Mars: One Way

[it]

Battle of the titans


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.

[tw]

Originally Posted by traceur

Alright, I'll play*. Tw - how do you define the advancement of human kind? Scientific knowledge? Technology? Industrial capacity? Control and access to resources?

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.

[xoxoxoBruce]

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

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.

[it]

Originally Posted by tw

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.

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?

[tw]

Originally Posted by traceur

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.

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

[it]

Originally Posted by tw

Do you think you could answer some simple questions rather than fill the board with your manhood? Was it relevant?

So to be clear:
- berating people for acting like children and not been adult enough for a mature logical discussion is something that you've outright become famous for...
- You try to support the above by accuse people of flapping their e-penis at your face.

Do you not see the irony of that? At all? Can something so lowly transparent seriously fly so high above your head?

I asked you first:

Originally Posted by traceur

Tw - how do you define the advancement of human kind?

It's not even a particularly informative question, it's showing interest in your mental framework, despite everyone in the thread saying there's no point. All it requires is some minimum degree of self-inquiry within your own thinking.
Instead of answering, you asked your own questions in turn, which can work under certain conditions, except when that here you can provide a dozen answer each depending entirely on how you define the very variable which I asked you about: The selection of which potential answers demonstrate that the hubble telescope provided more advancement to humankind then to the apollo program depends on how you define the advancement of humankind in the first place, if you think there is an obvious answer that can make the question into a useful leading question it demonstrates your answer is built - or at least supported by - really transparent circular logic.

Now, are you going to sexabon this, or are you going to provide an answer?

[tw]

Originally Posted by traceur

So to be clear:
- berating people for acting like children and not been adult enough for a mature logical discussion is something that you've outright become famous for...

Berating is what you started. I simply defined what you are doing - acting like an adult who is still a child.

Two simple questions. You could not even answer them. Instead you posted a tirade that only a child having a tantrum would post.

Of course, you could grown up, answer those two simple questions, and then we might have an adult conversation. Apparently you cannot. That would be admitting to your tirade.

[it]

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?

[it]

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

Originally Posted by tw

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

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.

[tw]

Originally Posted by traceur

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 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.

[BigV]

[xoxoxoBruce]

Golly jeepers, without Hubble my life would have been so different. Not seeing those beautilicious photographs on the internet would have ruinized my emotional scrapbook.

[it]

Meh. Perhaps he views the discovery of organic chemicals in other solar systems, or the age and our place in the universe, or the thorough understanding of the likely fate of the universe, as essential to his theory. It can be so much, but I gather it is one of those people that view things in a very certain limited narrow way - like the mind of an old fashioned radar with a broken rotor.

I've encountered people like that in the past: He doesn't understand how the advancement of humankind can mean different things in different frameworks or how the discoveries of Hubble or the technologies developed in the Apollo program can have more implications and possible connections then the particular points they inspired for him. Such people can have very interesting perspectives at times with a lot of merit, but there are certain signs when they are there, and more transparently certain defensive strategies that come to play when they are not. So far, in this case there's only the later. It is the same kind of mental handicap that allows him to think of maturity as a linear process and thus easy measurement, which from sexabon comments I gather it's a handicap he likes to demonstrate a lot. I suppose exhibitionism comes in all flavors.

Originally Posted by tw

...

And just like a saxabon post, a knot of disconnected strings tied with fallacies and logical errors and degrees of irony so tight that I don't even know where to start puling from first, like a tiny shitty religion that got invented on the spot and packed into a paragraph. I was almost expecting an attempt at a spell correction victory or some other pathetic excuse for 1upmanship as a replacement for thoughtful investment and awareness, and it seems I got the later.

Anyway, you've made your choice:

Originally Posted by traceur

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.

The good new is that your choice can be undone - if you are capable of seen yourself within your own maze or have a portion of the maturity you pretend too, you can always stop to think about what you were actually doing and go back to review your choice.

The bad news is that option is available to you regardless of whether you choose to consider it or not. Every single portion of time in which you could have chosen to demonstrate that your theory has substance is another line on a chart where your name and 0% exists next to a time stamp, with the 2nd column marked "substance demonstrated". Tick tock, another piece of evidence against the theory that tw has something of substance to demonstrate got timestamped on the clock, every hour is an experiment to find signs of merit to your thoughts (or beliefs resulting from with lack thereof), and every hour that passes without it is another experiment that found nothing.

[tw]

Originally Posted by traceur

Meh. Perhaps he views the discovery of organic chemicals in other solar systems, ....

Do you think you could answer some simple questions rather than fill the board with your manhood?
Apparently my ethics software blockes that picture of your penis. Was it relevant?

[sexobon]

I'm glad tw is xoB's bitch now instead of mine. Tw's developmental impairment is manifesting itself again. Poor tw has failed his Kobayashi Maru in the Mars; One Way thread because of it. He just can't win. I hope his form of handicap spares him from ruminating over it like a traceur.