What a waste of space
I would like to weigh in on a topic that has been debated in the astronomy field for some time. Is there life in or beyond our solar system? This topic is becoming one of the main debates in astronomy, mainly because of our increasing capability to search the universe. The bigger question is really "could there be intelligent life?". I will never say that anything is impossible. Through out history, most scientist that say something is impossible end up getting proved wrong. I will however say that it is quite improbable that we will have the ability to detect intelligent life.
Take a look at our own planet. Humans being the only animal intelligent enough to detect other intelligent life, have been around this planet for 2 million to 10 million years (depending on which scientist you talk to). Lets say for the sake of argument we have been here for 10 million years. We have only had the ability to search and for other intelligent life for about 200 years. Our planet has been here for about 4 billion years, but the universe has been here for about 12 to 15 billion years. Lets say that humans will be around for 10 million years more before we wipe ourselves out or use up all our resources. 10 million years is pretty conservative, it will probably be much less. Lets use the number 10 million to describe the length of time that an intelligent race survives. 10 million years relative to the 12 to 15 billion that the universe has been here is just a blip. So the chances that our 10 million years will coincide with another intelligent races 10 million years is highly unlikely. Even if the universe is full of different intelligent races the chances of an overlap happening are very unlikely. Picture your back yard at night being the complete universe. There are firefly's that represent solar systems. Each time a fire fly lights up, it represents the 10 million years that a intelligent life has existed. Were hoping that two fly's light up at the same time and have all the technology to communicate with each other, and happen to be looking in the right direction. Even if two fly's light up at the same time the chances that one sees the other is pretty slim. I do in fact believe that there is a good chance that life can and does exist else where in the universe. Unfortunately we will never meet them. I will however say, if we can somehow lengthen our stay without going extinct. If we can survive for a billion years. Or another race could survive for a billion years. The chances of meeting them greatly increase. The only way this can happen is to explore space and to use the resources outside our solar system. This probably sounds crazy to most people. Most people feel that the space program is a huge waste of money. At one time the earth was flat and people thought that the early explorers were a waste of resources. I will leave you with a quote from the movie Contact, "If were the only ones here. . . . . It seems like an awful waste of space"
Take a look at our own planet. Humans being the only animal intelligent enough to detect other intelligent life, have been around this planet for 2 million to 10 million years (depending on which scientist you talk to). Lets say for the sake of argument we have been here for 10 million years. We have only had the ability to search and for other intelligent life for about 200 years. Our planet has been here for about 4 billion years, but the universe has been here for about 12 to 15 billion years. Lets say that humans will be around for 10 million years more before we wipe ourselves out or use up all our resources. 10 million years is pretty conservative, it will probably be much less. Lets use the number 10 million to describe the length of time that an intelligent race survives. 10 million years relative to the 12 to 15 billion that the universe has been here is just a blip. So the chances that our 10 million years will coincide with another intelligent races 10 million years is highly unlikely. Even if the universe is full of different intelligent races the chances of an overlap happening are very unlikely. Picture your back yard at night being the complete universe. There are firefly's that represent solar systems. Each time a fire fly lights up, it represents the 10 million years that a intelligent life has existed. Were hoping that two fly's light up at the same time and have all the technology to communicate with each other, and happen to be looking in the right direction. Even if two fly's light up at the same time the chances that one sees the other is pretty slim. I do in fact believe that there is a good chance that life can and does exist else where in the universe. Unfortunately we will never meet them. I will however say, if we can somehow lengthen our stay without going extinct. If we can survive for a billion years. Or another race could survive for a billion years. The chances of meeting them greatly increase. The only way this can happen is to explore space and to use the resources outside our solar system. This probably sounds crazy to most people. Most people feel that the space program is a huge waste of money. At one time the earth was flat and people thought that the early explorers were a waste of resources. I will leave you with a quote from the movie Contact, "If were the only ones here. . . . . It seems like an awful waste of space"
posted by Jim Fisher at 5:01 AM
7 Comments:
"The chances of meeting them greatly increase. The only way this can happen is to explore space and to use the resources outside our solar system."
Kind of an odd statement after such a long and sound argument against being able to find life outside our solar system. You lost me here.
"This probably sounds crazy to most people. Most people feel that the space program is a huge waste of money. At one time the earth was flat and people thought that the early explorers were a waste of resources."
First you argue that it is virtually impossible that we could ever find life on other planets. Then you compare those who think it is a waste of tax payer's money are like flat earthers. Help me out here. First we need to ask, "why?" Going to America was profitable for some. How is it profitable to fly up into space unless there was some resource that could be gained and used.
We simply don't go to the moon because there is nothing there of value. It's just a big rock. We have plenty of those here by the way.
"I will leave you with a quote from the movie Contact, "If were the only ones here. . . . . It seems like an awful waste of space""
I'm sorry you think so. I believe in presuppositional apologetics. If I challenge your presuppositions, then you might see the Cosmos has far more purpose than you can imagine.
