To me the world seems to have lost it's mind. Last few days have looked at pictures of gitmo bay and almost threw up. The dehumanizing of people was beyond words. History talked of hitler and auschwitz. Decades later what I saw in those photos of gitmo made me think of images of the the very humiliation that the United states once fought against. Turkey is burning because of fighting back the government turned on it's own people like a mad dog. here in america we finally start getting rights for LBGT . Along comes salvation army saying that it should be a death sentence. Killing people over religion seems to be on the rise. in india  women are burning for supposed witchcraft and girls killed  being victims of rape . The catholic church is says birth control is wrong . Nuns who argue with church are being excommunicated.  In last political race it was debated whether women had a right to their on viginas .  People are dying world over because of religion and lack of even basic medical and dental care. there is hope for this world right? 

http://www.allegiancemusical.com/blog-entry/young-turks?source=upwo...

http://ccrjustice.org/files/Report_ReportOnTorture.pdf

http://www.examiner.com/article/lgbt-parenting-a-death-sentence-wit...

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/05/29-6

Tags: Army, Death, Human, LBGT, Salvation, abuses, religon, rights

Views: 2831

Attachments:

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Arch: Maybe this will help clear things up a little.

Take two forces, we'll call them gravity and angular momentum.

Mass, in this case a planet's mass, generates gravitational force. Meanwhile, the planet's rotation consists of angular momentum. Speeding up or slowing down a planet can alter its angular momentum, but not its gravity.

If you are standing on the surface of a planet, the gravity pulls you down and the angular momentum would be pushing you away. However, as the gravity is far stronger, it's fairly negligible. 

So, slowing down a planet might cause you to hug its surface a tiny bit more, as there would be less angular momentum to counter the gravitational force, but the force of gravity itself wouldn't change. 

Also, a shorter version of Unseen & Tom's viewpoint seems to be "It's going to be hard and we don't know how to do it yet, so we shouldn't bother to try."

@Dave G  Also, a shorter version of Unseen & Tom's viewpoint seems to be "It's going to be hard and we don't know how to do it yet, so we shouldn't bother to try."

I'm not seeing much of my viewpoint in that assessment. I see an ethical issue with sending as yet unborn humans (including many generations of such humans) off on a dangerous, almost certainly lethal, mission from which there is no turning back, especially before there is any need to do so (needing to abandon a dying Earth is a different matter). If we can figure out how to freeze a crew who can be awakened, and if we can figure out some benefit to the generation who sends them off justifying such a mission, then we'll have something to talk about.

Why take benefit to the generation sending them off into consideration? Because the money spent on the boondoggle would be money that could have been spent for some more immediate benefit to fighting disease, for example, or to applying to engineering less destructive forms of energy, to developing an alternative to petroleum, and the list goes on and on.

Then there is the seeming impossibility of it in terms of the risks. So far, the only astronauts we've lost in the conquest of space have died on Earth (Grissom, White, and Chaffee dying in a fire during a test) or before they actually reached space (the Columbia disaster). Between gamma rays, hitting an object at a very high velocity, or some sort of system failure, the likelihood of the crew actually making it out of the solar system, much less a faraway star system, is pretty low.

So, I'm not complaining that it's too hard, I'm asking why should we even try? Especially since we're unlikely to see any benefit here on Earth,.

I finally DID get it, Dave, but thanks for the assist. I believe I was going on the idea that the rotation of an air or water mass, as in the case of Tornadoes or whirlpools, tends to draw things in toward the center.

