Bobby Webster, on Novermber 06, 2000, asked: Should mankind invest in the exploration of space?


Context of the issue:

The space programmes of both the USA and the USSR became perhaps the most important prestige projects of the Cold War. From the launch of Sputnik - the first artificial satellite - in 1957, through to the first human space flight by Yuri Gagarin in 1961, the first moon landing in 1969, and beyond, both superpowers invested huge amounts of money in order to outdo each other in the so-called ‘space race’. At the time, this was a convenient project to choose: while it allowed the two nations to compete in a supposedly peaceful area, proving their scientific achievements, the work on rockets also fed directly into work on the inter-continental ballistic missiles which would allow them to strike at each other with nuclear weapons in the event of war. Since the end of the Cold War, however, the future of space exploration has become less clear. Russia no longer has the resources to invest in a substantial space programme; without an enemy to compete with, the USA has also cut back on its exploration programmes. The emphasis is now on missions which are ‘faster, better, cheaper’ – grand projects such as the Voyager missions of the late 1970s seem unlikely to be repeated. In particular, the commitment to manned exploration of space has almost disappeared; although potential missions to Mars are occasionally mentioned in the press, there are no solid plans to send human beings to another planet in the short to medium term. The proposition in this debate will be proposing a renewed commitment to the exploration of space; the opposition focuses on the practicalities, and the fact that money may be better spent elsewhere.

Pro1
Mankind must always struggle to expand its horizons. The desire to know what lies beyond current knowledge, the curiosity that constantly pushes at the boundaries of our understanding, is one of our noblest characteristics. The exploration of the universe is a high ideal - space truly is the final frontier. The instinct to explore is fundamentally human; already some of our most amazing achievements have taken place in space. No-one can deny the sense of wonder, world-wide, when for the first time a new man-made star rose in the sky, or when Neil Armstrong first stepped onto the moon. Space exploration speaks to that part of us which rises above the everyday.

Con1
High ideals are all well and good, but not when they come at the expense of the present. Our world is marred by war, famine, and poverty; billions of people are struggling simply to live from day to day. Our dreams of exploring space are a luxury they cannot afford. Instead of wasting our time and effort on macho prestige projects such as the space programme, we must set ourselves new targets. Once we have addressed the problems we face on Earth, we will have all the time we want to explore the universe; but not before then. The money spent on probes to distant planets would be better invested in the people of our own planet. A world free from disease, a world where no-one lives in hunger, would be a truly great achievement.

Pro2
The exploitation of space has directly changed our world. Satellites orbiting the Earth allow us to communicate instantaneously with people on different continents, and to broadcast to people all over the world. The Global Positioning System allows us to pinpoint our location anywhere in the world. Weather satellites save lives by giving advance warning of adverse conditions, and together with other scientific instruments in orbit they have helped us understand our own world better. Research into climate change, for example, would be almost impossible without the data provided by satellites.

Con2
Satellite technology has of course had a beneficial effect on our world. However, there is a huge difference between launching satellites into Earth orbit, and exploring space. Missions to other planets, and into interstellar space, do not contribute to life on our planet. Moreover, satellites are largely commercial - they are launched by private companies, and are maintained by the profits which they lead to. True space exploration could never be commercial, and requires huge government subsidies - the Voyager missions alone cost just under $1 billion. This money could be much better spent elsewhere.

Pro3
Space exploration has also led to many indirect benefits. The challenge and difficulty of the space programme, and its ability to draw on some of the finest minds, has brought about great leaps in technology. The need to reduce weight on rockets led to miniaturisation, and so to the micro-chip and the modern computer. The need to produce safe but efficient power-sources for the Apollo missions led to the development of practical fuel-cells, which are now being explored as a possible future power-source for cleaner cars. The effects of zero-gravity on astronauts has substantially added to our knowledge of the workings of the human body, and the ageing process. We can never know exactly which benefits will emerge from the space programme in future, but we do know that we will constantly meet new obstacles in pursuit of our goals, and in overcoming them will find new solutions to old problems.

Con3
These spin-off advantages could come from any ‘blue-sky’ project - they are a result of the huge amounts of money and manpower devoted to the space programme, giving people the resources they need to solve problems, rather than a result of the programme itself. For example, many of the leaps forward in miniaturisation were in fact the result of trying to build better nuclear missiles; this is not a good reason to continue building nuclear weapons. It would be far better to devote similar resources to projects with worthier goals – for example cancer research, or research into renewable energy sources. These too could have many spin-off benefits, but would tackle real problems.

