Funny - I was thinking almost the same thing - that this news must be deeply unsettling for Atheists. Atheists believe that only the observable can exist. The notion that the primary tools of observation can be tricked by preconception throws that particular doctrine into turmoil.
I'm well aware of the LRA and their atrocities - let me put this to you. Can you demonstrate how the actions of the LRA conform to Christian doctrine and practices? Because saying the word "Lord" makes them Christian is like saying Dodge City must be a car because it has the word Dodge in the name.
What about Darfur? I know lots of people like to label conflicts as "ethnic" in direct contrast to "religious" but I don't see how religion can be so easily separated out from enthnicity unless you mean the word to be synonymous with "racial". But in the conflict in Darfur, there is a notable absence of an armed Christian militia comprisng Christians from Korea, Kenya, Tonga. Again, YOUR point was that no-one bats an eyelid when Christians rush to arms in religious wars in other places. But we have yet to eyeball an example from you, let alone have it a common occurrence.
The same applies to your argument about Israel. You should read what I said about Israel again. Again, it is common that in pursuing war for ethnic, economic, ideological or strategic reasons, secular authorities will emphasise religious differences to try and dehumanise the enemy. Examples include Iran/Iraq war, the most recent US/UK invasion of Iraq, Northern Ireland, the Chinese invasion of Tibet, military action against indigenous groups in Kalimantan and Aceh by government sponsored "muslim" militia.
I'm of the view that freedom of religion (as guaranteed by the UN Convention on Human Rights) means also accepting that others will have a view that differs from my own. Supporting freedom of religion is like supporting freedom of cholera. But again, my right to not follow your religion is guaranteed by International Convention, so I guess you are out of luck.
Religion is a menal illness and we as a species would be better off if it was treated as such. But again, what you really meant is "Religions other than my own [are] a menal illness and we as a species would be better off if it was treated as such.". And again: you claiming that other religions are an illness/wrong has pretty much the same effect on the rest of us as screaming "Allah Akbah!" or wearing a suit and approaching people in the street to offer them the Book of Mormon. You are just repeating oft heard dogma and expecting it to be self explanatory and undeniable by the unbeliever.
It's not a human right - it's a human tragedy. And these idiots illustrate the point well. In which case, so do you. Your doctrine is inseparable from theirs.
Well, not to support religious nutters of any persuasion, but if he had written "I'm off to fight for Christ, but only in conventional warfare somewhere Christians are being oppressed and killed" would anybody even bat an eyelid? Well, yes. Christians aren't trying to militarily solve the issue of religious oppression. The only thing close is the Karin rebels that defend and resupply Karin villagers in Burma. Even then, the conflict is ethnic in nature, not religious. Oppression certainly happens on religious grounds (ie oppression by Islamic/Atheistic governments) but I've never heard of Christians taking up arms and flying to China to fight against the government.
Even less so: if they'd said they were going to Israel to fight for the preservation of the Jewish homeland? Closer - still an ethnic dispute (since Israel proclaims itself to be a secular state, albeit apartheidist), but with strong religious tones.
Probably the best solution would be to put anyone espousing religious ideas into a mental hospital until they get better. Are you proposing to put yourself in a mental hospital? Because if what you really meant was "Probably the best solution would be to put anyone espousing religious ideas that disagree with mine into a mental hospital until they get better" then there is philosophically no difference between your statement and the people you are criticising. I'm of the view that freedom of religion (as guaranteed by the UN Convention on Human Rights) means also accepting that others will have a view that differs from my own. Perhaps you should do the same.
Or maybe the foreigners could stop whining about how an American website talks about American subjects from time to time. Slashdot has American editors. But Slashdot is the readers, contributors and posters, not the editors. Since those three groups by and large are not American, Slashdot is not American either. Time for that basic fact to be reflected in both the editorial policy and the mindset of American contributors.
Have you been in a coma for 40 years? If so, that would explain your basic lack of understanding of the world you live in and share with others.
