Already deep sea exploration is done worse by humans; better by machine. That change will only continue. Machines are already doing many jobs better. Over time, machines will do most jobs better. A worse environment means a machine's superiority only increases.

Purpose of Mars (like all exploration and discovery) is the advancment of mankind. That means machines must do more work and do it better. That means humans will no longer accomplish what only machines can fulfill. That is the change that so many have difficulty grasping.

Best colonists on Mars will be man's machines.

Huh.

So... I am sorry BigV and xoxoxoBruce for doubting you guys. Thank you for trying to warn me anyway.

Now I know TW is missing the point of the general discussion.
But away from this particular discussion, I can see his point. After all, why should we colonise another planet? Resources would be better resourced by machines.

Do we really need more space? There is plenty of space still on Earth. We should limit our population instead - even the richest countries in the world have parts of the population they are unable to support.

I'm not talking eugenics, merely population control.
And compare the cost of terraforming Mars to the cost of making - just examples - the Nevada desert or the Australian bush into reasonable habitats. They at least have oxygen and aren't 14 million miles away (sorry if that's wrong, I think I saw it on a move poster for The Martian!)

No... More real estate isn't quite the point either, any more then resources or research.

It is cheaper to dig deeper here for ores then to deliver them from Mars and it is cheaper to build higher and wider here then send people to Mars.

The value of mars real estate IS that it's far away. Which I suppose in turn creates a somewhat worrying possible answer to my initial question in the thread:

The drive might not be directly economical, but it can be political - Isolationists groups.

I have to admit that considering the spirit of our time, that's a very chilling vision. The Westboro Baptist Colony? :eek:

This discussion is predicated on a solution that is becoming less relevant with each decade. Number one objective of mankind is the advancement of mankind; not colonization. Advancement is no longer found in putting people on other continents or worlds. Advancement has changed; it is more about putting man's handywork and tools in places where knowledge can be expanded, resources might be obtained, and new materials might be discovered that become essential to mankind's existence and advancement.

This discussion is predicated on a bogus need. Long before some objective is defined, first, what is the strategic objective? What is necessary to do what is relevant - the advancement of mankind?

Many have automatically assumed colonization is necessary because once it was necessary. I did not miss the point. The point is this discussion ignores what must be accomplished - as if colonization (once considered necessary for the advancement of mankind) is the only solution. Once it was. Human presence is no longer necessary to advance mankind.

As usual, I am have gone beyond what some are unwilling or not ready to consider. Why is human presence essential? Once it was. Starting recently, colonization is better done with man's tools rather than with human presence. That is extremely difficult for some to grasp because it is a very new concept.

Point of this general discussion is fundamentally flawed.

BTW, we have plenty of space on earth for many more people. There is no shortage of real estate despite so many emotional fears that believe otherwise. Instead, what will advance mankind?

Absolutely right.
Fixed that for you. ;)
Bullshit, that's a fairy tale that's been used to justify funding, and fuckups, forever.
Oh, ninety million native Americans died of introduced diseases... um, we were just trying to advance mankind.
Oh, you have a thalidomide baby... well, we were trying just to advance mankind.
Oh, Sadam didn't have weapons of mass destruction... gosh, we were just trying to advance mankind.

Do you remember July 20th, 1969? I do, like it was yesterday. The Eagle has landed, motherfucker.
I also remember Curiosity rover's touchdown a couple years back, vaguely.

But, but, childish emotion has no place in the advancement of mankind.
It does when it's my nickel, bitch.

Hey, tw used to be my bitch; but, now you've made him yours. Oh well, what can I do, it's all for the advancement of mankind. :lol:

Actually, while tw's obstinacy continues, he has ostensibly been refraining from calling other adults children. Kudos tw.

Healthcare professionals are trained to not call other adults children, refer to them as children; or, treat them as children even if those other adults are developmentally impaired or have dementia and behave like children. Studies have shown that treating any adult aged person in that manner is exceptionally counterproductive to effective communication. Whatever you may think of them, they are still adults with the lifetime experience of an adult, regardless of their intellectual status, who will summarily dismiss people that disrespect them in that way. You can call adults a lot of derogatory things; but, calling them children is a telltale hallmark of a poor communicator. Again, congratulations on the change: it hasn't gone unnoticed.

Battle of the titans :rolleyes:


Alright, I'll play*. Tw - how do you define the advancement of human kind? Scientific knowledge? Technology? Industrial capacity? Control and access to resources? Kardashev scale (energy)? Military might? Wisdom? The spiritual acceptance of Cthulhu? The number of alien babes on Captain Kirk's belt? What is the defining attribute for you?