Pro4
Space exploration is an investment in the future. Our world is rapidly running out of resources. Overpopulation could become a serious worldwide threat. In this position, it would be foolish to ignore the vast potential of our own solar system – mining resources on asteroids or other planets, or even the possibility of colonising other worlds. If we fail to continue to develop the ability to take advantage of these possibilities, we may in the future find it is too late.

Con4
Space exploration is a waste of resources. If we wish to tackle the problems of over-population, or of the depletion of resources, we must deal with them on the Earth instead of chasing an elusive dream. There are practical ways in which we can deal with the problems of our planet, and we must pursue them with all the resources and all the political will we have available.


So...what is your take on the issue?

(Bobby Webster, from England, is a former World Schools Debating champion, and has taught debating on five continents. Currently working for Demos, the UK's leading independent think-tank, he is also a film-maker in his spare time.)

StarLab, this seems very much like the 'Should we bother with space?' debate...
The quest for what seems beyond our reach, whether it is the stars, or how to ensure a better life for those yet to know life...this is inherent in us...it is fundamental to ourselves, our very survival...we should not be asked to choose between a heart and a brain - we need both! And no matter how impossible it may seem, I will never willingly compromise one for the other!

I don't know yet how to link across to another thread to get exactly to the right post, so I'll reprint my answer from the other thread here...

"Should we bother with space?
When have we (homo saps) not bothered with space?
Our cultures, our science, our art, all are woven with wondering where we are and how we got here, and where are we going?
Despite all the advances made, these questions have still not been answered to my satisfaction...
But I am so thrilled to be alive at a time, and in a place, where answers seem to be not only possible, not only within reach, but able to be understood and appreciated.
Why bother with "do this or do that"?
Just do it...do it all!"

And from the response I've received so far, I'm not alone in feeling this way.

If money is the only cost that matters, then we are already lost...

One of the wise sayings I used to have on my wall, and still wear in my heart, is

"we do not inherit the world from our parents, we borrow it from our children"

Why argue over which has more merit? Put that energy into just doing it!

That's my take, anyway.

__________________

the egyptians knew that if the population expanded too much then you had to keep then busy or they will cause trouble to the leaders.
so they built the pyramids and kept the economy going and the young men busy.

nothing has changed
spend the public purse on consumables(space-- pyramids) and the bright minds are kept busy and the workers kept working and earning and all is sweet.

private enterprise clicks in and the economy runs smoothly

In a democracy you have to look after the poor and use the public purse for research that has no immediate return till the research starts to return a viable profit then it is left to the private sector to use and create jobs.

just think how many jobs depend on the interegated circuit.

so there has to be a ballance

help the poor and do research to create the wealth to help the poor

__________________
inventing and writing forum
You dont know how little you know.
till you know enought
to know that you still know nothing

We must develop a robust alternative energy source before we exhaust the Earth's supply of fossil fuels or we will all be poor, hungry. thirsty, and buried in pollutants. Although geothermal, wind, and nuclear energy may take up some of the slack for a while, we will need to manage the distribution of the sun's output in order to maintain the larger and larger percentage of the expanding human population in ever increasing degrees of comfort and to protect the Earth from comet/asteroid collisions. This will require that we can confidently operate robust space transportation systems so we need to get on with it as we relieve as much misery as we can. Without a 10^18 watt power beam generator in approximate solar polar orbit inside that of Mercury, an object of the type that may have exterminated the dinosaurs would pose a threat that we are currently unable to avoid or mediate.

__________________
For those inclined to oppose human meddling with the structure of the universe or the composition and configuration of objects and groups of objects within the universe, consider:
Whether there is a limit to the magnitude of a modulation of chaos below which order remains invariant? Or, is order but a fiction invented by perspectives applied over finite, however large, time intervals?

First: A forum like this should be expected to have a far more "pro-space" attitude than general opinion. If I (and You too, I guess), was very negative or disinterested, we would not be here?
So to the human nature argument (especially cran): I think this is simply not correct that "it is in our nature". At least not in anything but an extremely broad sense. "Science" is simply not an universal caracteristic of humanity, if you not by "science" mean just any combination of thinking and looking at the world(then you have to be consequent and call shamanism, theosophy, oracles, soothsayings etcetera for "sciences"!) I admit doubt too, if a culture which promotes tecnological advance are more favored by "human nature", than any other culture, including those dominated by opposition to innovation. A third important point: Human "expansion" may not be natural either. In fact it is hard to see how it could be "natural". It is not written in our genes that we should colonise uninhabited territories, as little as t.ex. telescope-building, violin playing or car driving is.
Certainly there has been fully developed human societies without any of it. And certainly there could also be a future without.
That is not to say that space exploration, and astronomical science is "bad", or to deny them to be worthy undertakings, at least for some time.

jhwegener, hi,

I hope that some others, better versed in human history and psychology, might take up the points you make...I can only say that I disagree with virtually all of your interpretation, sorry.