You might say, "how?" I will simply respond by saying the ants that live in a desert that no man will ever see have the same purpose. Or the bug that squishes its rear end to its nose on my windshield also serves a purpose.
Give it a thought.
The point I was trying to make with the blog is that man needs to survive for long long periods of time in order to detect other intelligent life. Meaning, with the short time weve been here saying that weve been in contact with other races is rediculous. We must first show that we can exsist for this long period of time. In order to do that, we eventually will have to utilize more resources than this planet has to offer.
There will be a day when man resides on Mars(probibly in your childrens or grandchildrens life time). In your lifetime you will see man take a round trip to Mars. These trips will change our life in some way through their discoverys.
Lets say that while figuring out how to keep the astronots bodys from decaying in zero gravity, NASA finds a cure for cancer. I understant this exact scenario is very unlikely, but there will be discoverys that improve technology for all aspects of life. When Mars is old hat and NASA is getting ready to go to outer solar system destinations, there will be the nay sayers that will think its a big waste of money. One of those nay sayers will be a guy who beat pancreatic cancer with thanks to NASA's discoverys. Exploration has always beifited man in some way. There would not be this great country we live in without it. The founding fathers needed a new world to accomplish what they did.
the ION drive engine, which took DEEP SPACE ONE (I will write a blog on this)across our solar system without having to use planets as a sling shot, may have all kinds of benifits here on earth, and would not have been invented if it wasn't for the space program.
"These trips will change our life in some way through their discoverys."
So in reality, we need not be concerned with discovering other forms of life. For if the chances of discovering life on other planets is next to nothing, then we need another reason to go.
If going to Mars is beneficial, then let's go. I seriously doubt that it is, but I could be wrong. The appeal to "healings" and curing cancers is mostly an emotional appeal.
If you are correct and going to space is a good thing, then that should be the case that is made. Not some discovery of life argument or a cancer free society.
Also, you assume a naturalistic and materialistic worldview [whether you are conscious of it or not]. Such a view may give an immediate excitement in the race to space, but in the long run, you are simply looking for a Utopia that doesn't exist, and you'll be disappointed when you climb that mountain peak only to see, the same problems still exist.
God Bless
Curing cancer being of just emotional appeal sounds a little underated, Imagine it being your son and someone telling you I could cure him, but its just for your emotional appeal, so I won't bother. I guess in that view, everything ever acomplished is just for emotional appeal.
I'm not sure what you mean with the whole materialistic view and me looking for a utopia. Part of being an intelligent society is to always look to improve all aspects of life (standard of living,technology, so on), an intregral part of that is exploration, whether it be under the sea or outer space.
"Curing cancer being of just emotional appeal sounds a little underated, Imagine it being your son and someone telling you I could cure him, but its just for your emotional appeal, so I won't bother. I guess in that view, everything ever acomplished is just for emotional appeal."
I am not saying that discovering medicinal cures are bad. I am simply saying that men have been promising healings and cures since the beginning of sickness. Science has simply been able to give the perception that she will eventually find a cure for everything. Simply making the promise to a person who needs healing is dishonest and playing God.
"I'm not sure what you mean with the whole materialistic view and me looking for a utopia. Part of being an intelligent society is to always look to improve all aspects of life (standard of living,technology, so on), an intregral part of that is exploration,"
Most people have assumptions that they do not even know they have, including me. As we discover what makes up our worldview, we can challenge those assumptions and compare worldviews.
I do not think for a moment that improving life and certain things around us is wrong. I think it is our duty to do so. I simply do not assume the worldview that undergirds your thinking.
Assuming we are the "intelligent society" is the reason why we should be better is circular and has no basis for claiming moral superiority. It is simply intellectual snobbery and assumes evolution, hence it is a self contradiction.
Only a society that exists based on a worldview that has the Creator/creature relationship can be consistent with the moral fabric necessary to make such a claim. I have yet to hear of a consistent (please note consistent) evolutionary worldview.
"Assuming we are the "intelligent society" is the reason why we should be better is circular and has no basis for claiming moral superiority. It is simply intellectual snobbery and assumes evolution, hence it is a self contradiction.
I'm not assuming we are an intellegent society. Of all living species that we know of, we are the intellegent society. Im not sure that saying that we should better ourselves is assuming evolution. Regardless of what you believe your origins are, bettering your society through technology can be a common goal. I'm not sure what you mean by "claiming moral superiority". Claiming it over who? I dont really understand where the contradiction is.
"Im not sure that saying that we should better ourselves is assuming evolution."
I am not arguing that point.
"I'm not assuming we are an intellegent society. Of all living species that we know of, we are the intellegent society."
I am arguing, why does being an "intelligent society" (as opposed to other societies, not other species, although that is obviously a part of the evolutionary view) demand that we need to be bettering ourselves? If we don't are you saying we are morally obligated to do so (if so, why?)? Or should we be bettering ourselves because......?
Therefore I am challenging the assumptions that belie the "we are the intelligent society therefore we should...." belief. I am saying that that system is incoherent and self contradictory.
Post a Comment
<< Home