user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
Voted : Yes
I think looking for life outside of our one little planet is a worthwhile endeavor. It will probably be composed of mostly failures and dead ends. But one success would make the whole thing worth it.
Voted : Yes
I thought that scientists expected water ice to flow annually from the ice caps. I will look in my Big Book Of Planets later!
Voted : Yes
Question for you Herzog Why is it acceptable for taxpayers money to be spent on space exploration, something that a very low percentage of the population fully understand the consequences of, let alone benefit from in any way, with minimal chance of any discovery that will benefit any taxpayer within their lifetime, but not to use taxpayers money to fund socialised healthcare, something that people would benefit from daily and immediately?
Let me make it clear, I fully support the funding of space exploration, and its nice to see you make an (almost!) non-political ballot for a change (no criticism intended). The question just occurred to me as I read your answer.
Voted : No, it is a waste of money
I'd rather we spend that money looking for the life parked right in our oceans.
We are doing a fantastic job of trashing the planet we've got. It's only natural to look for a potential new pad. Though I would prefer this money be spent on fixing our mistakes, we all know there is no interest in that. Fixing mistakes does not involve pretty pictures and ugly pictures do not attract funding.
Voted : Yes
Clearly- Nothing will convince enough of the 6,670,000,000 humans to help their home planet sustain them a couple more centuries. Thanks to God, right? :) We need to find out how to colonize Mars soon so we'll go on multiplying after most of the other species are gone forever.
by Jyl on Wed Dec 06, 06 9:51pm
[+]
(scuse me, Nate makes it much clearer than my bitching but I hadn't read the comments)
by Jyl on Wed Dec 06, 06 9:55pm
[+]
Voted : No, it is a waste of money
Maybe if it is from money taken from people with consent. But in general if its forced tax money, I don't really have enthusiasm for that. And in general, I just think there are too many problems here on Earth that require more attention.
ThisIsNate- Just because it may be proven that there once was life on Mars, or that there are organisms of a microscopic nature still existent on Mars, does not necessarily equate to Mars now being habitable for human beings.
Voted : No, it is a waste of money
Not at the current time.
Socrates, like the movie "Ghost of Mars?"
by aya on Thu Dec 07, 06 8:25am
[+]
Voted : Yes
We need to spend more. Overcrowding and depletion of resources will eventually force us to go to other worlds.
Mars is in NO hurry to support Earth-human life. Weird atmosphere(whatcha gonna breathe??) and waay bad-ass temperatures will see to that! We might one day,one century set up a minor sta. on the red dry planet, but only at GREAT material expense. We're not sending millions of us Planetary Rapers up there in any hurry, oh no!
Socrates, you grossly underestimate mankind's adaptive capabilities.
I was just thinking about how Earth's landscape has changed over the past 500 years. Also, although unintentional, how the Earth's atmosphere has changed over the past... maybe even 100 years. I refuse to believe that without 100 years research humans could not bend the Martian planet to meet our needs.
I think i meant "with." I forgot what i was trying to say though.
Doc: fair question. Here goes: 1) I see a difference between the two. One is an attempt to extend our boundaries and push the limits of our knowledge, the other is an entitlement program that creates a sense of dependency. One, exploration and a desire for a better future, exemplifies american ideals. The other, dependency and a lack of personal reliance, exemplifies all that america should despise. 2) On a practical level the money spent on NASA is miniscule compared to what a national healthcare program would cost. 3) from what I've seen of other nations a socialized medicine program would degrade the quality of care in this country. We have the best healthcare in the world because it is competitive, not because we have set up a monopoly and eliminated competition. I don'ot care for the substandard quality and ridiculous waiting lines found in other nations. Besides which, it isn't free, it's just paid for in a different way, and the money is filtered through many bureacrats before it gets to anyone who deserves it. 4) Again, on a practical level, there are some programs that end up generating more money than they cost. Education, road building, scientific research, etc all cost a great deal, but more than pay for themselves in side benefits. So it just makes sense from that perspective.
aya- No, nothing like that. It's more basic. Providing evidence that Mars once had life does not mean that human could live there necessarily. And if there is evidence that there once was life on Mars, is it still surviving there now? Why not? Mars once was uninhabitable, but is no longer? That would be interesting information, but not worth all the money to discover that. As humans wouldn't be any more able to live on Mars because of such information. Scientists are just struggling to find microscopic life on Mars, or evidence that there once was such. And even if there is microscopic life, that doesn't necessarily prove anything about human beings' capability to survive as improving. Indeed, that microscopic life is firstly on the microscopic level. Secondly, if it is living there, it is because that organism long learn to evolve to that environment, and that does not necessarily mean that humans or other mammals could adapt there as well. In fact, such organisms could be completely different in chemical make up. I don't see any practical or logical argument that could be used to argue about how this researc, even if successful in finding the microscopic life that either once exists or still exists, is supposedly to lead to humans living supposedly leaving Earth to live on Mars. I don't see the logic in the argument at all.
ThisIsNate- The Earth hasn't changed that much in the last 500 years really. And I don't think humans would be capable of just moving to Mars and bending the environment there to meet their needs. Sounds like wishful thinking alone. If humans could just be able to bend a planet's temperature, atmosphere, chemical make up, and so on, which they can't, then I would imagine they would use such knowledge to fix up Earth. Even if humans could somehow create a space station on Mars, where humans could live, that doesn't mean that humans could just leave Earth altogether and go to Mars to survive. Any space station on Mars would be completely dependent on Earth for supplies. Crops cannot be grown for one thing. A supply of oxygen would be crucial. And so on. So I really don't see anything about the idea as being anything more than a fantasy.
If humans are looking for a new planet to live on after Earth hypothetically becomes uninhabitable, I doubt Mars is the answer. Probably a planet more similar to Earth, and probably in another Solar System.
herzog- "exploration and a desire for a better future, exemplifies american ideals." - Yes, but this information is... interesting, but relatively much less useful than other scientific fields of research. I say put more money into finding cures for diseases, and make such cures more available for developing nations. More research into more environmentally friendly technology. More research into greener alternatives to the use of oil. More research into medical adnavancements. Also technological advances to help raise living standards. And more into desalinisation. These are things which are more directly useful.
Socrates: but we currently are spending money on all those things. It's not a one or the other thing, we can afford to develop new medicines, fuels, and space technology. For example: penicillin was discovered much by accident. On a practical level they ought to have told Mr. Flemming to stop playing around with staphylococci bacteria (he was merely researching their properties at the time) and get to some real work that would help people, like better sulfa powders to cure diseases. I'm glad they didn't. That's the thing about science, you never know when some esoteric line of research will come in handy.
herzog- I just personally believe that less money into that, and more money into what I mentioned, would be more beneficial.
what will happen to christian believes, if it was proved that is and was life on another planet?
|
|