scientific research. That means one of two things. Dreaming, and there is nothing wrong with that. Or sadly, (and I think its probably 50/50), scoring political points. Bush is a Politician at the end of the day, and unconventional one though. I would like to think its part of the dream, it fires new people up to do things. Thats what I'm guessing you are implying. You have to admit though that Bushes anouncement was at least partially self serving. You've plain got to.
-
Oh please. Hows it going to help him? Robotic implants, I think not. Admit it. Bush wants a legacy, and why not try an emulate JFK, with his 'vison' to go tot the moon. You don't think it was politically self serving of Bush to say it? More more of a sucker than I though you were Stan.
Stan Shannon wrote:
But for someone like Hawkins to declare any one 'stupid' for proposing a plan that has a goal aside from pure scientific research is just self serving at best.
Again, a goal asside from pure scientific research. That means one of two things. Dreaming, and there is nothing wrong with that. Or sadly, (and I think its probably 50/50), scoring political points. Bush is a Politician at the end of the day, and unconventional one though. I would like to think its part of the dream, it fires new people up to do things. Thats what I'm guessing you are implying. You have to admit though that Bushes anouncement was at least partially self serving. You've plain got to.
Giles wrote:
Oh please. Hows it going to help him? Robotic implants, I think not.
:confused: I just meant 'self serving' in the sense that it provides more money for the kind of pure research that people such as Hawkins are genrally involved in. Not that it benefited him directly in any way.
Giles wrote:
Admit it. Bush wants a legacy, and why not try an emulate JFK, with his 'vison' to go tot the moon. You don't think it was politically self serving of Bush to say it? More more of a sucker than I though you were Stan.
A politician who want's a legacy - imagine that! It still boils down to a question of whether or not he is correct. In principle, at least, I maintain that he is. Beyond that, I'm not promoting an opinion about Bush based on this subject on way or another - thats for the soap box ;P
-
Giles wrote:
Oh please. Hows it going to help him? Robotic implants, I think not.
:confused: I just meant 'self serving' in the sense that it provides more money for the kind of pure research that people such as Hawkins are genrally involved in. Not that it benefited him directly in any way.
Giles wrote:
Admit it. Bush wants a legacy, and why not try an emulate JFK, with his 'vison' to go tot the moon. You don't think it was politically self serving of Bush to say it? More more of a sucker than I though you were Stan.
A politician who want's a legacy - imagine that! It still boils down to a question of whether or not he is correct. In principle, at least, I maintain that he is. Beyond that, I'm not promoting an opinion about Bush based on this subject on way or another - thats for the soap box ;P
Stan Shannon wrote:
It still boils down to a question of whether or not he is correct. In principle, at least, I maintain that he is. Beyond that, I'm not promoting an opinion about Bush based on this subject on way or another - thats for the soap box
I can try. :-D I think its a good thing, that he did it. Don't always agree with everything he says, but that one got the sci-fi fan in me to think, at last someone has done it. Its the next step in human exploration, and humans are naturally explorers. [Edit] - My grammar and spelling is everywhere tonight. Nice wine though. :->
"Je pense, donc je mange." - Rene Descartes 1689 - Just before his mother put his tea on the table. Shameless Plug - Distributed Database Transactions in .NET using COM+
-
ediazc wrote:
When asked about his thoughts on President Bush's proposal to put a man on Mars within 10 years, Hawking simply replied: "Stupid. Robots are cheaper to send, and you don't have to bring them back."
That is a perfect example of why scientist, even brilliant ones, should not be put in charge of something as important as the space program. All they wish to do is satisfy their intellectual curiosity at (massive) tax payer expense and publish some papers to boost their egos and their careers. There may be no logical reason to send people rather than robots, but maybe it ain't about logic, maybe its about hope - as forlorn as it might be.
Personally I think the whole idea of sending a man to mars in the near future is just an ego boast. Just image if that money was actually spent on something more useful, like education, medicine, and alternative fuel sources, etc.
-
My whole problem with that is that this is a space program. Not a robotics program. We, as humans, have a need to explore and discover. It is one of the things that make us human. The need to become better than we are. Yes, we can send robots to Mars and learn many things, but ultimately all we will end up learning is how to send a robot to another planet. Been there, done that, got the rocks to prove it. There is a certain benefit to being first. Yes, there are also negative aspects to it also, but in the long run being first means something. I think that America is loosing it's edge and needs to do something to get it back. We need to be seen as adventurers again. We need to be seen as explorers again. We need to be seen as a people with vision again. The part that ticks me off is this. If we had not lost our focus fro the very start we would be there already. The moon was so close and we went there. We became complacent and gave up our edge. Look where it has gotten us. When I grew up children wanted to be astronauts. Now days they want to be football players. Again, one point that shows we have lost our edge. America NEEDS to go to Mars, and they need to be the first ones to do it. Might people die along the way? Probably. No one ever said it was going to be easy. Going to the moon was not easy. People die every day doing far less important things. Why do most kinds think it is cooler to be an 'extreme athlete' than an astronaut. Tell me that I have the chance to be the first to Mars but I have to leave tomorrow. You would not even be able to see me pack. But then again that's just me. Give me the chnace to boldly go where no man has gone before and I would not give it a second thought. But then again that's just me.
