For The Love Of Port

Should make for some fun sci-fi flicks in the near future. Pretty cool accomplishment. What's your take?

I was sweating with the control crew as it landed. A job well done!

The 7 minutes of terror were navigated successfully! Quite an accomplishment considering how many ways things could have gone horribly wrong. I tried to watch on the JPL website, but the server was so overloaded I didn't get to see/hear much.

Pretty wild. I was born in 1956, which I think was before Sputnik. I watched the take-offs of the first Mercury flights. Now we are landing substantial probes on Mars. Incredible. Having said that, I did not watch the live video feed and don't know much about this other than that the machine is fairly big, not a petite 100 LBS device. I wonder what new information that it might find. I particularly wonder how proof positive of life on Mars (here I'm thinking of microbes, not little green men) might be received in the general populations. No big deal? Disbelief? Shock? Probably no big deal would be my guess.

Michael Hann wrote: I particularly wonder how proof positive of life on Mars (here I'm thinking of microbes, not little green men) might be received in the general populations. No big deal? Disbelief? Shock? Probably no big deal would be my guess.

Probably no big deal is correct. Unless it's like ET, My Favorite Martian, or the Predator.

We can do this but my cell phone still doesn't work everywhere here on earth

Andy Velebil wrote:We can do this but my cell phone still doesn't work everywhere here on earth

No, but your satelite phone does! Oh wait - satelite phones are still a bit esoteric, aren't they.

Carl D wrote:

Andy Velebil wrote:We can do this but my cell phone still doesn't work everywhere here on earth

No, but your satelite phone does! Oh wait - satelite phones are still a bit esoteric, aren't they.

Yes

Moses Botbol wrote:

Michael Hann wrote: I particularly wonder how proof positive of life on Mars (here I'm thinking of microbes, not little green men) might be received in the general populations. No big deal? Disbelief? Shock? Probably no big deal would be my guess.

Probably no big deal is correct. Unless it's like ET, My Favorite Martian, or the Predator.

It actually is a big deal. Even proof of microbes (now, or even ever in the history of Mars) would add greatly to our understanding of how and when life arises in the universe. It might not impress the general population, but it would be extremely interesting to those who are thinking about such things. It's a pity that does not include more of the general population.

Our next cellphone (that works everywhere*), the cure for cancer (or even the common cold), and things undreamed of, will come from the portion of the population that thinks. The fewer they are, the more impoverished our futures will be. The US is currently not even among the top countries in terms of the teachers who will be educating those future scientists and engineers; we are now around low-middle among developed countries in creating the needed science teachers. We may be near the top now (in science and development), but without new science teachers, we won't be near the top for more than a few more decades.

=========
* You can now buy a gadget from deLorme for about $500 (plus a monthly fee) which will allow tracking, emergency position reporting, and text messaging, anywhere in the world via satellite. You can even let your friends track you as you adventure on land and sea. (Input/output via your iPad or Smart-Phone.) It wasn't invented by "the general population".

Peter W. Meek wrote:

Moses Botbol wrote:

Michael Hann wrote: I particularly wonder how proof positive of life on Mars (here I'm thinking of microbes, not little green men) might be received in the general populations. No big deal? Disbelief? Shock? Probably no big deal would be my guess.

Probably no big deal is correct. Unless it's like ET, My Favorite Martian, or the Predator.

It actually is a big deal. Even proof of microbes (now, or even ever in the history of Mars) would add greatly to our understanding of how and when life arises in the universe. It might not impress the general population, but it would be extremely interesting to those who are thinking about such things. It's a pity that does not include more of the general population.

It's a big deal to me too, but I think the discovery will be sidelined by Kim Kardashian's newest paramour or Balotelli's latest conquest.

As a child of the 1960s I have always been fascinated by and a supporter of space exploration and the Curiosity mission is, in my opinion, a very good thing in terms of pushing the boundaries of our knowledge and technology to the extreme for the sake of advancement.

I am less convinced that this is a good use of money in a country where I have personally seen many thousands of impoverished children living in the gutter with little or nothing to feed or clothe themselves. I can see arguments on both sides of this, but it just doesn't feel right to me, especially in a country where social class and the divide between the haves and have-nots is so open, intentional and stark. Will those buck-naked, half-starved three year old children I saw filling pot-holes on an open and very busy Freeway with buckets of cement in Mumbai (or those that will surely follow in their footsteps) ever benefit from whatever advancement this mission brings to the richer casts of Indian society? I don't think so. Then again, is it right to criticise a country that proclaims its intention to pull itself out of poverty so forcefully? An interesting dilemma.

Derek T. wrote:I can see arguments on both sides of this, but it just doesn't feel right to me, especially in a country where social class and the divide between the haves and have-nots is so open, intentional and stark.

And have all those rugs disappear because of some foolish child labor laws? Why use a bulldozer when you can have 50 villagers on their hands and knees for $75 a day?

I don't ever think India will move beyond the caste system and the extreme poverty seen throughout the country.

I think the achievement great. My father was an engineer for Hughes Aircraft Company which built some of the first Moon and Mars probes. I was excited then as well.

Peter W. Meek wrote:It actually is a big deal. Even proof of microbes (now, or even ever in the history of Mars) would add greatly to our understanding of how and when life arises in the universe. It might not impress the general population, but it would be extremely interesting to those who are thinking about such things. It's a pity that does not include more of the general population.

