tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5232161716029893381.comments2022-05-11T10:10:29.782-07:00Philosophy of Space ExploratonRyan Munevarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01819338408967576382noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5232161716029893381.post-44061295248302344112015-08-11T14:30:20.479-07:002015-08-11T14:30:20.479-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.tonyonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08253501266473243514noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5232161716029893381.post-39281762970908388802015-02-13T10:17:22.913-08:002015-02-13T10:17:22.913-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.tonyonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08253501266473243514noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5232161716029893381.post-58877200987154452902015-02-09T17:30:51.711-08:002015-02-09T17:30:51.711-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.tonyonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08253501266473243514noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5232161716029893381.post-87269748714699381822011-12-08T20:57:18.852-08:002011-12-08T20:57:18.852-08:00That is a thoughtful post. I would posit a couple...That is a thoughtful post. I would posit a couple of critiques. First, your hypothesis might be weakened by the fact that population growth is projected to stabilize and even to start trending downwards around 2050. Second, it is quite possible that countries will find ways to generate significant amounts of "clean" energy, thereby ameliorating environmental issues. As a corollary, it might be wiser (from a cost-benefit perspective) for countries to put money into developing these clean fuels as opposed to investing in space travel. Finally, I do not think that we (the world) currently have the technology necessary to create viable colonies either on the Moon or on other planets. I am not even sure if we could develop these technologies regardless of how much we spend.<br /><br />I think that your hypothesis also assumes rapid advancement in robotics, physics, computer science, nanotechnology, etc. I think it is quite feasible to expect this scenario to occur. At the same time, I do realize that current population estimates assume that both average and maximum human lifespans do not increase significantly. If biotech and other scientific discoveries radically increase human lifespan, populations may continue to increase well into 2150 or beyond.Anthony Hopperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15708347177061466201noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5232161716029893381.post-72631678321745090412011-06-24T11:23:47.951-07:002011-06-24T11:23:47.951-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Gonzalo Munevarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01949177947376556129noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5232161716029893381.post-7498960284922837682011-05-29T16:20:08.972-07:002011-05-29T16:20:08.972-07:00Gonzalo,
I'll be commenting as I go through y...Gonzalo,<br /><br />I'll be commenting as I go through your blog---so I might suggest a reference that you address later on---apologies in advance if this happens. In case these comments are not chapter/section specific, I am writing this after having read through 2B.<br /><br />I like the historical canvass of the ideological objection. I am reminded of Lynn White's "The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis" (Science 155 (1967): 1203-7) in which she argues that it is the prominence of Judeo-Christian ideologies that drives the man-dominating-nature mentality. I am also reminded of Bonnie Steinbock's slightly more recent criticism of space enthusiasm, "Progress and the Value of Space: Two Views" (The Monist 71 (1988):33-44).<br /><br />Still, Steinbock's criticism is somewhat dated. She consider a proponent of using satellites for "electronic mail," pointing out that technology had, at the time. failed to improve mail service ("...I must point out that with all our technological developments, including zip codes and computerization, mail service today is slower and less reliable than it was forty or fifty years ago" p. 35). Of course, many would agree that electronic mail---email!---is a very useful thing indeed.<br /><br />I tend to worry about the space-war issue. I've come across a few philosophical publications discussing the wisdom of, for instance, housing nuclear weapons in space. The conversation seemed limited to cold-war era game-theory issues (e.g., would putting nuclear weapons or missile-defenses in space actually make the world safer?). Is this a topic you still consider relevant, given that the cold war has been over for about 20 years? Is this still one of the platforms people will use to object to new technology?