The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

I'm sure this will turn political, but I do believe it is too important not to spread the knowledge:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fl07UfRkPas&feature=player_embedded

I am a firm believer of NASA and its major contributions to society.

I love this man.

1) Neil deGrasse Tyson is boss.

2) This is one of those issues where I'm torn.  I love NASA, personally.  And I think that the argument can be made that the ultimate goal of space exploration is the single most important goal of not just America, but humanity in general, which is to learn more about ourselves, our existence, and our environment.  But I reject two things.  First off, I don't like comparing how much we spend on one thing and relating it to another thing, in order to justify it.  Even if it's only 1/8 of a penny, unjust money is still unjust.  So, I reject that arguing point.  If the bank bailout was a bad decision, so be it -- don't use it to justify other unsound decisions. 

My bigger question is that we need to ask ourselves if it's the role of government to run a space program without a specific, defined national interest.  I think you can make an argument that it is the role of government, but you need to define it, which leads me to my second point: I don't like the "aimlessness" of the space program.  There doesn't seem to be any defined goal to the exploration.  When we were trying to get to the moon, there was a challenge that we all rallied behind.  We succeeded.  It was shared accomplishment through shared sacrifice.  I think that's lacking now.  NASA lacks concrete goals.

I think that I'd like to see us invest in greater technology, in general, and that includes space exploration and the discoveries that come with it.  I don't mind using additional funds/grants/tax breaks towards that goal -- however, I'd like for it to be much more clearly defined than it is now.

I'm not going to get into political,should we fund NASA,or should we not...I'm just going to present my view,and feeling after watching the video...

I don't think we stopped dreaming,I think it plainly said we went to the moon because of Sputnik,war,etc...Then everything was built around tomorrow,Future world,etc...I feel that's the fundamental lie,misleading truth part of it....

I'm 36,gonna be 37 in August,they space race was pretty much over for most of my life,we won...But the feeling that by now we would be living on the moon,mars,going to space more often the future world of tomorrow would be much farther along...Where did I park my flying car? I think we were sort of lead to believe a lot more of us would have been in space by now...

I feel my older siblings probably feel more deceived for a better sense of the word than I...While Totally Unfair,I see NASA as a face for those failures in some way.

I totally agree with Dave,that NASA needs a defined direction,mission etc...

It's just my take on the video...I'm not sure what to think of NASA honestly...

I feel more people in Florida (I wonder about the Houston area) have more interest in NASA because of location than people who live isolated from the events. There was huge interest when the shuttle first started flying and when the shuttle stopped flying. In between, when I was in other parts of the country, no one had any idea the shuttle was going up or coming back unless there was a tragedy. In Florida I still never paid attention myself but the natives would always know the schedule.

I just don't know that our most current path was adding much to our lives. I may be mistaken but what recent advancements can we attribute to NASA (the key word is recent) as far as manned missions? Maybe someone can sway me, but I just do not see any real advancement going on.

I agree with Tyson. The man is pure genius.

We're in the midst of the sixth mass extinction event- and the first one caused by man- but rather than try to make our planet better, we are going to go putzing around in space. It's not enough we screwed up this planet with global warming and the exploitation of fuels and organisms, so now we're on a mission to screw up more planets. Wow.... Never been prouder to be an American. -EK

I think it is a bit of a stretch to say that we have "already screwed up this planet."

That being said, if you really want to take the long view, getting off this planet should be the most important goal of the human race.  Right now (with all humans confined to Earth), no matter how many windmills and solar panels we build, one poorly-placed meteor and our civilization is toast.  And in the really long view (the ridiculously long, not-worth-arguing view), our planet itself has a limited shelf life before it takes up residence inside the Sun.

So while I do think space exploration (and specifically, colonization) is the most important thing for our species, I wouldn't say it's the most important thing right now.