*. It is promising to be a slow shift tonight and in waiting forever for groceries delivery yesterday I haven't caught enough hours of sleep for coding to be fun.

Let's start with 20 July 1969. What was accomplished? It was a very emotional event. But what was actually done that advanced mankind?

It was a game to proven who is better. Little science was achieved until a later flight when Schmidt (a geologist) arrives. Some tools were delivered (ie a mirror) that decades later resulted in the advancement of mankind - knowledge.

Meanwhile the Hubble has been one of the greatest tools to advance mankind. Do you know how much it has done for man? That is not a rhetorical question.

America in the past century has been home to some of the world's greatest advancer of mankind. Categories that define that advancement are numerous. But in every case involve the words innovation and invention. Because if that dos not happen, then mankind degrades - advancement is retarded or even diminished.

Almost all science in space is now done by robots and machines. Something like 8% of NASA's budget (for non-human space flight) accounts are almost all NASA's accomplishments.

The future is in man's tools to seek out and find new life - to go where no man has gone (and need go) before. Unfortunately the concept is still too new for many if not most.

Two questions here request an answer.

Nothing was done to that advanced mankind, because that wasn't the fucking objective, and neither is Mars: one way.
This is why you don't get it, you're so busy parroting the advance mankind principle you read somewhere, your in danger of losing your hat to points whizzing over your head. While you proselytize, that parrot is pining for the fjords.

Alright, so based on your examples I am getting that you define the advancement of humankind within the confines of accumulated scientific knowledge as it's own end goal.

Let's go with that and assume for a moment that's the case. How much value for mankind did the ashes have after the library of Alexandria got burned? Even if we value scientific knowledge and determine that nothing else matters, shouldn't protecting our ability to gain & store it and - dare I say be around to analyze it - be as vital as getting more of it?

You could use machines to build you a house... But would you use a machine to live in it for you?

I want to explore a hypothetical with you:

Let's say we successfully achieved a self-sufficient robotic industrialized R&D complex in space. Mining, refining, 3D printers building more robot that build 3D printers building rovers and sample collectors and telescope arrays and particle accelerators and millions of automated labs and even sending out von nueman probes, and they do a finer job then we could ever do. Hell, I'll even give you amazing creative and intelligent AI and computers that do better data analysis and theoretical modeling and experimentation and even internal peer review then the entire scientific community on earth ever could.

And yet... We aren't around to see any of that because we stayed here and some shit happened to Earth. How advance is humankind then? Is it sill advancing humankind?

Incorrect. Again, the post had two questions awaiting answers. Those answers were then where logic takes us to the next step.

So there's a lot of work ahead of us.


Cute... But no. You are overestimating my willingness to entertain you - The slow walk by the maze requires cheese you don't currently have, and frankly expresses that you need a rather superficial psychological advantage to form a sense of credibility that the logic of your conclusions can't gain on it's own merits.

If you want to use your podium here to anything more then mental masturbation, you are going to need to use the limited resources you have - yourself. You have answers in mind that convey the specific meanings you've built your thoughts on - provide them, describe your own process of arriving at your perspective. If you desire your notions entertained, let your thesis stand on it's own or crack in collision with reality.

I appreciate a good lampshade as much as anyone, but considering you've already demonstrated that you take your title description to heart, it's more likely that your beliefs stand on sticking to your guns no matter the peer review - which makes it questionable whether your ideas can stand without strings attached at the goal at all. This is your chance to demonstrate otherwise, show that you might have something of substance to offer, or... Choose not too. Either choice conveys information, you could have it be the information you intended to convey in the first place, or express the unfortunate implications of the information you didn't but truth didn't stop to give a shit.

You were asked two simple questions that lead to a simple reply. To explain what you clearly do not understand. A long nasty response like an indignant child is completely unnecessary and childish. I thought I was talking to an adult.

What was actually done on 20 July 1969 to advanced mankind? Do you know how much Hubble has done for man? Why is that so hard? Simple questions define a concept you have not yet grasped. Instead you jumped to conclusions that contradict what I have said. And then become nasty and indignant.

I do make angry adults who are still children by simply challenging them to expand their grasp. In this case to see the topic is larger. I did not expect an emotional child to post in what is only an adult and logical discussion. What you only assumed is "incorrect" - is not what I have said. Anwers to two simple questions would have demonstrated that.

Why are two simple questions too hard? You do not even know what is the advancement of mankind? Is that really so hard? Apparently. But simple answers would clarify what you know - or don't know. So as to explain something completely knew. Instead you want to discuss your dic just like a Sexobon.