I agree it is a big deal. I was referring to the attitude I assumed the general public would have.

To me if you accept the proposition of evolution, that sort of implies the spontaneous appearance of "life" from the primordial soup of organic chemicals on Earth (perhaps introduced by encounters with comets/astroids) and then the evolution forwards to more complicated life forms, first to aboriginal man and then later to Port drinking man. If you accept the spontaneous appearance of life in this way, why here and not somewhere else with "suitable" environmental conditions? But this is somewhat conjectural.

Throw in the finding of microbes on Mars, and the issue is no longer conjectural. And that would be a big deal. But then again, the public did not find itself much diverted by the discovery (observation) of the Higgs Boson announced earlier this year. I'm still guessing the public would not get too excited about the discovery of microbes on Mars.

Since this thread is sort of musing, here is a musing I've had on the subject of extra-terrestrial life. The thought that intelligent life could develop away from Earth is scary from one persepective. If you ignore the limits on speed theoretically called for by the General Theory of Relativity, could not beings far more intelligent than us evolve on another world and come to Earth and subjugate or exterminate us? That seems at least at one level a plausible scenario. Here is the musing reflection. If evolution occurs in response to a feedback mechanism -- reproductive success and survival provide positive feedback -- does evolution to fitter forms continue when the improvements do not increase either reproduction or survival? Is there an inherent limit on evolution towards more and more intelligent life? If higher intelligence does not materially increase your reproductive success or your survival prospects, then evolution would not inexorably steer towards more and more intelligence. Sure, to a certain limit greater intelligence contributes to reproductive success and survival, but at least arguably beyond a certain point further increases are neutral. If this conjecture is correct, then maybe we have no reason to fear more intelligent beings than ourselves.

Thoughts? Comments? Biology and evolution is not my specialty, so this musing could be totally ridiculous.

Michael Hann wrote:[...] Here is the musing reflection. If evolution occurs in response to a feedback mechanism -- reproductive success and survival provide positive feedback -- does evolution to fitter forms continue when the improvements do not increase either reproduction or survival? Is there an inherent limit on evolution towards more and more intelligent life? If higher intelligence does not materially increase your reproductive success or your survival prospects, then evolution would not inexorably steer towards more and more intelligence.[...]

Pick up this month's Scientific American at the newsstand. It is a single-subject issue on Limits (including evolution and intelligence - which is increasing), and written at a general level. Some fairly interesting stuff.

Peter W. Meek wrote:The US is currently not even among the top countries in terms of the teachers who will be educating those future scientists and engineers; we are now around low-middle among developed countries in creating the needed science teachers. We may be near the top now (in science and development), but without new science teachers, we won't be near the top for more than a few more decades.

For the moment we are importing a lot of intelligence in the form of immigrants. I think this will continue, but for how long before things look better elsewhere?

Michael Hann wrote:If evolution occurs in response to a feedback mechanism -- reproductive success and survival provide positive feedback -- does evolution to fitter forms continue when the improvements do not increase either reproduction or survival? Is there an inherent limit on evolution towards more and more intelligent life? ...

A very interesting hypothesis. Certainly there are limits to evolution that you've alluded to. I think that's why cancer and Alzheimer's are such bigger deals today (well, a mix of evolution and changing environment). We've evolved past many or most of the things that kill you before child bearing age, and now past things that kill you in child raising age. There isn't much evolution will do to eliminate things that kill or affect you at 60 or beyond, because at that point your survival has very little to do with your contribution to the gene pool. And considering both health and intelligence, our society itself has evolved such that the children of less intelligent or less healthy people have a much greater chance of survival.

Peter W. Meek wrote:Pick up this month's Scientific American at the newsstand. It is a single-subject issue on Limits (including evolution and intelligence - which is increasing), and written at a general level. Some fairly interesting stuff.

Oh no! That means the aliens MAY have evolved to be much smarter than we are! How will I sleep at night now?!!!

Eric Menchen wrote:A very interesting hypothesis. Certainly there are limits to evolution that you've alluded to.

Another thought I had pursuant to this hypothesis is that there may well be different limits on intelligence depending on the environment in which one evolves. In an easy environment where obtaining food and surviving is a piece of cake, maybe intelligence need not evolve so far. In a very hazardous environment, maybe intelligence evolves further? This is just playing with ideas on my part, as I certainly lack the background for any serious reflection on this subject.

Eric Menchen wrote:

Peter W. Meek wrote:The US is currently not even among the top countries in terms of the teachers who will be educating those future scientists and engineers; we are now around low-middle among developed countries in creating the needed science teachers. We may be near the top now (in science and development), but without new science teachers, we won't be near the top for more than a few more decades.

For the moment we are importing a lot of intelligence in the form of immigrants. I think this will continue, but for how long before things look better elsewhere?

I wouldn't quite agree with your first sentence. We are "importing" educated people (people with useful skills have a better chance of getting in) but raw intelligence is much the same everywhere. However, I do not think that science and math teachers (which is what we are short of, and getting shorter) are among the skills given preference.

As to your second sentence, I agree - if we fall behind in science, math, medicine, technology (which will be the problem, due to lack of teachers) the educated folks will go elsewhere.