Just about all technological advances have been science based; these have not only put man on the moon, but have also caused most of the environmental problems here on earth. Science can be good and/or bad and usually we don’t know which until it happens. To suggest that science should advance unhindered, is to suggest there will never be a downside that could be far worse than the problem it was meant to overcome. To then suggest those who would be cautious are pessimists is to be quite candid, beyond stupidity.

To also predict levels of civilisation that could totally control and direct the fortunes of the universe, places humans in a god-like position, greater than evolution and nature itself and in any consideration is an idealistic and totally unrealistic outlook. We are not above nature; we are part of it.

Glad you like it Postpocalypse......There is certainly nothing like a wise comment/phrase to bring sensibility to a debate.

I wonder why we have some who now want to can them...[well some of them anyway] :-)


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

What a load of......The pessimists who say something won't work are in most cases balanced by the more innovative optimism of those who say it can work...and in others far exceeded.

Just because a bunch of regulars on one forum seem to be of the one opinion, does not give them any credence over known off-line experts from NASA etc, who are opting for innovate technology.
I mean we were all surprised at the thread I posted last week about NASA's intended manned Asteroid landing this decade...2017 from memory......
It's obvious no NASA scientists visit sssf... :-)


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

PML
The Apollo program led by men of get up and go and men of Imagination, and ideas that started with dreams...Von-Neumann obviously one.
Politically driven it may have been, but even without that, it still would have happened.
All those involved knew of the difficulties and dangers, but all still proceeded even after Apollo 1.
Tragedies such as "Apollo 1" would have seen pessimists if they were involved as you say, quickly throwing up their hands and admitting defeat.
In reality mistakes were made which is human, and to go on with mitigated rubbish like " stand around optimistically saying "it'll be fine, it's our destiny", or waiting for some future breakthrough that would make it easy." is an insult to the memory of those that did die and to all who still stuck with the program in getting man to the Moon.
Pessimism does not lead to success...Optimism and the will to succeed has done that for centuries and did in the Space program.



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

Real scientists, the innovative imaginative ones at the coal front and those that worked with Apollo would naturally be doing that to achieve success as soon as possible.
To suggest that this is the method of pessimists is Zarkovian like.





>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
To suggest that science should advance unhindered, is to suggest there will never be a downside
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>


No one said that and this thread is not about that....Science in general advances with time as does technological change. Sometimes there are downsides...Like anything and in any new venture in any discipline, lessons are learnt.
Optimistic approaches do more to overcome the downsides faster then the pessimist who again would probably give up.



>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
To also predict levels of civilisation that could totally control and direct the fortunes of the universe, places humans in a god-like position, greater than evolution and nature itself and in any consideration is an idealistic and totally unrealistic outlook. We are not above nature; we are part of it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

No one said that either. Maybe you have the wrong thread.



Again this sense of pessimism and lack of ambition are I suggest, our ultimate dangers. I believe that 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.
I suppose I can rest in the comfort that in general such an outlook as that I just expressed, [the lack of ambition and optimism] is not that evident in NASA and the other Space Agencies and the myriad of new companies getting involved more in this venture...our destiny

I mean we were all surprised at the thread I posted last week about NASA's intended manned Asteroid landing this decade...2017 from memory......
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Correction in reference to date:

NASA Plans Manned Mission to Asteroid Itokawa:
Manned interplanetary missions on NASA's agenda
by Boris Pavlishchev
Moscow, Russia (Voice of Russia) Aug 29, 2012




After dropping plans to return to the Moon, the American space agency NASA has set its sights on Mars. But before venturing there, it is going to test out its latest interplanetary technologies during a manned mission to Asteroid Itokawa, expected to take place before 2025.

Dr Igor Lisov is a Russian spaceflight expert: "The Itokawa mission will travel on board the Orion spaceship, which is unlikely to be operational before 2019. NASA plans to use the intervening seven years for practising aspects of this mission on a variety of simulators. In 2005, Itokawa was studied in some detail by a Japanese probe.