Seems some Astronauts are upset about Obama's decision to cancel further trips to the moon.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8565243.stm#id8560000/8565600/8565617 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8565243.stm#id8560000/8565600/8565617)
One reason cited:
Quote
"I think America has a responsibility to maintain its leadership in technology and its moral leadership... to seek knowledge. Curiosity's the essence of human existence."
Now, as a non-US tax payer, this rather surprises me.
Leadership in technology from an institution that can't use metric measurement?
Moral leadership from a nation dominated by the christian taliban?
Now I realise that NASA is held in high regard by many Americans who see it as cutting edge in technology. But should Americans really be spending the sort of amounts it will cost for this project while some still complain about the cost of providing basic health care for its own citizens?
QuoteBut should Americans really be spending the sort of amounts it will cost for this project while some still complain about the cost of providing basic health care for its own citizens?
No we are trying to find other places to put the world's population that keeps growing due to government supported socialism. We have too many people and not enough tax money. NASA is not regarded as the cutting edge technology. It is regarded as a can do organization. Private industry has done most of the work.
The cutting edge is the $3.5bn National Ignition Facility (NIF) sits in a 10-storey building covering three football fields and will harness the power of lasers to turn tiny pellets of hydrogen into thermonuclear energy.
The amount of money spent on NASA is miniscule compared to...well, just about anything else, except for other science-related spending. The benefits, meanwhile, are tremendous. See the NASA budget wiki article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Budget (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Budget)
The value of the manned program is separately debatable.
Quote from: spacial on March 13, 2010, 10:39:40 AM
Leadership in technology from an institution that can't use metric measurement?
We CAN, but we just chose not to make metric our national default. Besides, metric isn't inherently superior to English. I mean, it's not as if the most basic human counting system is base ten, or anything silly like that. ::)
Quote from: spacial on March 13, 2010, 10:39:40 AM
Now I realise that NASA is held in high regard by many Americans who see it as cutting edge in technology. But should Americans really be spending the sort of amounts it will cost for this project while some still complain about the cost of providing basic health care for its own citizens?
Well, it's not as if we can't do two things at once--this isn't automatically an either/or situation. And compared to subsidized health care, space programs are cheap, cheap, cheap. Not to mention that me they enable all sorts of other breakthroughs, although I must admit that I'm not a big fan of Velcro. :D
Firstly, I'd like to publically apologise to the moderators here for posting this in the opinions section.
I was attempting to highlight the NASA man's claim to moral leadership and felt this belonged in opinions. It's now been moved because the opinions are only for TG topics. I will attempt to be more careful in future.
I also would like to say sorry to Americans for my silly criticism of NASA. Normally I would no more criticise NASA to Americans than criticise Football to British people or Paris to French people.
One of the benefits of having mood swings is that you can write something at one point then later, when your mood has changed, you can read it from a completely different perspective.
I'm sure the work of NASA is of immense importance. I'm sure we all appreciate the contributions it has made to the modern world.
But, I'm having a real problem seeing how NASA can have any claim to moral leadership.
It's just a habit in this country. People use catch phrases all the time without even thinking about what they mean or if they're true. I could throw out all sorts of examples but I'd really rather not get wound up right now.
But as for NASA, I'll throw in my 2 cents. I think there has been a lot of value gained out of the space program. Shuttle launches in particular have been great for putting communications satellites and the Hubble in space if nothing else. However, I don't think going (back?) to the moon has any benefit whatsoever. But, as was said, their budget is pretty small. There are any number of more worthy things to cut funding from if we need the money.
QuoteBut, I'm having a real problem seeing how NASA can have any claim to moral leadership.
I am afraid if it is moral leadership you are looking for, governments are the wrong direction. You need to look at religion. Governments are more leaning to justice not morals.
Would you rather have NASA and say the European SA as the leaders in the overall space industry or the Chinese and Iranians?
The NASA as "moral leaders" goes back to the "Space Race" and "Apollo Program" eras.