George Carlin wrote: "Don't sweat the petty things, and don't pet the sweaty things." Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: If the physicists find a universal theory describing the laws of universe, I'm sure the asshole constant will be an integral part of that theory.
My Blog[^]
Ray Cassick wrote:
You would not even be able to see me pack
Does your wife do all the packing for you, Ray? :-D
Ray Cassick wrote:
Tell me that I have the chance to be the first to Mars but I have to leave tomorrow.
Somehow this comment reminds me of Armageddon and myriads like it. I'm sure Bon Jovi can make another song for you and we'll have a movie remake. :laugh: Edbert P. Sydney, Australia
-
Jim Crafton wrote:
Actually, with the exception of the astronauts (or robots as the case may be), pictures are all the rest of us have either way!
Obviously. But that is the 'hope' part. In my view, if humanity has no future in space, if this rock is all there is for us, than humanity has no future at all worth the name. I am not altogether in favor of the Bush plan either. I think it is the best that has yet been proposed, but I think we could do better. I think we would be much better off putting those resources into developing much more efficient means of getting off the planet in the first place. I fully support government sponsered research into ideas that currently seem 'science fiction'. Space elevators, anti-gravity, teleportation, etc. Lets just go nuts with new ideas no matter how implausible and see where it takes us. -- modified at 15:18 Tuesday 15th November, 2005
Wow Stan, it amazes me that I'm agreeing more and more with you in the past few days. Are you the real Stan? Have you had a brain transplant, heart surgery, experienced :bob: abduction, brainwash or something similar lately? :laugh: My 5! Edbert P. Sydney, Australia
-
Ray Cassick wrote:
You would not even be able to see me pack
Does your wife do all the packing for you, Ray? :-D
Ray Cassick wrote:
Tell me that I have the chance to be the first to Mars but I have to leave tomorrow.
Somehow this comment reminds me of Armageddon and myriads like it. I'm sure Bon Jovi can make another song for you and we'll have a movie remake. :laugh: Edbert P. Sydney, Australia
Edbert P. wrote:
Does your wife do all the packing for you, Ray?
Hell, I would have a hard time beating her to the ship :)
Edbert P. wrote:
...movie remake.
Bring on the screenplay writers :)
George Carlin wrote: "Don't sweat the petty things, and don't pet the sweaty things." Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: If the physicists find a universal theory describing the laws of universe, I'm sure the asshole constant will be an integral part of that theory.
My Blog[^]
-
Oh please. Hows it going to help him? Robotic implants, I think not. Admit it. Bush wants a legacy, and why not try an emulate JFK, with his 'vison' to go tot the moon. You don't think it was politically self serving of Bush to say it? More more of a sucker than I though you were Stan.
Stan Shannon wrote:
But for someone like Hawkins to declare any one 'stupid' for proposing a plan that has a goal aside from pure scientific research is just self serving at best.
Again, a goal asside from pure scientific research. That means one of two things. Dreaming, and there is nothing wrong with that. Or sadly, (and I think its probably 50/50), scoring political points. Bush is a Politician at the end of the day, and unconventional one though. I would like to think its part of the dream, it fires new people up to do things. Thats what I'm guessing you are implying. You have to admit though that Bushes anouncement was at least partially self serving. You've plain got to.
Sending a robot does in fact mean we don't have to bring him back. So what I'm hearing is perhaps laziness. Science would benefit from embracing the problem as a whole. Think about what we would learn if we sent and then retreived. It does add some serious complexity to things. As they say though, "desperation is the mother of invention". Some complexity would be great. Even if they pursue send *and* retreive for 3 or 4 years and cut the idea to retreive near the end we would most certainly have learned some new things. As far as Bush wanting a legacy and Hawking being self-serving. I don't think I would want to work with/near/around men or women who did not possess these qualities in reasonable proportions. I have my own opinions about both men but honestly in this context my opinions add little or no value at all so I'll stuff them. If we attempt to classically define science or bind it by "how things have been done" it will cease to be science and become yet one more corrupt corporation. Admittedly it's closer to the latter than ever before but I'm certainly not interested in giving it any pushes in that direction. Send a man, send a dog send a woman. Whatever you send make sure you include lots of D Batteries for the flashlight. It's going to be a long dark trip. I think we should send Bob. Neither science or government would benefit but the rest of us would have a heck of a good time.
