[ExI] Gary North believes the search for extraterrestrial life...
painlord2k at libero.it
Sat Feb 9 16:23:09 UTC 2013
Il 07/02/2013 22:22, Dan ha scritto:
> Well, it's hilarious. He really thinks, regardless of the tax-funding,
> that it's all about disproving his particular theology.* That's what
> these folks are about?!
No, I don't think he think all the people involved have this agenda.
What he believe, being a libertarian, is the first goal of the project
Keplero is to justify NASA existence and government fundings (the same
But, being a government agency and knowing the types of political hacks
that are nominated to manage the agencies or with the power to decide
the fundings, it is not improbable the priorities are all skewed up and
down all around the map.
It is not improbable the decisions about what funding, how much and why,
are influenced by stuff completely different like not hurt the feeling
of someone (maybe a committed atheist with an ax to grind against
Christianity with political influence).
> And I disagree with him about search for extraterrestrial life would not
> happen in a totally free market society.
It would happen, surely, like the funding for other charities.
Like the funding for cataloging the types of butterflies in Brazil.
I think it is this that some Scientists hate more: being demoted to the
level of charities. But the work they do is on the same level as for a
practical stand point. If they have no way to show or explain the
material reward for a research project, it is just for some not material
Now, suppose these project succeed in showing up one or more planets
have life and, maybe, people on them.
Practical utility for the average Joe? How this will change his life,
apart from a philosophical/religious point of view?
What is the difference from looking for extraterrestrial life forms with
a giant telescope in orbit and debating the sex life of angels?
And what are the time frames to show any of them successful?
Both are not very high on my list of priorities.
I would like NASA financed (if NASA must exist) new technologies useful
to go there, not to look at there.
I regard space, stars, planets like women. To look at them is relaxing,
exciting, funny. But in the end, you want go there and do things with them.
> My guess is in a more free
> market society, presuming people were interested and most things stayed
> the same (such as technological progress -- i.e., everyone doesn't all
> decide to become Amish), access to space would be much cheaper, so that
> funding efforts like space telescopes and interplanetary and even
> interstellar probes could be done on much smaller budgets. My guess is,
> too, under a free market in space transportation, the overall price
> would not only come down, but a more flexibility infrastructure would be
> built -- one that doesn't have just a few national or international
> space efforts with a somewhat political selection process on whom and
> what goes into space.
The point in a more free market society is the level of funding would be
wildly different. There would much more research on applied science and
technology with economic returns and less on pet projects with no useful
(to us) ROI.
Then, with much more wealth available, the level of funding for petty
research would be greater than now, but it is not.
It is like the AGW mess. Why there is no real market based research?
Because there is no way to profit without government intervention.
Sea Level will raise? Where are the smart speculators buying out
highlands? Climate will become hotter, where are speculators buying
worthless (now) land in Canada or Patagonia?
> Maybe I'm wrong about this. It's just my speculation, but why does North
> believe he's right? Simply because he doesn't care about what's off
> Earth does not mean no one does.
I think he would agree with you and would support you if you choose to
use your money to finance this research.
I bet he would be more interested in financing, with his money, research
about space propulsion that make space accessible for more people and
Or maybe in financing life extension research.
> And it certainly doesn't mean, absent
> loads of government-funding, no one would ever try to find out. This
> seems along the lines of if the government didn't fund fossil hunting,
> no one would ever look for fossils. Well, they did look for them long
> before it was subsidized by the government and much fossil hunting today
> seems to be a private affair.
In fact, there are no big pork behind fossil hunting.
But there is big pork behind space exploration.
What would happen to all this pork if they found something?
It would vanish.
Are you sure they will publish any discovery if this jeopardize their
> * Why would finding life off Earth disprove Christianity any more than
> finding out the Earth isn't flat or that the Earth isn't a few thousand
> years old? I mean since Christians aren't going to let those other facts
> get in the way of their beliefs, why would finding some pond scum on
> Mars matter to them? I imagine Christians will find a way to make their
> beliefs sit well with whatever is found off world.
It is not a Christianity problem (for sure Catholics have no problem
He is not arguing E.T. will disprove Christianity (or Islam) in any way.
He is arguing the people (the politicians mainly) funding the research
think it will do and try to use the research to do it, for their
More information about the extropy-chat