Really? A bit of a stretch? Do you just not believe in global warming? Pollution? Extinction of plants and animals- some of which aren't even discovered until they're dead- that ultimately could help cure disease? You are aware that a prostoglandin in simple fish oil has been shown with 100% success to completely cure leukemia in animals. Human trials are underway and look just as promising. What if we continue killing off organisms at the rate we are now, and oops! We knock off one that could cure all cancers or AIDS or any number of other diseases? The fact that Americans spend enough on their pets every year to feed, educate, and vaccinate the entire world is embarrassing, by we just keep consuming and consuming and consuming and give little back. 191 countries ratified the Kyoto Protocol documents. America didn't. Countries who were too poor to have three sticks to rub together signed it to try and actually do something beneficial for the planet, but America in its arrogance did not. Why? May personally inconvenience one of us some day, so Bush felt like those resources could be better used on say... Space travel. That's great. When we meet an alien race and they ask us, "hey partner, what brings you out our way?" the answer we will give can be, with all the honesty in the world, "well... We destroyed earth, caused global warming, spent all our money on space travel instead of education for our young or health care for our elderly, and since our planet's no fun anymore and we spent hundreds of billions of dollars in NASA, we thought we'd screw up your planet next. You wanna slide over a little? We're gonna just squeeze in here." -EK

Yes, I think it's a huge stretch to say that this planet is already screwed up.

It's fair to say that Lehman Brothers is already screwed up.  It's fair to say that AOL is already screwed up.  It's fair to say that Chernobyl is already screwed up.  The entire planet Earth?  You're jumping the gun.

Then you have no concept of ecological reality. The rate at which the global temperature is rising, water is being consumed, and species are becoming extinct is the worst ever in the history of, well, ever. There's a valid concern that mankind will run out of clean water by the end of the century, and it's already happening in this very country right now. To conserve water, the state of Texas restricted water use in 1,000 cities and towns last year. Of those, 17 are considered critical -- in danger of running out of water in six months or less. Two already ran out of water this month. That's not jumping the gun. It's not sometime soon. It's now. And as long as people remain in denial about what we did to this planet like you're doing, things will continually get worse. Add to this that it took until 1850 to have a billion people, and the exponential growth of the world's population has us over 7 billion as of now, and estimates of 9-12 billion by 2050. Where are resources going to come from? We're running out of things NOW with 7 billion. WTF is your plan for your children or grandchildren with another 3-5 billion people on earth? The excat issue is that for years people have said, "you're jumping the gun." Global warming is here NOW. Water crisis is here NOW. 6th mass extinctionis here NOW. -EK

I believe humans will do what they always do. Wait until the last minute and then come up with a way to survive it after we have shed off around 1/3 to 1/2 the population.
You forgot to mention that the countries who are increasing the world's population the fastest are also the ones who have the least amount of resources and where collapse will happen first.

You seem to be making a whole lot of references to the future.

Is mankind out of water now?
Are there no resources for the children of today?

If not, your claims that the planet is already screwed seem to be A BIT OF A STRETCH.

You claim that it's people like me that are the problem; I humbly suggest that people like you are much more of an issue.  When you run around shouting that we have already entered the apocalypse of a resource-barren planet and the average American reads this on their iPhone while sipping an iced latte, you come off as a complete wacko.

It is more accurate to say that we are on an unsustainable path and that we should take action to correct this.  But when you are screaming that Earth is already screwed, you dilute the sane, accurate message of the people trying to convince the public that no, we are not in the f'ing End Times today, but we should probably take some action now to avoid (<--- this part is important) a very bad future.