When it was "classical liberalism" vs. communism in-so-much as it was the USA vs the USSR.
Quote from: michellesofl on March 15, 2010, 01:03:16 AM
Would you rather have NASA and say the European SA as the leaders in the overall space industry or the Chinese and Iranians?
The NASA as "moral leaders" goes back to the "Space Race" and "Apollo Program" eras.
When it was "classical liberalism" vs. communism in-so-much as it was the USA vs the USSR.
During the cold war, words and ideas became increasingly confused as each side attempted to convince its own citizens that theirs was the rightious cause.
This has been revived where, for example, Iraq has been bombed back to the stone age to liberate it.
But scientists are increasingly claiming intellectual authority over subjective issues when they have none. There are already some serious example of senior scientists, such as prof. Dawkins making preposterus claims about a number of subject, not least, evolution.
If we continue to tolerate this, we risk running down a dangerous road where tyrrany is justified in the name of freedom. Where the use of pain and terror are said not to amount to torture. Where death is treated as freedom. Murder is becomes treatment.
All of these have already happened.
As a society, we stand around, afraid to take a stand incase we are lableled as paranoid.
Quote
If we continue to tolerate this, we risk running down a dangerous road where tyranny is justified in the name of freedom.
Freedom can only be defined by restrictions due to natural restraints not man made laws. Tyranny comes from any type of leadership control.
Rational thinking based on facts will yield the best probability but irrational beliefs are part of being human and artist expression. Survival is best attained without putting all the eggs in one basket.
Quote from: Arch on March 13, 2010, 05:16:25 PM
We CAN, but we just chose not to make metric our national default. Besides, metric isn't inherently superior to English. I mean, it's not as if the most basic human counting system is base ten, or anything silly like that. ::)
Wasn't that the problem with the Hubble mirror; one side was polished/ground in metric and the other side in 'english'?
I have to admit I'm biased. But who isn't :laugh:. I think funding science projects is good value. Particularly outside of times of war. It advances human knowledge eventually to the benefit of all. Besides if the Moon program hadn't gone ahead who would have invented non-stick fry-pans. If the next goes ahead they may invent ones that clean themselves :laugh:
Cindy
There is a Thomas Jefferson quote that fits here. I am trying to remember it accurately.
Quote from: lisagurl on March 15, 2010, 08:22:10 PM
Freedom can only be defined by restrictions due to natural restraints not man made laws. Tyranny comes from any type of leadership control.
Rational thinking based on facts will yield the best probability but irrational beliefs are part of being human and artist expression. Survival is best attained without putting all the eggs in one basket.
No. Freedom, as individualism, is law based upon social need rather than dogma.
Previously, the dogma came from clerics who claimed divine justfication. Their knowledge was superior to ours, so questioning was dismissed.
Now, those we identify as scientists are justifying infringements upon individualism with claims of superior knowledge. Increasingly, scientists are making moral pronouncements, mixing the boundries between subjectivity and objectivity.
Quote from: CindyJames on March 16, 2010, 01:57:49 AM
I have to admit I'm biased. But who isn't :laugh:. I think funding science projects is good value. Particularly outside of times of war. It advances human knowledge eventually to the benefit of all. Besides if the Moon program hadn't gone ahead who would have invented non-stick fry-pans. If the next goes ahead they may invent ones that clean themselves :laugh:
Cindy
I doubt you are the only one to be biased in this respect. most of us are. The byproducts of space research are evident for all of us equally.
We respect scientists because their knowledge is often superior. I respect my car machanic because he can fix my car while I know I can't.
But a scientist who claims authority over subjective issues, expecially morality, is dishonstly moving into territory, he isn't qualified to occupy.
He is a fraud and a charlitan. But more, since we tend to give scientists considerable lattitude that is generally forbidden from the rest of us, he is dangerous.
QuoteNo. Freedom, as individualism, is law based upon social need rather than dogma.