I find it amusing that the rest of the world sucks up as much American culture as possible, from our music, In my CD stacker: Coldplay, Dire Straits, Bjork, REM, Midnight Oil, Crowded House. I think maybe REM is American.
movies Curious thing. I checked my DVD collection. Maybe 1/3 American. 1/3 not. 1/3 a mix of American and others. Much of what is ostensibly American, turns out to be a mix of a number of cultural influences and participation.
and television shows Couldn't really get a representative sample because I don't watch much TV (although Top Gear is a must watch, along with Mythbusters).
to going in droves to our crappy McDonald's that are popping up all over the world (hint: McDonald's sucks. Stop going). Actually I quite enjoy an occasional visit to McDonalds - I like the thai chicken wrap if it is lunchtime and the espresso is passing grade (good considering how much training the barrista must get) if it is just a short break. Like most people I generally end up at McDonalds because they have outlets on the roads I travel. Notably McDonalds tries to approximate the foods we like to eat - we influence McDonalds, McDonalds doesn't influence us. Hardly the burgeoning frontier of American culture.
But then they get all prissy when we call football football. We call your football soccer, but we call our football football. It's the way we do things over here. If you don't like the names we use for sport, fine. But don't get all in a huff over it. But "we" in this case is the audience and members of/. And We call any number of games football, just like We mostly use metric and not the exaggerated length of the foot of King James II as a unit of measure. For reasons of clarity then, it is necessary to qualify the language used to suit the international audience on this site.
Firstly, I believe my odds of going are significantly better than the average person's, due to my career choice. Still not good, but way better than average. The odds of you going comparative to someone in India or Namibia are irrelevant. If you are not already on the list of astronauts for flight (which stretches longer than the remaining SS missions) then the chances of you getting on the ship to the moon (if there IS one, looking less likely every day) are close enough to zero to be sensibly discarded. We can almost discard the mission itself - there really is no public sentiment for it, and no reason beyond sentiment for going. Manned missions are a modernist idea trying to survive in a post modern world. Even the name "Manned" is an anachronism.
Secondly, sending a robot isn't as good as sending a person, even if only for purely sentimental reasons -- which are not without value. Sure - sentimentalism has value. I'm sentimental about steam trains. But for all my sentiment, I don't claim that steam trains are the future of rail travel. Manned space flight belongs in the steam era of space exploration.
And if you say they are, They are. Robotic exploration is the future of space exploration.
then I ask very simply -- what is wrong with you? Have you no sense of wonder? No drive to see humanity explore? You could try saying that if you wish. If you do, I'll merely point out that since robots are much better at space exploration than humans, it is the advocates of human-space exploration (like yourself) who are holding back the exploration of space. So I ask you -- what is wrong with you? Have you no sense of wonder?
And thirdly, robots are *not* substitutes for humans when it comes to doing basic science. The MER robots do in a day what a trained geologist could do in a couple minutes.' Examples please - because I have numerous contrary examples. For instance, I notice that the MER robots completed a detailed map of the entire surface of the planet (from orbit) in a matter of weeks. How long did it take humans to do that on earth? Oh, that's right - thousands of years. And when we did, we used machines. I'll also note that nobody cares that it takes longer for robots to do some things than humans. Time is only of the essence if you have limited resources and time - ie a human mission. Robots run on solar power, so they can take as much time as they like. This kind of flexibility is one of their chief advantages over space suited humans.
If we started by asking what a trained scientist could do given a week or two, and wrote that up as the mission objectives, you'd rapidly discover that no robot we could imagine building in the near future could complete the mission. Then I challenge you. Draw up this list, and we'll go through it and see. Don't expect we'll accept your hand waving, generalised statements at face value.
For realism:
The mission will be somewhere interesting - let's say jupiter and it's moons.
I sincerely hope we go back. Well, you won't be going - and neither will I. So 'we' won't be going at all.
