If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
:rolleyes:
Pre-60s human imaginations from free-thinkers.
Links please?
Wrong ...the atom bomb came about from nuclear research.
Science fiction in the 50s, P K Dick for instance.
Erm .. I'm not denying that. And why did nuclear research bound ahead? Because of the (arguable) NEED for a mass destruction weapon to end the war with the Japanese.
Sorry, that's not a link. Its an unsubstantiated claim.
In what way? There must be proof of your claims out there somewhere on the Internet regarding Dick?
In this way.
Nuclear research was bounding ahead just fine for peaceful purposes.
We would have probably had the collider sooner and power plants sooner if the money and the brains hadn't been dragged off to work for death.
There is countless proof out there on the Internet (and its taught in universities) that the origins of the Internet was based on a military project for a secure and diverse network. But you contradict this. I just want to know your sources other than a vague mention of Dick. I'm happy for you to enlighten me and change my mind - but I would like some substantiated proof. I don't see that as being ridiculous. And this isn't a personal attack on your integrity or intelligence. I like to learn. So please enlighten me.
Satellites are in space, there fore any research in how to make an object orbit the earth or any other planet IS SPACE EXPLORATION, it is in space, therefore it is research into "space"
Where's the contradiction? I'm not against technological advances or funding for them, just don't think that funding space shit is a good use of resources.
Let's have a look at some links then. I think you might find proof of funding but not the ideas.
Had there been less funding for military and more funding for boffins who could put the internet in to reality, I argue that we would have had the internet sooner than waiting for it to be funded by military. The boffins go where the money is, move the money away from space and war and we still have boffins with desires to invent and improve technologies.
This is why I want less money spent on space shit, so that the boffins can get funding for new technology that isn't constrained by space or war adgendas, and other uses for the money too.
Trouble is ...we are back at the first post ...their aint no money for no boffins ...not in America anyway.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/whats-space-ever-done-for-me-1799650.html
I do believe we could have made these discoveries without space exploration but I believe you are being nieve by saying it wouldn't have taken longer. For example medical equipment to messure paients stats, it would've taken longer to come about as there was not a "need" for it at the time except space exploration. the same with GPS, no one would have created GPS if they did not know about satalites, and no one knew about sattalites until space exploration invented them. why else would someone spend billions of dollors to build a sattalite, there is no reason
We're the most dominant nation on earth. But too often the face of our economic superiority is a corporate imperialism, our technological dominance shown by Smart bombs and Predator drones. We could do something else. Something generous and uplifting for all humankind!
Voyager, in case it's ever encountered by extra-terrestrials is carrying photos of life on Earth, greetings in 55 languages, and a collection of music from Gregorian chants to Chuck Berry. Including "Dark Was The Night, Cold Was The Ground" by '20s bluesman Blind Willie Johnson, whose stepmother blinded him when he was seven by throwing lye in is his eyes after his father had beat her for being with another man. He died, penniless, of pneumonia after sleeping bundled in wet newspapers in the ruins of his house that burned down.
But his music has left the solar system.
He didn't invent it any more than Jules Verne invented the Apollo Rockets or Da Vinci invented the aeroplane. he may have thought up the concept, but that's a different thing
Sooner than what though?
What private companies are you talking about here, I'm not sure where your argument is going?
Eh? The need for medical equipment comes from medicine so to get better medical technology we should fund medical science not space.
So, when do you think something moves from a concept to an invention? If it's when it is first made to work then, that could be argued to be a funding issue.
Isn't that the point being made in much of the discussion. It's not the germ of an idea - it's the will to invest in developing it. The will to gather the right minds together, to put a nations financial and human resources into the manufacturing of it.
Sure, we can all agree that a world without war would be a good thing. However, without the drive to keep soldiers alive so many medical technologies (especially those dealing with trauma) would not have happened. We would not have rockets or jets because there wasn't a demand for those things.
We are where we are today precisely because of our drive to kill or explore - why do we eat potatos? Tobacco, tea etc all came about because people invested time, effort and money in exploration. Space is the next step (although it could be argued that actually undersea is...).
Now compare the "developed world" with "tribal world". What is the difference between them?
So what if we are where we are today, because of killing and exploring? Where we are isn't so great and we should satisfy some of our drives other than killing and exploring to see where that takes us.
The difference is... I need a more focused question. Or perhaps give me your answer and how it fits into the argument and I can give an opinion on that.
This is my point though, a few years of space research gave us medical technology that hundreds of years of medical research did not give us.... and your saying research on space is a bad thing?
So now your saying Basic Human instrinct (killing and exploring) are wrong. shame but unfortunately it isn't so easy to change them.
Space holds so many wonders and secrets, we know so much yet so little about space, hundreds of years ago people would never have believe we'd step on the moon. people now believe we'll never colonize another world, I believe if in a few hundred years we will.
I know my arguement hasn't been the best but what do you expect goverments to use that money on? Space research is one of the most important research subjects around, without space research you would not have had most of the tech we have now, you argue we would've got it another way, but how? Explain how we would have had LIVE satellite TV without 1 single iota of research on space, or weather reports, hurricaine warning systems, pollution monitoring systems, systems which messure the temperature of the sea, spy satellites which protect national security. Hydrogen powered cells, Mobile Telephones, THESE are near enough impossible without any sort of space research,