You need to read philosophy starting with Plato. "Freedom is the state of being allowed to do what you want to do."
You can do what you want but you may not like the consequences. Only natural laws stop you. Now in society you may not like the reaction of others to your doing what you like, that is another paradigm. Any government's ability to govern depends on the citizens consent. Social needs are determined by culture of the community. No one has to be social but it does provide many benefits.
Post Merge: March 16, 2010, 04:48:27 PM
QuoteBut more, since we tend to give scientists considerable lattitude that is generally forbidden from the rest of us,
You have misplaced trust. Doctors and scientists are not Gods and have the morals and ethics as you or anyone else.
Read : "Doubt is their product"
Doubt is Their Product: How Industry's Assault on Science Threatens Your Health
Quote from: lisagurl on March 16, 2010, 04:44:10 PM
You need to read philosophy starting with Plato. "Freedom is the state of being allowed to do what you want to do."
No, freedom, within a community is tempered by the needs of others.
Restrictions on freedom must be based upon social need rather than dogma.
However, the point remains that, these NASA types are claiming moral leadership. That is to say, they are claiming authority over a subjective issue based upon their scientific credentials.
Attempting to integrate the precision of science with the subjectivity of morality can only lead to leadership based upon a dogma.
QuoteHowever, the point remains that, these NASA types are claiming moral leadership.
To my knowledge NASA never has proclaimed moral leadership. They have proclaimed cutting edge on knowledge of space but never morals.
Freedom in a social community is only restricted by responsibility and commitment to the communities agreed cultural values. If you do not like their values or your responsibilities you are free to leave.
Quote from: ativan on March 16, 2010, 10:39:25 PM
They are refering to the moral obligation of space exploration, which man has desired since the first person looked up at the stars and said "Aa-ah" (or something that sounded kinda the same).
Its not about human morals, societies morals, just a moral obligation to that question of 'well just what the h*ll is out there?'.
Albert Einstien made moral judgements more than once. Scientists and the like are often asked their moral opinion because they are percieved to be smarter, more intelligent, so therefore their morals must be also? And who said they weren't allowed to? Do you feel that they are so much more intelligent that they can't have moral judgements? Or are they so much more intelligent that they must be above morals? Some of the most intelligent people the world has seen are also morally corrupt.
Expecting intelligent people to have morals is like expecting them to know your middle name. Why would they?
all this of course is just my humble opinion, just as yours is yours.
I think that scientist etc end up making moral judgements because others will not. Too often we reach a point in society and science that the 'morals' have not reached. Debate is limited to those who think they know what is going on. General society cannot or won't join in the debate because they may not understand the situation. In such areas as stem cell research, global warming etc, society may not be aware of the science. Judgements are made by those who are vocal rather than those who have understanding. All too often the vocal ones have side issues which are more important to them than the debate over the science, be it religion or industry.
Just MHO also
Cindy
Quote from: lisagurl on March 16, 2010, 08:56:07 PM
To my knowledge NASA never has proclaimed moral leadership.
Quote from: ativan on March 16, 2010, 10:39:25 PM
They are refering to the moral obligation of space exploration,
I suggest you watch the video. The relevant quote is at 28 seconds where he says, 'I think America has a responsibility to maintain, it's leadership in technology, it's moral leadership in the world, to explore, to seek knowledge, ......
But, as I said earlier, I realise that being seen to criticise NASA, to an American, is inconceivable.
Quote from: CindyJames on March 17, 2010, 02:30:45 AM
I think that scientist etc end up making moral judgements because others will not.
Cindy
That's a silly thing to say Cindy. The problem is too many people, from every walk of life, are making moral judgements. Their own.
Scientists have the same and equal right to participate in the development of the world as anyone else.
But too often, their emphasis on moralality is backed by specious association with science.