If sending another human is regarded as a substitute for going yourself, then so is sending a robot. Meaning there is no reason to send a human, rather than a robot, to achieve whatever goal there is to achieve on the moon.
I don't think Australia's likely to take this step, the person asking for this is the dumbass cop w You're wrong there. He isn't a dumbass. He can't be a dumbass. He might be an arsehole, he might need a kick up the arse, he might even have a face like an arse (an arse-face). But an ass in Australia is a donkey, and dumbass makes no sense whatsoever.
You don't need dialogue with irrational nutcases. If you could have rational dialogue with them you'd already have shown that their beliefs are irrational. It's sad really... Quite. There's no reason for the Pope to dialogue with these nutcases.
Claiming that AIDS and HIV are unlinked is politicking, not science, just like claiming that humans are 'definitely' a cause of global warming, and that global warming is bad. Wow. What an absurd contortion.
The CO2 content of the atmosphere does not cause the globe to heat up or cool down. Historically, CO2 levels and temperature correlate strongly. The problem is that CO2 levels peak about 800 years *after* temperature peaks, and only after a rise in temperature does the CO2 content of the atmosphere change. Myth debunked More debunking
Also, it is colder now, globally, than it was in the Medieval Warm Period, Myth debunked
Likewise during about 3000 years in the Bronze Age, when humanity flourished and temperatures were higher still. So during the last bronze age, there was 6 billion people. Cos, you know that if there WEREN'T 6 billion people, or even a billion people, but rather only a couple of million, then there is simply no way that those situations could be comparable. Because a bunch of hunter gatherers living along a small number of major river systems could easily adapt to change, whereas 6 billion people cannot, owing to the fact that they eat the entire fish stock of the ocean and farm all of the arable land on the planet. You DID realise that...didn't you?
Got this from "The Great Global Warming Swindle", which is obviously biased. The UN panel on climate change correctly bashed that documentary on a few points, but the claims I repeat here they didn't touch. I wonder why? Maybe because they're actually correct?
See The Great Global Warming Swindle Strangely enough, that documentary was shown on Australian television last year - much to that amusement of the population at large, but to the ire of the scientific community. Here is some responses: http://www.abc.net.au/science/features/globalwarmingswindle/ http://www.amos.org.au/BAMOS_GGWS_SUBMISSION_final.htm
There was a panel discussion after the showing of the documentary (mentioned here ). A group of scientists tore into the movie and it's supporters - it was awesome to watch. The denialists had nothing - in the end they resorted to conspiracy theory and ranting. In the end there was no question that the The Great Global Warming Swindle was itself the swindle.
It's certain that mankind contributes in some "statistically significant" way to the temperature of the Earth (likely much less than a degree celsius so far, perhaps up to a maximum of a full degree celsius from human contribution over the next 100 years before we run out of fossil fuels). This view is advocated by the same people who used to say that climate change was not real. Until that view was indefensible. Then they said that climate change is probably real, but that we shouldn't act unless we were really really sure. Until that view was indefensible. Then they said that climate change was real but not anthropogenic in cause. Until that view was indefensible. So it's difficult to give credence to this latest view.
First of all, the jury is still out on whether or not humans contribute in a significant way to global warming. No it isn't. More like the jury has returned a guilty verdict, sentencing passed and the court adjourned. Meanwhile a homeless guy on the steps of the court is ranting conspiracy theories.
In South Africa 1 in 5 adults is HIV positive. The president of South Africa, Thabo Mbeki, believes and has stated publicly that there is no link between HIV and AIDS. People who deny the anthropogenic causes of climate change are the Thabo Mbekis of climate. Holding a sincere view doesn't bring credence to that view.