Art is generally a reflection/reaction to cultures; science is science; cultures include philosophies, religions, and yes...even all of the other things you listed.

I do not know of any culture throughout history which does not include an attempt to describe how and why we are here...perhaps you can name some?

Again, can you name some?

And whilst there are times and societies where knowledge has been the domain of the elite, and used only to the detriment of the majority; I know of no period in history where such societal repression has been global...and that the general trend over the past 12000 years has favoured societies which have adopted new technologies, sought new territories, and fostered social and philosophical culture...

So, I will stand by my claim that seeking answers and seeking new horizons, are indeed inherent in us, and just as fundamental as working to give our descendants a better future...

__________________

Yes, I can.
But first: I do not have to mention any culture without any of those examples I mentioned.(You do not deny that t.ex. a culture with telescopes is the exeption and not the rule. "cultures without any of it", meant cultures without violin-building etcetera.) I also think we can say, that the most common situation is, that humans do not expand their territory. In fact I think it is approximately our situation today.
That is even if we soon send people again to the moon or mars, for those people will be an insignificant part of humanity, and probably not settle permanently.
The situation on earth today: Can You name any significant part of the world, which was formerly uninhabited, but now becoming settled?(I do not mean change from settled to crowded, but from a totally uninhabited state to a settled state).
The great "colonising" and settling movements are past now (t.ex.Siberia, Arizona or Uruguay with population from oversea). In fact I will sum up: probably the vast majority of human societies have been very little interested in tecnological advances, at least as understood in contemporary civilisation. You can allways discuss pros and cons if t.ex. the introduction of kayaks in arctic civilisations was a major tecnological step for humanity or rather an adaptation to extreme environment. Anyway I think those societies, as well as larger ones in allmost all non western societies, as well as a large part of the western ones, was not at all focused on the same tecnological, scientific economic dynamics as ours. They are probably not, even today. And in all societies only a minority is occupied professionally with science, innovation or settling new territories (litterally. Colonising new lands. I know personally of none).

Could someone translate?
I asked for examples.
I'm quite willing to take on board every point, and address each one.
I'm sorry, 't.ex'? - that's one for the glossary?
By all means, put in your riders, your provisos, and your 'what I meant was...".
I'm a plodder; I take one thing at a time....so, your examples are?

__________________

Well, the examples are the vast majority of humanity in history I think. So to start with (You have to start somewhere):China. Here, to be more precise: China have expanded some periods, but into formerly inhabited areas, sometimes making the lokals chinese, sometimes not. Throughout its history the chinese surely made some inventions, also of a tecnical kind. The point is I doubt if an innovative culture was ever regarded as very basical to the chinese. It is also correct that the chinese made some oversea voyages. The point is they early dropped the whole thing, as far as I know.
Here is some parralels to the "classical" western cultures, Greece and Rome, which early made some science like advances (Found out the size of earth, and one even made a heliocentric theory of the universe as far as I know). The point is again:they soon stopped progress in those matters (about 2-3 centuries B.C., in Egyptian - Greek Alexandria). Greek and roman territorial expansion was not so much about settling uninhabited territory as about making trade stations, expanding their culture, and first and foremost conquering other peoples (In that way they were like a host of other peoples, not the least the early european explorers, which were conquerors, not so much settlers (spain, portugal, etcetera in 16. 17. century). Not even "Western Civilisation" was very geografical expansive most of the time; oversea settlement only since ca 1450, settlement of any significant size much shorter time, and much of this period only particular parts. From AD. 500 to AD 1500 only from Norway any sizeable colonisation (North Atlantic, Iceland, Greenland, North America). And again they did not go on, but the settlements in North America(if they ever were) and Greenland (existing for some 500 centuries) disappeared. So truly expansive populations and settlement have been the exeption, even in the probably most expansive culture ever:the western.
(here again there is a question of definition:germans had a large eastward movement. But that was not oversea, and first and foremost it was into inhabited zones. Probably to a very large extend the local population was germanised. That does not qualify as extending human settlement).
Even in Noth America and Australia the big settlement era was rather short, I believe. (but perhaps someone here know more about that topic).
So, that was some examples.

