Peterkin

I'm not. The problem is, you're not, either. I do. The same kind of people are still making them. A moral obligation to the continuity of life? It's either a mission or a half-assed atonement. Either way, it's religious fervour. How does it promote science to send something that already exists to someplace that already exist in a vessel we already know how to make? That's not a reason. Extraction of metals, energy use and waste products of making and shipping the components. Fuel for propulsion. Blastoff. More space junk orbiting earth. Space exploration has not been a big % contributor to the mess we're in due to all our other innovations and conveniences, but the reserves are depleted with every single wasted rocket, missile and shuttle, and every aspect of the procedure kills native species. 2010 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwFXtJKaC3A That's what I think.

Interesting. What led you to that conclusion?

Because you have no way of predicting the results. Shoot an arrow into the air, it comes to earth... if somebody's in the way - oh well, we didn't see them so that's okay. In that case, it doesn't require this "little project". I wish it were not so! We, and so many other species, have paid dearly for that blundering science. And how do we know that? And how do we know the transport missile will find the intended target, and not collide with a moonlet or an asteroid that had some entirely unique life-form until we killed them? Did you read the quote? The guy's giving humanity a purpose. Fine. I didn't say it was. I asked why. Yes, that would be more in the nature of an experiment, rather than than mission. They could learn something from the moon, or Mars, or Titan (not Europa!), within a plausible time-frame. It doesn't have to be easy - I just wish it could be done without causing more damage to only the planet we know can still support life.

I didn't describe 'devastating expense'. I mentioned depletion of earth resources to send hardware on 6000+ year journey, never to be heard from again. The few billion $ is not my main question; I realize we squander far more on weapons of mass destruction. The LHC wasn't exactly a minor project, either, and not without associated non-monetary costs. I'm not mad keen on the idea of making and even bigger one, but I understand why they want to. They hope they'll learn something about how the universe works. Exporting microbes is just blind, blundering interference with how the universe works. That's just another way to do "God's work", or to become gods. No god ever laid on me a "moral obligation" to meddle in the development of other planets, though I feel a certain responsibility to preserve life on this one.

Why do you think life as we know it on this planet should continue? Why should the life of a planet not end with the planet which gave rise to it? * I'm using the word "should" advisedly, since the question is directed, not at a natural process, but at a huge artificial and mechanical contrivance that would deplete this planet of its ability to sustain life even further than we have already depleted it. This strikes me as not merely counter-intuitive, but counter-productive, to such an extent that there must be a some kind of imperative driving it. So - Why? *Obviously, if life as we know it didn't originate on this planet, but came from somewhere else in the galaxy, then it's already out there and doesn't need a boost.

And yet again: Why? Just because that's what puffballs do.... except they can't, so we should. What for?

So -- No purpose? No gain in knowledge? No preserving human progeny or culture? All that effort and expulsion of Earth resources into space - just because it's what puffballs do? OK then

So we can learn about it. Otherwise, what's the point? Humans value life - one and off, some life, erratically - that doesn't make life valuable to the universe. It's just more hubris, pretending it's all here for us.

How do you learn it? Even supposing such a hospitable planet is found, how many centuries would it take for the microbes to travel there, and how long before they report back?

Fair enough. You got one opinion. Carry on.

No. Educational institutions should teach us about how governance is supposed to work. Unfortunately, it does a very poor job of that, in the hands of conservative state and provincial governments. Public television and radio should tell us about the daily activities of government, and usually tries, even though it's underfunded and undervalued. Comedy news tells us the things regular news - for whatever reason - doesn't.

Then why propose it? I'm not averse to looking at the universe; I am to tampering with it. Look how badly we messed up our one little planet! I'm not in favour of exporting our manias.

Exactly. It's one of those hobgoblins the Republicans trot out every election, to cover up their massive voter suppression. I'm pretty sure civics classes wouldn't cover that as well as they ought, simply because, in the US, the education system is under the control of state authority. OTH, it would be quite useful to give Stephen Colbert's and John Oliver's shows as homework, with a quiz every week.

A little project? How many $billions; how many scientist and technician-hours, how much effort that might be directed at saving lives on Earth? While we can - which we actually can, while terraforming and seeding another planet is a long shot, at best.

What for? So we can get credit (from whom?) as intelligent designers? Shouldn't we rather let the promising worlds work out their own fertility issues? But that's an ethics question, not an evolution question. Only if 'we' take all the other life forms on Earth with us. That's unlikely. Most of them, sure; probably not all. So this planet can still have a second chance. Better yet, suppose we stop short of mass extinction?

Absolutely! I gather it used to be more rigorous, as well as standard in all schools, but here is an article on what's happening in the US now. I haven't checked whether it's mandatory in Canad now, but resources are available to teachers.https://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=med&dir=bkg&document=bkg_civic&lang=e . When I went to school, lessons on government structure, responsibilities, powers, parliamentary procedure and electoral process were part of the History/Geography program in Grades 7, 8 and 12.

Small differences. Tick-picking seed eater. 468 of the little guys, picking ticks off the 10 rhinos in the ark. In London. Got it.

Okay. Explain why the differences and similarities among these birds: https://www.countryfile.com/wildlife/birds/british-finches-how-to-identify-and-where-to-see/

You really have no frickin idea, have you?

What are primary observations? What is the secondary observer looking at? I didn't know observation comes in degrees. Please to elucidate. How does one build an observation on an assumption? And what is "the assumption of naturalism"? Having assumed a 'naturalism' (admittedly, a skill I have not yet mastered), how do I proceed to build an observation on it? It... does...not....com...pute. They're lovely! And clever, too. All different kinds for different food sources and environments. One damn cool bird is the finch.

I've never noticed any. For example, the snow doesn't melt off; it falls off if the incline is steep enough. Here is one site I found off the bat - uncritically. Seems plausible. We have had a little trouble keeping the batteries charging efficiently, even with grid hydro top-up, as they're in an unheated storage room.

It doesn't work the same way. The readers of harry potter stories are passive consumers. The believers in Jesus were prepared to die gruesome, painful martyr deaths. That kind of devotion is not earned through some contribution from various people writing a story. Inspiring fanatics is the work of a charismatic leader. That's two very different propositions. My stance is: there was a charismatic revivalist preacher, and he had contemporary peers, disciples and imitators, the most successful of whom were identified with him by the followers, who later attributed to this composite memory everything that supported their belief. But the belief, the enthusiasm, the fanaticism comes before the embellishments, not after.

How do you know? It's impossible to trace the origins of most religions. But somebody started Judaism and somebody led the Jews against all those other tribes. Myths don't just rise up out of the sand. What, then, was that head made of? We all know about that. The Christian god(s), just like the Roman gods, were deliberately identified with whatever mythology already existed. The Holy Virgin was added to make up for the lack of goddesses in Judaism, because most of the pagan belief systems have female deities. The saints more or less represent the guardian spirits of various localities. None of this precludes an originator of the doctrine. A real person is easy to mythify. A myth is very hard to make flesh.

Ay, there's the rub! They are loath to be 'part of' a world full of wond'rous flora and fauna, but wish rather to be clay-footed angels.

Not all by themselves. And that's a problem. Also, of course, that Adam and eve didn't seem to know they had genitals, let alone what those were for, until they ate the fruit of knowledge - and then they were doomed to work, suffer and have kids. Men are hairier, have more covering. But what's the point, if it doesn't keep you warm? And some guy takes the credit if right, burns them at the stake if they're right about something some guy wants to keep secret. occasional and problematic