Sorry, but no. An outcome in which 6 billion die and 2000 survive is not an acceptable outcome. that assumes that it's an either or scenario and that's not at all the case. there's nothing preventing humans from exploring/living in space *and* keeping a back up on Earth as well as you said yourself if we can build a backup in space we can on Earth. So: previously you said that we should keep a colony in space in case of some disaster on Earth. Now, you say we don't need to do it. I agree: having a colony in space achieves nothing, it's an expensive, pointless boondoggle just like the ISS.
ou also assume that resources used to construct space colonies somehow decreases the resource budget for an Earth "ark" and that's also not true. Space can be a venture populated mainly through economic means [companies... in space] while the Earth repository could be a completely separate project entirely- funded by anyone and everyone. No - because any commercial venture in space will use robots to do whatever needs doing. That's because humans are orders of magnitude more expensive to maintain in an airless environment with the wrong gravity. There's simply no way to make a profit if you have to lug humans about. Therefore, any humans in space will always be funded by the public purse and not as a commercial venture.
ethics indeed, how foolish of me to assert that humanity should be exploring not hiding in its ignorance. You don't advocate exploration of space. You advocate spending our time and resources on lobbing humans into space. You can't seem to express any particular reason to do so - we've already established that robots do a better job, and you admit that colonies aren't required for mythical undefined survival scenarios. You claim humans would be required for some (also undefined) commercial venture, but don't seem to have thought through the basic economics of it. If you were really interested in exploration of space, you would be urging us to forget about the useless human centric mars mission and advocate sending robots further afield instead.
except that none of our robotic missions really did much other than take a glance at a few rocks. we need to do some real geology not just marvel at the pretty colors of various rocks in the immediate area. human beings at the moment are the best geologists, until we build a robot capable of doing its own thinking, testing and analyzing samples and using logic to deduce an appropriate next step we're stuck with people. You implicitly acknowledge that robots are fast approaching human capabilities with respect to sampling (which is what is required rather than full on geology). And that acknowledgement is extremely conservative. With appropriate funding, a robot with todays technology will exceed the capabilities of a human with respect to sampling. Image recognition will detect unexpected features. Rocks of interest can be sampled from a distance with a well aimed laser and a spectrometer. Within the timeframe of a human mission (sat 20 years from now) robot technology will have developed so far that nobody will bother making the comparison.
If we had the technology to autonomously explore the solar system at or better than humans I would agree with this particular point but we don't. The robots of today are essentially brain-dead. Ignoring that little fact doesn't solve anything. Either we build better robots or we send humans to do the job. It's that simple. Again, you implicitly acknowledge that robot technology will sooner or later outstrip human abilities for 'exploration' in space. I will point out that that time was 1972.
And probes don't need brains - that data is never analysed on the spot, it's always transmitted back to earth where the experts are. We have always used tools to do things better, and that is precisely what we do, and will continue to do in this case, regardless of sentimentality.
A valid back up for humanity only requires that there is a large enough colony that the human species could be reuilt if something did happen on Earth. Sorry, but no. An outcome in which 6 billion die and 2000 survive is not an acceptable outcome. There is no destiny that obligates us to somehow preserve the species at the expense of the vast majority of it's members - the survival of the species is not as important as the survival of it's members. The acceptable plan is the one that preserves the greatest number - which means survival shelters on the earth itself. This can be done with much less expenditure of resources compared to maintaining an off world colony of living humans, and also avoids the unprecedented ethical problem that your solution presents. Perhaps you should read up on basic ethics before attempting to tell us what is good for us.
Really? Because I seem to recall that space probes have so far done a great deal and humans in space have done nothing. For example, an orbiter has photographed the complete surface of mars in high detail - how long would that take a human? It comes down to the right tool for the job ah so the fact that no humans have ever visited another planet had nothing to do with it... We've visited nearly all the planets in the solar system - the exceptions being Neptune and Mercury. We've landed on Mars, Venus, Titan, the moon. If other humans can be my representative in those places, then so can robots.