We have seen this reported here where that Canadian psychiatrist, on the committee reviewing the DSM, is attempting to attack the surgical approach to gender dysphoria when it has been clearly demostrated to work in the majority of cases. Whereas the alternative apporaches have been demonstrated to have a poor outcome in the majority of cases.
Quote from spacial:
I think that scientist etc end up making moral judgements because others will not.
Cindy
That's a silly thing to say Cindy. The problem is too many people, from every walk of life, are making moral judgements. Their own.
Scientists have the same and equal right to participate in the development of the world as anyone else.
But too often, their emphasis on morallity is backed by specious association with science.
We have seen this reported here where that Canadian psychiatrist, on the committee reviewing the DSM, is attempting to attack the surgical approach to gender dysphoria when it has been clearly demostrated to work in the majority of cases. Whereas the alternative apporaches have been demonstrated to have a poor outcome in the majority of cases.
I think you misunderstand by my (poorly presented) argument. I am by no means suggesting that scientists/Drs/whatevers are making the correct moral decision. BUT that they are being put into situations where they have too. I make a decison to transplant a kidney into X, a liver into Y etc etc. On what moral grounds do I make it? Accepted that the outcome for the recipients are the same, on what grounds do we make the decision? That X is next on the list, that Y is next on the list? That Y is a young mum with a family, that x is a community leader. That X is an alcholic who will die without a new liver, that Y has been on dialysis for 5 years and I cannot find a vein anymore?
Who makes the moral decision? The law cannot, it has not caught up with science. Will society? No.
Is this a good thing? NO. Mengeles had his morals as a medic, were they acceptable NO.
But my argument is that someone has to push the moral debate. Is it a good thing? Yes we have to push the boundries. But we need people who are willing to understand and debate the issues. People who do not understand or rather do not wish to understand the issues have no right in the debate. They are irrelevent (IMO).
Are the moral principles discussed by such people correct? No way, but moral principles evolve with understanding. For example, Thalidomine was a great drug for treating extreme nausa in pregnancy, were the people who gave it to thir patients morally responsible for the awful outcomes? We now use thalidomide for MM very succesfully, is the drug company morally irresponsible for making such a drug, that caused such awfull deformaties? It now saves lives. How do we decide on the morality of the decision?
I think that morality in your argument needs to be defined. I may be interpreting your discussion incorrectly. However, I am enjoying it :angel:
Regards
Cindy
Agree with your point absolutely. Having worked in health services myself, this comes up all the time.
Should a chair bound woman in her 90s, who's family have all died and who has decided that she wants to fade away, be treated for depression and given intravenous feeding because she might have another few years of life?
With respect though, this is a somewhat separate issue.
The term moral was used by the NASA man in terms of moral leadership by scientists.
The arguments in favour of surgical treatment for gender dysphoria are clear. In the majority of cases it works. A statistical determination of course. The opposition case, as presented, seems to be entirely judgemental.
I suggest it isn't the place of scientists to make these judgements.
We all have to make judgements.
But the difference is these scientists, with what can only be described as an impressive record, scientifically, claiming that their scientific background qualifies them for moral leadership.
The principal of democracy is that we each can manage our own lives, individualism, and participate in the overall management of our society. These are two separate issues though.
The intrusion of societal management should only intrude upon individual management where the aspirations of the individual might intrude upon the rest of society.
In western society, for example, we don't, generally, permit people to walk around naked. In itself, public nudity isn't going to affect anyone else. But social attitudes, albeit, perceptually, interpreted nudity, as a provocative act rather than an individual decision on personal appearance. So, a western society will generally prohibit this.
In western society, we generally, have no restriction on homosexuality. You and I, being of a similar age and coming from the same area of the world, will recall a time when homosexuality was not tolerated. My own time, living in homosexual relationships were actually criminal offences!
But society has changed its attitudes. There was, admittedly, a latter day contribution, from scientist types, who delivered a conveniently times and somewhat specious pronouncement about homosexuality being innate. But societies attitudes had already shifted. Largely from the contribution from the arts.
