DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**k1ePRlda** · 09-08-2012, 09:41 PM

Might well have been the case here...But this debate isn't about the likelyhood of life elswhere for whatever reasons....It's about achieving technological change one day in the future that we now look on as impossible. And in that debate time is our friend.

Conversely, I see it [the debate] as an example of pessimists trying to shout down optimistic opponents not as you say.

What we, you and I and everyone needs to remember is that any sense of pessimism and lack of ambition are the ultimate dangers. It's only a sense of optimism and continued forward progress can solve our current (and possible future) problems. We must find our destiny in diversity and continue forward rather than meekly await some dismal future.

There is a vast difference between shouting someone down, and saying something along the lines of "it won't work because...[it violates relativity; the materials aren't strong enough for the proposed design; the design has previously been shown to do something different to what is now claimed; etc]. The former are dogmatists, stuck on one path. And yes, dogmatists can be dreamers. The Spruce Goose is an example of dogmatic dreamers beating down pragmatic experts. New Age spiritualists are dogmatic dreamers, convinced of Man's Destiny and commonly failing to achieve anything towards it.

The space program that led to the moon landings was not led by dreamers, or anyone convinced that it was our destiny. It was spearheaded by propaganda and a need to prove superiority, and it was realised by experts all too aware that it may well be impossible. One could say that their pessimism is what made it a success. Considering every possible point of failure, everything that could go wrong, testing everything to breaking point, including people. Everything they achieved was firmly rooted in existing technology. The engineering of the craft, the chemistry of the fuels, the physics or orbital motion...they took the science that was already there and pushed it to the limits. They didn't stand around optimistically saying "it'll be fine, it's our destiny", or waiting for some future breakthrough that would make it easy.

It is only by considering the worst, that we can avoid it to find the best.

09-08-2012, 09:41 PM	#59
k1ePRlda Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 455 Senior Member	Might well have been the case here...But this debate isn't about the likelyhood of life elswhere for whatever reasons....It's about achieving technological change one day in the future that we now look on as impossible. And in that debate time is our friend. Conversely, I see it [the debate] as an example of pessimists trying to shout down optimistic opponents not as you say. What we, you and I and everyone needs to remember is that any sense of pessimism and lack of ambition are the ultimate dangers. It's only a sense of optimism and continued forward progress can solve our current (and possible future) problems. We must find our destiny in diversity and continue forward rather than meekly await some dismal future. There is a vast difference between shouting someone down, and saying something along the lines of "it won't work because...[it violates relativity; the materials aren't strong enough for the proposed design; the design has previously been shown to do something different to what is now claimed; etc]. The former are dogmatists, stuck on one path. And yes, dogmatists can be dreamers. The Spruce Goose is an example of dogmatic dreamers beating down pragmatic experts. New Age spiritualists are dogmatic dreamers, convinced of Man's Destiny and commonly failing to achieve anything towards it. The space program that led to the moon landings was not led by dreamers, or anyone convinced that it was our destiny. It was spearheaded by propaganda and a need to prove superiority, and it was realised by experts all too aware that it may well be impossible. One could say that their pessimism is what made it a success. Considering every possible point of failure, everything that could go wrong, testing everything to breaking point, including people. Everything they achieved was firmly rooted in existing technology. The engineering of the craft, the chemistry of the fuels, the physics or orbital motion...they took the science that was already there and pushed it to the limits. They didn't stand around optimistically saying "it'll be fine, it's our destiny", or waiting for some future breakthrough that would make it easy. It is only by considering the worst, that we can avoid it to find the best.
	Quote