here's what I suggest you try some time: build a robot, an advanced one and rather than leaving your house, use it to explore the world. The catch is that you can only give it a command every 20-30 minutes and it gives a low-bandwidth feed in response in 20-30 minutes. not only that but it's retarded, so retarded in fact, that it isn't even capable of avoiding boulders it finds in its path and since it is less than a foot high, virtually every rock is an obstacle. There's no no particular reason for me to do that - since rock avoidance and the command lag time are really minor issues. If they were significant issues, we could easily build a robot that could avoid rocks and navigate around larger risks using a GPS system. Frankly, I don't think we want humans to be autonomous on the surface of another planet. Even on relatively friendly and nearby Mars,the human will have spent 6-12 months in zero-g with people that by the end of it, they hate pathologically, only to land on an airless cold planet where the gravity and light are all wrong and where human senses of touch, taste, hearing, smell are useless (since they are in a suit). Hardly the stuff of legend, even supposing nobody gets sick, or changes their mind part way through - the mission will be so focussed on keeping them alive that nothing of scientific value is likely to be achieved - much like the human space missions of yesteryear.
And by the way, I couldn't he noticing that you removed the key point of my comment: I'll just put that back:
For example, an orbiter has photographed the complete surface of mars in high detail - how long would that take a human? It comes down to the right tool for the job - we don't hit in nails with our hand - we use a hammer. We don't walk 20km to work - we don't even ride horses. We drive cars or take the train. Some feel sentimental for the time when horses had a role to play in transportation. Some feel sentimental for the time that humans had a role to play in space exploration. But in both cases, that time has now past, and sentimentality will not bring it back. And I'll say again - sentimentality is not a sound basis for space exploration. You feel sentimental for the human centred space missions of yesteryear - so be it. Your attitude is inseparable from being sentimental over the horse and cart - harmless to reflect on, but no longer practical as transport.
My objection to only exploring space with *very* advanced AI robots has to do with making sure there are at least 1 human settlement *somewhere* other than Earth to act as a back up plan if anything should happen on Earth. A space colony doesn't constitute a valid backup for the human race. There are 6 billion (or so) humans. A valid backup includes all of them. Or we can accept our mortality - and recognise that risk management dictates that trying to maintain an off planet colony represents more of a risk to our survival than unforeseen extinction events.
Human beings can think for themselves and can do worlds more than any space probe we have ever built. Really? Because I seem to recall that space probes have so far done a great deal and humans in space have done nothing. For example, an orbiter has photographed the complete surface of mars in high detail - how long would that take a human? It comes down to the right tool for the job - we don't hit in nails with our hand - we use a hammer. We don't walk 20km to work - we don't even ride horses. We drive cars or take the train. Some feel sentimental for the time when horses had a role to play in transportation. Some feel sentimental for the time that humans had a role to play in space exploration. But in both cases, that time has now past, and sentimentality will not bring it back.
I mean you really didn't intend us to be hanging out on this little speck of dust for the next few million years did you? I fully intend to live my life on Earth doing things that promote the welfare of others and protect the superb natural environs of the earth (that in turn protect me) and die happy and fulfilled. You, in contrast, practice an avoidance technique by imagining that your inner emptiness could be filled if only you lived in the Star Trek universe where the realities of gravity, energy, time and distance could be set aside for the sake of story. Dreams are fine - just abandon the moral uppityness and absurd superiority because we don't like Star Trek and lack your inner empty spot.
That would be awful to watch humanity sitting crippled on Earth unwilling to actually explore anywhere in detail or do anything interesting in space.
Only a person who never goes outside would think that life on earth is crippling. Buy a ticket to Patagonia
The exploring and other interesting things in space are already done by robots and that's the way it's gonna stay. We don't need humans in space any more that we need cows or goats in space
pace exploration isn't just about science or nationalism. It's also about humanity and it's desire for exploration. What's the point of learning all about the cosmos unless we can somehow put it to use for humanity? Well, precisely - sending humans into space has nothing to do with exploration, nor the good of humanity as a whole. Which - again - begs the question, why would we send humans to mars or the moon, when we could focus those resources on exploration (ie probes)?