<br /><br />My research on the ethics of space exploration was conducted principally from the perspective of environmental ethics (which seems to be where most of the work on space is done in philosophy). Here the question is not, "Is space exploration good for human beings?", but instead "Is space exploration good for the environment?" It seems that many people would now agree that Earth's environment is due some degree of ethical consideration. But why should we think it is only Earth's environment that is due ethical consideration? Why not Mars' environment? Or the Kuiper Belt?<br /><br />So I think, at least in contemporary environmental philosophy, the ideological objections have been worked out in quite a bit of detail.<br /><br />Just some thoughts,<br />-Jim S.james.schwartzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04180663399467583456noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5232161716029893381.post-55340905402097646662011-05-10T09:19:51.462-07:002011-05-10T09:19:51.462-07:00I have always wondered how people who claim that l...I have always wondered how people who claim that life came to Earth from another planet try to explain how life arose on the other planet itself. All they succeed in doing is to move the question of how life, in general, began, to a place where there can be nothing except speculation; which, granted, may be intentional, in order to circumvent any problems they haven't solved with other theories, but all they are really saying is "We have no idea how life originated."<br />-Aimeeibbityhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04529937325246119934noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5232161716029893381.post-29727735325923967852011-03-25T17:36:32.299-07:002011-03-25T17:36:32.299-07:00Estimado Gonzalo Munevar te dejo aquí mi respuesta...Estimado Gonzalo Munevar te dejo aquí mi respuesta sobre el tema ( y que publiqué en mi blog):<br /><br />Journal of Cosmology : ¿ Quién dijo que la incógnita estaba en los meteoritos ?.<br />El verdadero misterio : Nasa ,Casa Blanca de Obama ... y el silencio .<br /><br />Buscando información del Journal of Cosmology y la publicación del trabajo de Richard Hoover ... hay , por lo visto , más misterio que se da fuera del trabajo de investigación... que dentro del mismo por la posibilidad de microfósiles extraterrestres en meteoritos... con todo lo que ello implica :<br /><br />1. No estamos solos<br />2. La vida está en todas partes<br />3. La vida en la Tierra llegó de fuera<br /><br />Se me ocurren un par de ejemplos sobre lo que SÍ ES REALMENTE UN VERDADERO MISTERIO al lado del cual la incógnita de la verdadera existencia o no de microfósiles extraterrestres en los meteoritos se ha vuelto una auténtica memez :<br /><br />1) ¿ Porqué ha desaparecido de la web JOC la carta abierta a Nature y Science solicitando una comisión científica conjunta para analizar el trabajo de Hoover?<br /><br />2) ¿ Porqué ha desaparecido de la web JOC el comunicado de Lana Tao “¿ Han ganado los terroristas? “ donde ha acusado a algunas personas en la Nasa ,etc de “ actos terroristas” ?<br /><br />3) ¿ Porqué ha desaparecido la Declaración Final de la web JOC donde dicen que Richard Hoover recibió presiones , la involucración de la Casa Blanca en todo este turbio asunto, etc, etc ?<br /><br />4) ¿ Cómo es posible que los grandes medios de comunicación , periodistas independientes nacionales e internacionales , etc,etc ... no realicen una seria investigación sobre lo que puede estar sucediendo realmente ?<br /><br />Un saludomeninohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13405334600156089437noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5232161716029893381.post-62928942752371827152010-04-08T21:33:47.679-07:002010-04-08T21:33:47.679-07:00Justin,
Thank you for your comment. It may well ...Justin,<br /><br />Thank you for your comment. It may well be in our nature to explore, as I pointed out in an earlier posting, but, as I also pointed out then, from a philosophical perspective, the question is one of justification, and the fact that something is in our nature cannot by itself serve as a justification. Imagine that rape were in men's nature. Surely that wouldn't justify rape.