Sorry, perhaps my last answer may cause misunderstanding(and there might be some language problems too. But I hope the main points were understandable). As You wrote, human wondering is probably universal and natural. What is specific for our civilisation is expansion, exploration. Human activity in space, and human activity to expand their knowledge about the skies.

hi, jhwegener,
it seems that we may have been at cross-purposes, and you may be right that language (or our interpretation of words) has led to a kind of "huh? what do you mean?" feeling.
In the views I first put foward (and they are my views, not some empirical edict - though they may have come across that way - sorry), I was speaking in as broader sense as I could; trying to be all-encompassing of human history without passing judgement on any particular part of it.

The civilisations you mentioned, I would have held up as examples. Whilst empires (as I think most of them were) have risen and fallen, they have indeed made contributions to our collective knowledge (eg, natural history, medicine, astronomy, etc), innovative technologies (eg, tools, agriculture, infrastructure, weaponry (unfortunately), art (eg, music, painting, sculpture, dance, acting, story-telling), philosophy (eg, language, logic, ethics) etc; and did expand their influence and control beyond their initial geographic and political territories. Later civilisations, including ours, inherited the legacy of those contributions (the good and the bad) and built upon them; just as civilisations which have yet to emerge will inherit our legacy (for better or worse).

Im guessing that 't.ex.' means 'the example of...'?
Actually, telescopes is a brilliant example: from rather humble beginnings in Europe and the Middle East, telescopes (in many forms) can now be found on every continent! (even Antarctica - a very recent example of humans establishing settlements in previously uninhabited territory - they're not self-sustaining yet, but it's early days...) And in space...(another new territory, previously uninhabited)

If by 'violin-building etcetera', you mean music and musical instruments, then yes: I know of no culture, no matter how 'simple' or 'primitive' (I don't mean to be derogatory with those words; I just can't think of any better ones), which does not include music or some means of making music; just as I know of no culture which does not have some form of science - even if it is only natural history, and tool making.

You are right, in that vast new tracts of arable land (uncharted continents) are not to be had anymore, but that hasn't stopped cultural expansion - it has merely evolved into new forms.

Examples in the 'new soil for settlement and agriculture' in the past century or so: in the Middle East, North America, Australia, Asia, and Africa - irrigation, agriculture, and urban/industrial environments have spread into regions that were previously deserts.

In South America, and previously in Europe: urban, industrial and agricultural expansion has extended into what was 'virgin' forest. And almost every major city in the world has expanded out into what was rural or native land; and has also undergone many phases of 'urban renewal' (knocking down old inner areas and building new, more densely populated ones).

Now, I'll go out on a limb ( ) and make a couple of predictions regarding 'new soil for settlement and agriculture' over this coming century, regardless of any expansion into space:

1. New urban/industrial and agricultural regions will emerge in what was once only tundra - and that this will happen in North America, across Eurasia, and in Patagonia.

2. New urban/industrial and agricultural regions will be constructed as 'land reclamation projects' of previously flooded or swampy territory - and that this will happen in South and Southeast Asia, and in Europe and the United States.

There! Now, if both of those 'predictions' do not happen by 2100, you may all feel free to say 'nyaa nyaa nyaa! you got it wrong!' :P

Beyond that?...the oceans - new settlements on massive floating platforms to farm and mine the sea...eventually...massive, deep sea mining and processing robots, to mine the subducting seafloor before it enters the deep trenches...

How about expansion of a culture without claiming new political territory?

Okay...what about the expansion of 'western' culture, epitomised in the 20th century by the United States - the music, film, literature, contributions to science and technology....

Or...how about the expansion of 'corporate' culture? - multinational companies which operate on every continent, and which are competing right now for new (for them) territory - China, and the former republics of the old Soviet Union...

Or...how about the emergence and rapid expansion of cyberculture?... here we are, right now...

Do you see now why I had to try and encapsulate all of that (the sum total of human history, plus the present, plus the possibilities for its future) in the broadest possible terms?