And part of that science is the effect of space travel and other-world habitation on humans. We already know enough about that. Without air, food or water, humans die. Space has none of those. Without the correct gravity, humans gradually weaken until they are unable to live at earth gravity. The radiation in space is sufficient to kill humans. These things are well known - why research the topic further?
Eventually, humanity will be living out in space, and we will be better and richer for it. There's no evidence for the former, so the latter is essentially non-sequitur.
People are still better judges of opportunity and environment than machines. On Earth, sure. On Mars, it's about even. Everywhere else in the solar system it's strongly in favour of the machine. The reason of course is that human senses and abilities are heavily slanted toward an earth-like environment - a human does much better than a robot when evading predators or engaging in conversation, a robot is much better at spectrum and chemical analysis, sampling and data recording, which works in their favour on Mrs because there is no need to evade predators or engage in conversation.
I do not disagree that unmanned machines can be extremely effective at both ends of the cost spectrum (Mars Rovers, Cassini/Huygens), but the machines have to wait for instructions and we have to wait for data. A human could make snap decisions based on live observation that could yield results the machines are incapable of. Well, firstly, we will have to wait for data anyway, because any data the human collects will have to be transmitted back for analysis in just the same way we do for robots. This leaves autonomy. Now:
Autonomy and snap decision making has advantages and disadvantages. A human may see a rock, think it's interesting, and pick it up. The rock might or might not be scientifically significant - as might the rock that they ignore because they are focussed on something else.
Human extraterrestrial missions are primarily about keeping the human(s) alive. A robotic mission is about scientific discovery. A human mission cannot be extended from 3 months to 6, it's just too risky. Once it's arrived, a robot can take as many risks as needed in the name of science. This makes robotic missions far more flexible than missions involving the transportation of humans to another planetary body.
In the end, it comes down to the right tool for the right job. Probes and rovers are the right tools for exploring the environs of outer space. Just as cars make better transport than walking. Before we had cars, we used to walk - but that doesn't mean that we should now abandon cars because we feel sentimental about walking.
Slashdot Mirror
Funny - I was thinking almost the same thing - that this news must be deeply unsettling for Atheists. Atheists believe that only the observable can exist. The notion that the primary tools of observation can be tricked by preconception throws that particular doctrine into turmoil.
I'm well aware of the LRA and their atrocities - let me put this to you. Can you demonstrate how the actions of the LRA conform to Christian doctrine and practices? Because saying the word "Lord" makes them Christian is like saying Dodge City must be a car because it has the word Dodge in the name.
Christians aren't trying to militarily solve the issue of religious oppression. The only thing close is the Karin rebels that defend and resupply Karin villagers in Burma. Even then, the conflict is ethnic in nature, not religious. Oppression certainly happens on religious grounds (ie oppression by Islamic/Atheistic governments) but I've never heard of Christians taking up arms and flying to China to fight against the government. Even less so: if they'd said they were going to Israel to fight for the preservation of the Jewish homeland? Closer - still an ethnic dispute (since Israel proclaims itself to be a secular state, albeit apartheidist), but with strong religious tones. Probably the best solution would be to put anyone espousing religious ideas into a mental hospital until they get better. Are you proposing to put yourself in a mental hospital? Because if what you really meant was "Probably the best solution would be to put anyone espousing religious ideas that disagree with mine into a mental hospital until they get better" then there is philosophically no difference between your statement and the people you are criticising. I'm of the view that freedom of religion (as guaranteed by the UN Convention on Human Rights) means also accepting that others will have a view that differs from my own. Perhaps you should do the same.
The FAQ is wrong and needs updating.
- The mission will be somewhere interesting - let's say jupiter and it's moons.