Moral leadership must be fluid. It must be capable of adaptation and flexibility to reflect the changing attitudes of the time.
Science is not fluid. It is absolute. Where is does alter, is in the face of new evidence. It matter not that the majority believe the world to be flat, science clearly demonstrated that it is round. (Shadow on the moon).
But morality is the source of societal management. It must reflect the attitudes of the majority. Quite simply because, if the people don't support law, the law doesn't exist. (Swift).
ITs ok you dont need to go in to space. Water has been found on mars..
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmartianchronicles.files.wordpress.com%2F2009%2F07%2Fwater_on_mars__a_confirmation.jpg&hash=c03d4bb0ba508fa23dde5f05fb502ab0465351df)
QuoteI suggest you watch the video. The relevant quote is at 28 seconds where he says, 'I think America has a responsibility to maintain, it's leadership in technology, it's moral leadership in the world, to explore, to seek knowledge, ......
But, as I said earlier, I realize that being seen to criticize NASA, to an American, is inconceivable.
Astronauts do not make any policy for NASA no more than Tiger Woods makes moral policy for professional Golf. If you read "The Right Stuff" many complained they where nothing more than laboratory animals. I would say that it is the citizens responsibility to adjust morals in their community because morals are not universal but man made, subject to common understandings that make communities work. Science has no relation to morals as they look for universal truth. The funding of science comes from your voting with your dollar for corporations, business and government that you support.
Post Merge: March 17, 2010, 09:09:56 AM
QuoteThe term moral was used by the NASA man in terms of moral leadership by scientists.
Again you need to separate propaganda from fact. NASA is controlled by Congress not by an aging astronaut. You need to understand the difference between personal freedom of speech and personal opinions and official policy. One of the biggest problems of the web is finding what is truth, which many younger users have no idea how to do.
As i've already indicated, I apologise for daring to even think critically of NASA.
I trust, when they develop their warp engine and zoom off the battle with other worlds, the implications of my indiscretion will be put aiside as I faithfully perform such humble duties as are alliocated to a sinner such as myself.
NASA, like other government programs might hire a butt-load of scientists and engineers - but in the end it's run by administrators, who are political appointees, and they get there by knowing which way the wind blows. And, there can be very little doubt which direction that breeze has been coming from in the last few decades.
And even if they don't believe it, they might just be saying that to 'sell' the program to people who think that's the only reason to do anything.
I've never heard a scientist claim any sort of moral authority with regards to being a scientist. I'm sure most of them feel that they are moral people - even the ones who design nuclear weapons - but that is not a result of science.
And the best reason I've ever heard for doing this kind of research and exploration is because we're going there. We're going into space, so it's good to know where we are going.
By the way, most science uses, and has used metric measurement for a long time now. It's political/cultural deal why that conversion wasn't fully implemented, but it's in effect in about half of things that use such things, like soda being sold in liters. There is some thinking that part of the original trouble with Hubble came from a metric/english conversion problem, but its far more likely that the problem was just that we had never tried to do that before and the effects of mirrors and lenses being made in one gravity level and then placed into another caused a bit of a warp. Whatever the reasons, they were fixed, and the results are among the most mind-blowing things I've ever seen.
http://hubblesite.org/gallery/ (http://hubblesite.org/gallery/)
And the total cost of this is a very small part of the federal budget.
QuoteAs i've already indicated, I apologise for daring to even think critically of NASA.
I have no idea where you get the notion that NASA is held in high regard by the American people. The U.S. is broke and everything needs fixing especially the Government and all its Dept's. America is about freedom and liberty not its government or Dept's.
Who cares about going to the moon. Its boring! Its a bout time the planet Earth built some starships and headed for the nearest M class planet in our Galaxy. Forget about the moon its a dead rock. What we really need is to build a fleet of Star Destroyers. Im sure George Lucas could help with the plans or blueprints for the Fleet. And all those Star Trek and other Sci-fans could help.
May the Force be with you!