__________________

I still have some objections, though I do not disagree completely: First. You mention space and antarctica as examples of "new human settlements on virgin territory", and You many have a point. But:not a single person yet, as far as I know, live in space (have permanently settled there), an only a few parts in a billion people have visited space, as commonly understood(there may be some question about definitions of "space"). And I think that to a lesser degree being the case with Antarctica too.
About the future: I have a little suspicion that this century will be very different from those imediately before, exactly when it comes to "human expansion" on those fields we use to regard it as nearly self-evident. One such field is settled territory. One may ask if this may actually decline many places.
Another is population, which may decrease. The tendency has been there for some time in many areas.
I think a lot of predictions for the year 2000 have been falsified, and my impression is those tended to exaggerate human the speed of many developments.(This could be predictions of permanent human settlement on Moon, Mars or under the sea, human like robots and similar).
Then a short list of "fields" were we may have been used to expect universal expansion, but perhaps should not in the not so distant future: "territory" (including space). Population growth, which may very well be reversed.
Available resources, which in many cases might decline. Production of many kinds of goods (here I am not on familiar ground. but can nearly all groups of people continually increase their consumption and is it desirable?)
Even for tecnological development one may ask if the speed of change will perhaps slow sometime, or in some respects have done so already. (here one example:the speed of movement. In the last years, the fastest passenger plane has been buried,namely the Concorde, which had been in the air for many years - 25(?) or so).

you make some very good points, jhwegener.
Agreed. But it's very early days for both, and isn't it exciting to be alive as the very first steps are happening?
No argument there...especially when the tide comes in...and there are many examples of cities, and even civilisations, that were abandoned or lost ...but, over the course of human history the trend has been one of increase, and unless there is a major catastrophe (all-out global war, pandemic disease, sudden climate shift, mass extinction event, etc) I expect that increase will continue, with population increases in some areas outstripping population decreases in others.
Right on! Some of us do tend to be a bit ambitious when it comes to 'predictions'; that's why I'm prepared to be >gulp!< humiliated in 2100...
An excellent point, jhwegener!, and a scary one...one of the historical scenarios that leads to war...
Yes, indeed...the poor Concorde...suffered from bad marketing; the ticket prices were so much higher than conventional jet aircraft that only the richest would use it...one crashed with no survivors...when the wealthiest people fear for their lives, markets crash and companies collapse...but no matter how many 747s, 767s, DC10s, etc crashed with no survivors, we keep climbing into them and they keep flying...I think (imagine/dream/hope?) we'll see new generation supersonic passenger aircraft, with more affordable ticket prices...eventually.

__________________

One thingne may question if this "trend to increase" is so natural or universal, or rather only apply to some periods, and some fields, especially the last cnturies (but - one may ask if it is not on the reverse in many fields, some of them mentioned earlier in this debate).
Take astronomy. I think "western"astronomy made some important advances in antiquity, especially perhaps 3.d century B.C. (You may argue over the term "western" here, since Alexandria, Egypt, was the center. But it was made by Greeks, regarded as some of the founders of the "west").But after that, when was the next big steps? I think that little happened before the 16.century, if we in this connection exclude very remote peoples, which have had little if any influence on modern science. And even then some of the most famous men "reinvented" ancient ideas (Copernicus and the heliocentric world view), which in fact happened in a lot of other fields of art and science. It was at least as much about reading ancient masters anew, as about making independent work.

I think I understand what you're saying...
yes, when we look at the progress of any aspect of human culture or endeavour, we can see the signs of 'two steps forward, one step back' - we can argue that such was the case during the 20th century, and even now...; indeed, there were extended periods (such as the European Dark Ages) when many (if not most) aspects of human endeavour was more like 'two steps back, one step sideways'... <_<

And it's equally true that not all cultures or civilisations progressed at the same time, or at the same rate, or even to the same extent; far more often it has been that one civilisation or culture has 'peaked' and even begun to decline, whilst others were just beginning to flourish and expand their influence...

But, as I sit here under my electric light (one man in the 19th century started that...now they are all over the world, even in some of the poorest and remotest communities), and gaze at my 19" colour computer screen (remembering that my first computer screen was a 10" black background with green text and no graphics), and get news from around the world (sometimes as it is actually happening), I cannot help but think that we have come a long way from our distant ancestors who were figuring out what to do with fire, and how to bang rocks together.:blink:

And, I still know of no time in all of human history when parents did not want a better life for their children, or when people did not wonder where we came from or why we are here, and did not imagine some form of answer....that's not to say there were not such periods - I just don't know of any...and that's not to say that any of the answers were right or wrong...just that they were looked for... :unsure:

__________________

It is hard to disagree seriously with what You wrote. Especially about wanting the best for any kids and further descendants. A few words about that, more a comment to threadstarter: I do not know if space activities is "worth it", if one compares with other things. Probably some, not all projects have been so.
Especially "colonising" projects sound doubtfull from my point of view(to start spending a lot of effort and money at the moment).