- Mission set in the near future - let's say 2030
Let us see your list.More debunking
Also, it is colder now, globally, than it was in the Medieval Warm Period, Myth debunked
Likewise during about 3000 years in the Bronze Age, when humanity flourished and temperatures were higher still. So during the last bronze age, there was 6 billion people. Cos, you know that if there WEREN'T 6 billion people, or even a billion people, but rather only a couple of million, then there is simply no way that those situations could be comparable. Because a bunch of hunter gatherers living along a small number of major river systems could easily adapt to change, whereas 6 billion people cannot, owing to the fact that they eat the entire fish stock of the ocean and farm all of the arable land on the planet. You DID realise that...didn't you? Got this from "The Great Global Warming Swindle", which is obviously biased. The UN panel on climate change correctly bashed that documentary on a few points, but the claims I repeat here they didn't touch. I wonder why? Maybe because they're actually correct? See The Great Global Warming Swindle Strangely enough, that documentary was shown on Australian television last year - much to that amusement of the population at large, but to the ire of the scientific community. Here is some responses:
http://www.abc.net.au/science/features/globalwarmingswindle/
http://www.amos.org.au/BAMOS_GGWS_SUBMISSION_final.htm
There was a panel discussion after the showing of the documentary (mentioned here ). A group of scientists tore into the movie and it's supporters - it was awesome to watch. The denialists had nothing - in the end they resorted to conspiracy theory and ranting. In the end there was no question that the The Great Global Warming Swindle was itself the swindle.
In South Africa 1 in 5 adults is HIV positive. The president of South Africa, Thabo Mbeki, believes and has stated publicly that there is no link between HIV and AIDS. People who deny the anthropogenic causes of climate change are the Thabo Mbekis of climate. Holding a sincere view doesn't bring credence to that view.
And probes don't need brains - that data is never analysed on the spot, it's always transmitted back to earth where the experts are. We have always used tools to do things better, and that is precisely what we do, and will continue to do in this case, regardless of sentimentality.
A valid back up for humanity only requires that there is a large enough colony that the human species could be reuilt if something did happen on Earth. Sorry, but no. An outcome in which 6 billion die and 2000 survive is not an acceptable outcome. There is no destiny that obligates us to somehow preserve the species at the expense of the vast majority of it's members - the survival of the species is not as important as the survival of it's members. The acceptable plan is the one that preserves the greatest number - which means survival shelters on the earth itself. This can be done with much less expenditure of resources compared to maintaining an off world colony of living humans, and also avoids the unprecedented ethical problem that your solution presents. Perhaps you should read up on basic ethics before attempting to tell us what is good for us.And by the way, I couldn't he noticing that you removed the key point of my comment: I'll just put that back:
For example, an orbiter has photographed the complete surface of mars in high detail - how long would that take a human? It comes down to the right tool for the job - we don't hit in nails with our hand - we use a hammer. We don't walk 20km to work - we don't even ride horses. We drive cars or take the train. Some feel sentimental for the time when horses had a role to play in transportation. Some feel sentimental for the time that humans had a role to play in space exploration. But in both cases, that time has now past, and sentimentality will not bring it back. And I'll say again - sentimentality is not a sound basis for space exploration. You feel sentimental for the human centred space missions of yesteryear - so be it. Your attitude is inseparable from being sentimental over the horse and cart - harmless to reflect on, but no longer practical as transport. My objection to only exploring space with *very* advanced AI robots has to do with making sure there are at least 1 human settlement *somewhere* other than Earth to act as a back up plan if anything should happen on Earth. A space colony doesn't constitute a valid backup for the human race. There are 6 billion (or so) humans. A valid backup includes all of them. Or we can accept our mortality - and recognise that risk management dictates that trying to maintain an off planet colony represents more of a risk to our survival than unforeseen extinction events.Hug the hoff? You wish.
In the end, it comes down to the right tool for the right job. Probes and rovers are the right tools for exploring the environs of outer space. Just as cars make better transport than walking. Before we had cars, we used to walk - but that doesn't mean that we should now abandon cars because we feel sentimental about walking.
Offsite backups are only useful if you capture all the information your system needs (the business critical data, if you will).