Spider you're out of your league trying to argue this one with me; this isn't football or politics. I'm a bio major. It's what I do. Are we out of water now? YES. I already told you two towns in Texas- not some developing country, but right here in the land of plenty- that ran out of clean water this year. Are we out of resources? In some places YES. Have we caused global warming that has already screwed up our climate? YES. Pick up any scientific journal that deals with ecology, biological diversity or climate control, and read a bit. You're flat wrong. The time to say, "we need to start," has passed. We should be in the midst of, "Look at what we've already done." But does America do that? NO. How do 191 countries ratify Kyoto, but America doesn't? WTF is that? The entire world realizes the crap hole humans have created, but America remains in denial. There's the "people like you." The belief that it's not really that bad, and that immediate action is probably already too late is so ignorant and unfounded- especially in the face of an entire planet going, "Whoa, wtf's the matter with America?" I know you'll come up with some response that twists my words because that's what you do. I know you have to have the last word in any thread because that's also what you do, so fine. I'm not going to continue arguing something that is factually true. Before you respond, go grab a phone book, and randomly pick any person in Spicewood Beach or Robert Lee, Texas, who don't have clean water to drink or bath in and ask them if they think the planet's screwed yet. Go call someone who lost a house because of any one of the increasing number of hurricanes, whose strength and frequency have increased due to global warming- ask them if they feel like we've messed up this Earth. Several peer-reviewed studies show a clear global trend toward increased intensity of the strongest hurricanes over the past two or three decades. The strongest trends are in the North Atlantic Ocean and the Indian Ocean. According to the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC-AR4), it is “more likely than not” that there is human contribution to the observed trend of hurricane intensification since the 1970s. In the future, “it is likely [better than 2 to 1 odds] that future tropical cyclones (typhoons and hurricanes) will become more intense, with larger peak wind speeds and more heavy precipitation associated with ongoing increases of tropical [sea surface temperatures].” Since the 70s means it's already happening, not some future "maybe." I'm sure you'll still have some twisted logic reply to this, since water and homes aren't really that important to survival, and that's fine. Live in denial if you choose to. I'm not going to debate this further. I can't make sense out of your nonsense on this one. -EK

Really?  Because previously (http://www.thedolphinsmakemecry.com/forums/index.php?topic=19267.msg245124#msg245124), when you were casually mentioning that you were a champion weightlifter, you were also claiming to be premed.  Which medical field is it that specializes in climate science, again?

It almost sounds like you're saying that some places on Earth are in serious trouble.

Is the planet Earth ALREADY screwed?  Not Spicewood Beach, Texas.  Not sub-Saharan Africa.  The planet Earth.

The irony here is amazing.

Tell me, which one of us two is saying, "We need to take action to avoid a dreadful future," and which one is saying "Our planet is already doomed!"

Emphasis added:

When Wells Run Dry: Spicewood Beach, Texas is Out of Water (http://stateimpact.npr.org/texas/2012/01/31/when-wells-run-dry-spicewood-beach-is-out-of-water/)

"The LCRA’s plan from here? Keep trucking in water for as long as it takes them to find a long-term solution, which they estimate could be six to eight more months. Those three to four loads a day cost about $200 each, and the LCRA says for now they will absorb the cost. But in a few months, they say, residents may have to start paying extra for water."

Life in drought: Parched Texas town seeks emergency fix (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/30/us-weather-drought-texas-idUSTRE79S2RF20111030)

"More water is on the way, but it will only be enough to meet the basic needs of the town of 1,049 and will come at the expense of yet another sizable water rate increase."

Two tiny desert towns (population: less than 1200 each) in Texas may face a sizable water rate increase?  We are, indeed, at the End Times!

If I could only choose one  (and I really doubt we can do both, probably can't do either)

a) put our energy, talent and resources into cleaning up the environement on this planet so it sustainable for human life.

b) put our energy, talent and resources into find another planet we can move to and pollute until it is inhabitable and then move again.

I choose the first one.   

Provided that b) was actually possible, I choose b) in a landslide.  There are a lot of planets in the universe.

I'm not debating the topic further with you. Please do not attack my character by making implications that I am lying about my education. Get your head out of your ass long enough to understand that ANY biology degree- whether it be premed, cellular and molecular bio, evolutionary bio, or any other bio degree is going to have many of the same core bio requirements- two of which are ecology and conservation ecology, both of which emphasize (at least at my school) man's role in biological interactions with the rest of the world. I wasn't "claiming" to be premed any more than I was "claiming" to be a champion powerlifter. It is what it is. Every doctor who graduates with a biology degree before heading to med school has had some sort of education about the climate and our interactions with it. I'm guessing they don't teach that at Spider U. -EK

So do you buy a new car every time your car gets dirty, instead of taking it to the car wash? 

Cause that is what you are basically proposing.   

Let me give you some insight.

First, I love the space program and all of it's achievements. I worked with NASA since STS-3 (Space Transportation System, 3rd flight of the Shuttle) and stayed at Kennedy Space Center for 27 years working in many different positions and saw over 120 flights.

During that time, sadly NASA lost it's edge. After the Challenger explosion, NASA determined the Shuttle would no longer be used for launching satellites. Instead, it would focus on science and the International Space Station, of which NASA would bear the brunt of the costs. The satellites were then moved to be launched from CCAFS (Cape Canaveral Air Force Station) using the workhorse Delta program.