As for Tom, I suspect he still believes we never landed on the moon in the first place, and as for the UnOne, if I ever reach the point where I understand anything about him, just shoot me --

@Unseen: 

As I asked before, do you also have an ethical issue with the people who came from Europe to live in the Americas back when the journey was highly hazardous, children were often born mid-trip, many died either en route or after arrival and from which few of the next generation would have the option to return? They certainly didn't need to abandon a dying Europe.

the money spent on the boondoggle would be money that could have been spent for some more immediate benefit

Ah, the 'this money was wasted because it wasn't used to perform task of choice!' argument. So, in your opinion, we should immediately stop spending money on creating (and viewing) movies because the money from those boondoggles could be better spent fighting disease. Oh, and no restaurants, eat cheap food at home and use the spare cash to develop new energy sources. In fact, wouldn't it be the ethical path to refuse to spend money on anything beyond bare sustenance, as long as there are problems (disease, energy supplies, food shortages, etc) that require funding to solve? (Yes, my tongue is so firmly in my cheek that it is threatening to pop out the other side)

Oh, would preparing a system to prevent an asteroid collision be an allowable project to fund, or is that on the boondoggle list?

So far, the only astronauts we've lost in the conquest of space have died on Earth (Grissom, White, and Chaffee dying in a fire during a test) or before they actually reached space (the Columbia disaster)

I am going to be charitable here and assume that by 'us' you meant the United States rather than humanity and were not simply discounting the deaths of Vladimir Komarov, Georgi Dobrovolski, Viktor Patsayev, and the other Russian cosmonauts who have died either while in space or during space-related training. (4 in space, 3 in training including Yuri Gagarin)

Even with that limitation, however, you are still wrong.

The Challenger (which I assume is the disaster you meant when you referred to the Columbia) exploded on launch, that is correct. However, the Columbia was lost upon RETURN to  Earth after a two week mission in low Earth orbit.

And in addition to the crew of Apollo 1, whom you reference, let's not forget the original crew of Gemini 9, who died in a training crash, One of the backup crew for Apollo 9 (and slated module pilot for Apollo 12), or one of the astronauts assigned to the Manned Orbiting Laboratory project, who also died in a training crash.

Are there risks and dangers? Sure. And those risks and dangers are precisely what scientists and engineers are working to mitigate or prevent. To protect against cosmic radiation, researchers are developing a device capable of generating an electromagnetic field, similar to the Earth's that can protect against charged radiation. Previously the size and mass was too great for space flight, but recent breakthroughs have allowed for much smaller units (1.5-2.0 meters in length) which generate enough of a field to deflect the incoming radiation.

We encounter problems, we find solutions. It's a habit humanity has gotten into.

I'm asking why should we even try

So that part of my assessment was spot on, then.

@ A. Kozma;

"...there is hope for this world right?"

Not that I can see.

If you see no hope, stop looking at your shoes.

According to what I've read, there was at least one mass extinction in the species that evolved further to become us. If another extinction visits our offspring, a few might survive and be wiser regarding carbon.

If none survive? I'm in my 80s; it won't matter to me.

They will probably evolve to be more resilient and tolerant.

@Tom Sarbeck;

"...there was at least one mass extinction in the species that evolved further to become us."

We also evolved at the same time as our cousins the Neanderthal, we competed with them for space and resources.  Them might have succeeded instead of us except for the fact they tasted just like chicken. :D

Gregg, did you study medicine or take any lab course that used human cadavers?

While in college and working nights in the medical school, a doctor/professor gave me a tour of the human anatomy lab. He opened a cadaver's chest and the flesh looked very much like that of a chicken's white meat.

Doctors might be stranger than some nurses say. During that tour, my guide, who owned a great Dane dog, told me that after the med students had finished with the cadavers, he cooked their remains for his dog. He made very clear that he didn't want his dog to develop a taste for uncooked meat. His manner gave me no reason to think he was joking.

Graphic in Nature

Attachments:

Graphic in nature

Attachments:

Most of those are old pics. (2003) still disgusting. let's take a minute and realize these are humans. Not all germans were nazis, not all muslims are terrorists and not all christians are abortion clinic bombers. To answer your question angie I think we have lost our damn minds....I wish I had a more optimistic view...

RSS

Blog Posts

Creationists Dispute

Posted by Fouad on December 24, 2014 at 7:26am 2 Comments

Services we love!

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service