<br /><br />As for your very interesting suggestions about the Philadelphia experiment, Tesla's participation, and the whole thing being based on Einstein's Unified Field Theory and rotating magnetic fields, etc., I have to confess that I am far from being an expert on such matters. Nevertheless, from my limited knowledge (and so please take my reply with a grain of salt) it seems to me that it is very unlikely that a whole ship could have been made to look invisible back in 1943 (the Philadelphia experiment) for the following reasons. Einstein's Unified Field Theory was a colossal flop. He was in constant communication about his results with the best physicists of the day, many of whom were his friends, and when they checked his mathematical results, the thing just didn't work. Indeed, one of them said that Einstein had been abandoned by the Lord. He tried unsuccessfully to get this theory to work until his death. I don't believe he ever claimed success. Since then the judgment on his attempt has not been more charitable. The main problem: He tried to bypass quantum physics, which he didn't like.<br /><br />As for the idea that the whole ship could be made invisible, I don't want to say that it cannot be done if you could create extraordinarily large gravitational fields in a very small volume. But we do not have anything like that sort of technology today (if it can exist) and certainly we did not have it then.<br /><br />Concerning the rotating magnetic fields, there is some work based on general relativity (not the Unified Field Theory) that bears some resemblance to this reference. Indeed you can look up the work on Gravity B, an extraordinary space experiment on gravitational physics that is orbiting over our heads right now. This is the cutting edge of the field. The project director is Francis Everitt from Stanford. I will post a blog on this in a couple of months. At any rate, even this kind of work could not be done before the late 1970s, simply because the necessary precision of the instruments was not attainable until then (I will explain this in my future blog).<br /><br />I suspect that the Nazis did not do much to find antigravity either, in spite of rumors to that effect, simply because we can't do it today, even though some people would love to. And besides, it would be unlikely for the Nazis to embark on such a project because they hated Einstein and despised his physics (they called it "Jewish physics"). <br /><br />Anyway, thank you again for your comment. It seems that between your blog and mine our readers can find a good combination of imagination and skepticism.<br /><br />Best,<br /><br />GonzaloGonzalo Munevarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01949177947376556129noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5232161716029893381.post-53729152575173514192010-04-07T18:43:24.383-07:002010-04-07T18:43:24.383-07:00Namaste Gonzalo, it will be my pleasure to follow ...Namaste Gonzalo, it will be my pleasure to follow your work. I find your background to be quite interesting. I look forward to reviewing your work on consciousness. <br />Regarding the above article. When considering the value of the space program I naturally recoil at the cost juxtaposed to using such funding for more humane aspirations. However, when considering how the space program facilites the network which enables such fine discourse, I pause. Of course space exploration offers much more added value when considering the expansion of knowledge. <br />In the end Gonzolo I feel this issue transcends mere fiscal considerations. We are a naturally curious species, one way or another we will continue to explore. <br /><br />I feel we only see a tip of the iceberg when discussing space travel. I am of the opinion the work started by Einstein on hyperdimentional travel has given much fruit. Tesla's work as part of the "Philadelphia Experiment " and " The Nazi Bell ", Secret Technology. Investigator of alternative technologies, Joseph P. Farrell discussed his research into secret military projects such as 'the Bell' made by the Third Reich, and the Philadelphia Experiment conducted in the United States. Both projects may have incorporated Einstein's Unified Field Theory, and made use of rotating magnetic fields and torsion physics, working with spirals of space itself, he explained. Such technology could be at use in a secret space program, that runs parallel to NASA. <br />Justified speculation is rife throughout the internet demanding disclosure os secret projects. If we consider torsion physics to have follow a conservative curve of development I am sure we would both agree hyperdimentional travel has likely been perfected for safe use.<br />I include a video link for your consideration, as well, I invite you to enjoy the advanced science video library section on my blog site. Hope to see you as a follower so you may offer an opportunity for dialogue on a more gnostic level. <br />12 Part Video on N.A.S.A. Secret Space Travel projects and Germany's The Bell Project:<br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUu5FYtDHG8<br /><br />My blog site:<br />www.godlymanifestation.blogspot.com<br /><br />In Lak'ech, my brother Gonzalo, from a bicket of fear mankind finds love...christopherdossantos3@gmail.comhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16333197295906640548noreply@blogger.com