Some assembly required. Code-frog System Architects, Inc.
-
Wow Stan, it amazes me that I'm agreeing more and more with you in the past few days. Are you the real Stan? Have you had a brain transplant, heart surgery, experienced :bob: abduction, brainwash or something similar lately? :laugh: My 5! Edbert P. Sydney, Australia
Don't worry - at a macro political level I'm still the same ol' evil neo-con I've always been. In all honesty, I think the UN should just sell off the resources of space to the highest bidder and let big business work out the details of space exploration, but I thought that was more soapbox material. My ideal space program would have us as the Ferengi rather than the noble Federation. ;) "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot." -- modified at 20:11 Tuesday 15th November, 2005
-
You're also putting words into Hawking's mouth, presumably based on an assumption on your part of what you want to believe to be true. So, let's act like a scientist then and stick to what he did say rather than make something up and go off of it. Jeremy Falcon
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
You're also putting words into Hawking's mouth, presumably based on an assumption on your part of what you want to believe to be true. So, let's act like a scientist then and stick to what he did say rather than make something up and go off of it.
To send a man, you need food for the months it takes to reach Mars, storage for all the waste in a month. Although we can dump much of it, every dump is a loss of precious oxygen, which you also have to store for the months in space. You won't get much back when you get to Mars, there's very little there. Which means you also have to store food/water/oxygen for the trip back. The moon was a walk in the park by comparison, a tiny fraction of the complexity and effort to send a man to the Mars. You are saying that just because he said it was easier and cheaper (specifically) that he didn't think of all that? I promise you he did, that is exactly WHY it is easier and cheaper to send a robot. Consumables. A man uses far more consumables than a robot, and there is not a 7-11 on Mars to fillup again. I would love to send a man to Mars. It is the only real way to spelunk into caves to look for extremophile microbes, the only chance left to find life on Mars. Outside of that, there is not much a man can do better, and he is in a great deal of danger for the better part of a year's trip. But I am a realist like S. Hawking to know that a lot has to change before we can send a man to Mars. A) We need to shorten the trip (ionic propulsion on a large scale?) B) We need to shrink consumables (hybernation technologies? compressed suppliments) C) We need to be 100% waste recycling (rather than dump it, reuse it to conserve consumables) D) We know we have had medical emergencies in Antarctica and on the trip to the Moon, that needs to be handled before we lengthen trips in space. E) We cannot even handle our requirements to the International Space Station and we are saying lets do something else? F) We have to solve the absolutely you will not tax-me concept, someone has got to pay for a multi-billion scenerio over decades through multiple administrations and multiple parties, with no hope of profit. G) The human population can think (maybe) 10 years into the future, they will get bored and impatient waiting for a 30 to 50 year project to go to the Mars. So in the end you will only waste the money, and still never get to Mars. Did Hawkings need to say all that? no. It's obvious. Anyone in
-
Hawking's comment: "Stupid. Robots are cheaper to send, and you don't have to bring them back." Rereading what I wrote - I did speak to his point. It's far more cost effective and far less risky to send robots into space than Men. Period. Perhaps a better question is why do people feel the need to spend billions to send men to Mars? Sure, if we've done all the R&D and have determined that we want to attempt coloization of it ... but we're no where near that point, and won't be 10 years from now either ... Jermey - for the most part, our rocket technology hasn't improved much beyond the 60's and 70's when we sent men to the Moon, yet we're saying let's send Men to mars. Seems like that's putting the cart before the horse ... and yes, that's stupid.
:..::. Douglas H. Troy ::..
Fold with us|Development Blogging|viksoe.dk's siteDouglas Troy wrote:
Jermey - for the most part, our rocket technology hasn't improved much beyond the 60's and 70's when we sent men to the Moon, yet we're saying let's send Men to mars. Seems like that's putting the cart before the horse ... and yes, that's stupid.
What was the state of rocket technology before we sent people to the moon? Seems to me they had to invent many of processes in order to get a man there in first place. Why not reach for the stars? [Smartass comment] Then again, going to the moon possess a risk and would force people to think and imagine. We must stop that, there is a foot ball game / reality TV show on lets all sit around and watch. Stop those incessant thoughts / dreams from occurring. :) [/Smartass comment]
DEBUGGING : Removing the needles from the haystack.