The GAO (Government Accounting Office) is the office responsible for overseeing NASA's budget and sadly, NASA routinely fails the financial audits every year. GAO came out and said "every endeavor NASA undertakes, costs more, takes longer and does less than what was projected." In other words, NASA has become an inefficient government albatross. That is a shame.

After then President Bush announced he was ending the Shuttle Program to pursue more advanced technical alternatives, I sold my house and left the area. NASA is to Cape Canaveral what GM is to Detroit. Don't blame Bush, the Shuttle was woefully outdated and each launch costs many times what was initially thought. At the end, we were close to running out of replacement parts. The painful aspect was NASA could not procure enough budget to gradually end the Shuttle Program while simultaneously starting a new program.   

Like other areas of industry, I feel private companies like Space X should replace NASA. Private industry has proven time and time again to be more creative, inventive and financially responsible than government agencies.

To answer a posters question, "has NASA done anything recently?" My answer would be no, not to what I have seen.     

Please don't try to represent yourself as having professional authority on climate science because you are taking classes in the medical field.

I find it very convenient that you categorized yourself as "premed" when the discussion was about professional salaries, but a "bio major" when the discussion is about climate change.  The reason why is obvious: if you said, "Don't try to argue with me about climate science... I'm premed" it would be an obvious non sequitur.

Again, operating under the presumption that it is feasible to get off of this planet, that should be our goal anyway.  The overpopulation of Earth will never just go away as a problem, and it's a bad idea to have the entirety of our civilization subject to a random asteroid.

That's not to say that preserving this planet is a bad idea.  But if we can feasibly spread out further, we should (regardless of how well we take care of Earth).

I think your comparison is a little off, but using the rough framework in a more legitimate comparison:

If it took my car 12-15 years to get dirty enough to consider taking it to a car wash, and that timeframe coincided with the wearing out of the tires and several engine parts, then yes...I buy the new car.

This comparison also doesn't take into consideration any "new" things we discover on these new worlds, whether it be new technology, a planet full of the "rare metals" our tech requires, etc...

Thanks for the insight from an insider's perspective Fins4ever.

I really think our 'disposable' attitude is a big part of the problem.  Right now we have no freaking clue where there might be another planet suitable for human life.  Best case it is many light years away. 

And if we did find one could we really transport the entire overpopulated planet to another planet or just a select few. 

If we spent the same amount of money and effort as it would cost to send four people to Mars on developing crops with better yield THIS planet could feed more people.  The cost of our space program exceeds the burden that the Kyoto agreement would cost American businesses. 

I say we take care of this planet first.  I am pretty sure it is the only one we will ever have. 

No one said anything about professional authority. I don't give a rats ass what your opinion on any of this is because it's not only incorrect but it's uneducated. I've stated previously that I'm a pre-med bio major. Where's the issue there? Not all bio majors take the same trek after the first two years. If I was a zoology bio major I would have said that. I'm not, so I didn't. It doesn't matter how many classes on climate or ecology I've taken though, because a person could have zero knowledge about the field and still know more than you. ROTFL that you don't believe catastrophic storms like Katrina that are more frequent and more intense because of human causes are not current, present-day problems, and that the planets not f*cked. Wonder how those people who had their houses float away felt about that point of view. Sorry, what did you go to college for again? Anything in the science field? -EK

To speakers of English, when someone attempts to claim authority on a subject while saying, "It's what I do," that is an appeal to professional authority.

"I'm taking my ball and going home!  I mean it this time!  No, I REALLY MEAN IT THIS TIME!"

Comedy gold.

I wonder if we should ask the British royal family, the heirs to the Walton empire, or Mitt Romney if the planet is already screwed.  Because apparently, asking individual persons to evaluate the planet's current state based on their own personal turns of fortune is now Establishing Fact.

P.S.

Irony, thy name is EKnight.

Now please, feel free to reply with yet another post in which you declare that You Are Finished Responding To Me.  If you say that, I hear it's just like getting the last word, because the other person's response Really Doesn't Count (as You Are Done With The Discussion).

This is not at all like whoring yourself out for the Last Word.  Totally different.