That was by 1972 (1). 46 years ago. Since then, no progress on this front. Not even a repeat. This is not an accelerating rate.
Well, one could argue that since then a significant bunch of our top talents have been allocated to generating financial innovations like motgage backed securities and figuring our how to get more people clicking on ads. So if this talent was reallocated to space exploration (which again someone might argue that can't be less stupid way to allocate these resources than click industry) the speed of technological progtess might change dramatically.
Just makes one wonder if there is something fishy how the free market supposedly is the most efficient allocator of resources...
Space sounds exciting, sure, but Earth still has enough resources that there aren't any goods that can be produced in space that can't be produced more cheaply on Earth.
That's the problem. I have no better definition. I just have a feeling that the current economics 101 doctrine of free markets just might not be the right answer to all resource allocation problems. (I am vague on purpose who defines what is right and what is wrong. I have no answer to that, either. Just my personal opinion.)
We went to the moon because we could. A few more people may soon go because they can. But moon bases have been 30 years away something like 70 years. On a purely personal basis, I'd love to see it happen. But realistically, we barely have people in low earth orbit.
It's reasonable to argue that we'll get there. But the burden of proof is on the people arguing it, and the "progress is inevitable" handwave is definitely doesn't cut it.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:People_who_have_walke...
Sure we have the means but we don't have an economically strong answer to "why should we do it"; the most of we have is "it might present some good research opportunities".
Until some breakthrough comes around that needs it or until the costs of running operations on Earth become massive we're stuck here.
Having said that, SpaceX is reducing the cost of putting people on the Moon to values never before imagined possible. If the bill is much lower, someone may consider to pay it and a whole lot of interesting activities become economically viable (even for governments who want to study the Moon). Sadly, for data processing needs, the Moon doesn't look like a great heatsink.
The really exciting thing for the moon/mars isn't what SpaceX has already has finished hardware doing though (lowering launch costs by, optimistically, an order of magnitude), but what they are actively in the process of doing. Developing a ship and rocket that they claim will be able to put on the order of 100 tons on the moon... lowering launch costs by multiple orders of magnitude.
Given their track record, the money they are (visibly) spending on this goal, and the fact that what they say they are going to do seems possible, it is reasonable to think that there is a good chance they will succeed.
The first settlement will probably be a retirement community for millionaires fleeing the chaos on Earth. Billionaires will build and run it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Discovery#Medieval_trav...
However, if you look at metrics of economic activity across spans 200, 400, and 600 years after that, you get a far different picture. So basically, your point is intellectually bankrupt. It's based on too little data and uses an entirely inadequate metric.
I would welcome a return to deep space, but there has been no progress towards it recently. The dates are correct.
It might be true that this is not strong enough evidence against either, and that it still remains an open question if recent technological advances on Earth will translate into a return to space, but that's as far as it goes. There's nothing inevitable about it, it depends on what people want.
This is part of being an intellectual: I can insult your point all day. That's perfectly fine. Taking that personally -- not good form.
there has been no progress towards it recently. The dates are correct.
If you were an alien observing earth from orbit, you could have made the same observation ("no progress towards it recently") about ocean going exploration at multiple points, prior to it changing history irrevocably and then exploding in economic and political importance.
There's nothing inevitable about it, it depends on what people want.
In that case, it's likely to happen.
Not at all. You can criticize any point all day and if someone takes that personal it is indeed not a good form. But "insulting" a point gives the impression (at least to me, and apparently to others) of insulting the person behind it, as you cannot insult a point, only a person. Quite the opposite of "beeing an intellectual".
Why in the world is saying that a point is intellectually bankrupt "insulting" a point versus criticizing it? The point is made that, "This numerical circumstance doesn't indicate exponential growth." However, an analogous numerical circumstance happened at a number of points, and was followed by exponential growth. Clearly, there is something else needed for justification.
gives the impression (at least to me, and apparently to others)
So factually, no one has done anything but criticize a point, and your reaction is all about your feels, by your own admission. If you want to defend the intellectual merits of the point, then actually defend the intellectual merits of the point. This tactic of acting offended, then offering nothing more is wearing thin. I should hope that going forward from 2018, people will generally recognize that kind of activity for what it is.
Because “intellectually bankrupt” doesn’t mean anything. It’s just strong words for the sake of pushing around people’s emotions.
Otherwise “wrong” will suffice.
If we’re not arguing in good faith, then “intellectually bankrupt” is fine, and it can be used right alongside any other insult or epithet you’d like to feel the sizzle of.
It means baseless. The point has only a semblance of a basis. "Ooooo, 50 years seems like a long gap." If you try to make relevant historical comparisons, no, that's way too little data with way too little relevance.
Otherwise “wrong” will suffice.
No, you can be wrong, but still have a basis. Just having a semblance of a basis, relying on naive impressions doesn't cut it. That's “intellectually bankrupt.”
If we’re not arguing in good faith, then “intellectually bankrupt” is fine
Not addressing the point and claiming offense isn't arguing in good faith.
Both of the words “intellect” and “bankrupt” have strong personal connotations. I think you want them to mean something different than what they do.
I am not your original "enemy" like you probably see him, I am someone else who tried to explain to you, that you were acting childish. Only that I worded it differently.
Oh an "getting an impression" is not the same as "getting the feeling". But probably wasted words on a self-righteous guy, like you are. Seriously, "insulting a point" ... come on, that is and will remain, laughable. Grownups, can admit, that they went over the line here and there, no big deal. But you make something one out of it. And yes, with the last paragraph, I came down to your level a bit. So I just stop the "conversation" here.
This is my point, exactly. It is laughable. If someone is going to spout some facts, as if they mean something, but they don't, then why not call it out? 50 year pauses before crossing profound conceptual gulfs aren't that unusual in history. Here's another one: The gap between the discovery of the light's spectrum and the implications of blackbody radiation. Also, what do exponential curves look like at the beginning? For modest exponents, they generally look flat. The point made didn't account for key points for understanding exponential progress. It was intellectually bankrupt.
Grownups, can admit, that they went over the line here and there, no big deal.
Grownups can admit when they're factually wrong, and they can shake off a few words on the internet that aren't even directed at them personally. Taking the pose of offense while then avoiding the factual and logical issues reveals something else entirely.
But if you like, stay where you are. But just one last hint, buy a punching ball or something similar to blow off steam. Your aggression, masked as "intellectualism" is a bit ridiculus.
No one should have been insulted by my words. If someone thinks you made a bad point, and you disagree, you might be a bit frustrated or exasperated. The only way someone having their feelings hurt makes sense when their point is called "intellectually bankrupt," is either if that person is emotionally fragile or if they think the objection might be valid.
I was just trying to explain to you, that you were insulting others
One can't be ruled by people claiming to take offense.
Your aggression, masked as "intellectualism" is a bit ridiculus.
This form of aggression which claims offense would be ridiculous, were it not such a pervasive thing in 2018. I'm not going to stand for it. It's really nothing more than cheap emotional blackmail masquerading as morality.
Bad example. Believe it or not, exploration wasn't invented in the 1400s. Groups have had strong command of the Pacific and Indian oceans for much much much longer.
No. That supports my point, actually. Graph out the economic activity and wealth associated with that ocean travel. There is a dramatic change which starts around 1400.
Groups have had strong command of the Pacific and Indian oceans for much much much longer.
Those groups have also shown regressions and pauses in exploration and travel.
But we're sending probes on Mars now; and Mars is a lot more interesting than the Moon.