31
   

Should NASA go to Mars or back to the Moon?

 
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Jul, 2009 06:40 pm
@hawkeye10,
the experts disagree with you....almost all of the drugs are well on their way to becoming useless, as the microbes have gained immunity. We have made the situation much worse by over using the drugs and not using them properly. The race is on to come up with new drugs in time, but their is zero reason for optimism. The scientists currently have nothing that looks promising. The future is a known if we don't have the drugs, given how packed like sardines humans now live.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Experts? When New York or any other great modern city had the kind of diseases outbreaks that was common just two hundred years ago then you can tell me about how we are losing battles that we had and are clearly winning.

Then water transmit diseases once more become common or lead or other heavy metals once more become common in our water supplies in amounts greater then part per billions then you can cry about how we are going backward into the dark ages.

When the average life span go down instead of up then you can tell me about your so call experts silly opinions.

hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Jul, 2009 06:48 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:

Resistance in microbes—bacterial, viral, or protozoan—to therapeutics is not surprising or new. It is, however, an increasing challenge as drug resistance accumulates and accelerates, even as the drugs for combating infections are reduced in power and number. Today some strains of bacterial and viral infections are treatable with only a single drug, some no longer have effective treatments. The disease burden from multi-drug resistant strains of tuberculosis, malaria, hepatitis, and HIV is growing in both developed and developing countries.

Infections caused by resistant microbes fail to respond to treatment, resulting in prolonged illness and greater risk of death. Treatment failures also lead to longer periods of infection, which increase the numbers of infected people moving in the community and thus expose the general population to the risk of contracting a resistant strain of infection. When infections become resistant to first-line antimicrobials, treatment has to be switched to second- or third-line drugs, which are nearly always much more expensive and sometimes more toxic as well, e.g. the drugs needed to treat multidrug-resistant forms of tuberculosis are over 100 times more expensive than the first-line drugs used to treat non-resistant forms. In many countries, the high cost of such replacement drugs is prohibitive, with the result that some diseases can no longer be treated in areas where resistance to first-line drugs is widespread. Most alarming of all are diseases where resistance is developing for virtually all currently available drugs. Even if the pharmaceutical industry were to step up efforts to develop new replacement drugs immediately, current trends suggest some diseases will have no effective therapies within the next ten years.

More recently, the challenges of resistance are compounded by growing concerns about the possible use of biological weapons leading to large-scale disease outbreak or exposure. The ability to respond effectively to such exposures could be significantly compromised by the introduction of drug-resistant pathogens. The use of prophylactic drugs or therapies on large populations may also contribute to the development of drug resistance and thus increase both the immediate and longer-term challenges of treating infectious diseases.

A number of trends in human behavior increasingly contribute to the emergence of resistance to antimicrobial agents. Host behaviors such as noncompliance with recommended treatment and self-medication are among the most complicit problems associated with the development of resistance. Noncompliance with treatment occurs when individuals forget to take medication, interrupt the treatment as they begin to feel better, or are unable to afford a full course of therapy. Self-medication with antimicrobials almost always involves unnecessary, inadequate, and ill-timed dosing—creating an ideal environment for microbes to adapt rather than be eliminated. In many countries, antimicrobials are readily available to consumers without a medical prescription. Both noncompliance and self-medication are complicated in some countries by the availability of low quality antimicrobials (particularly antibiotics) that are poorly manufactured, counterfeit products, or expired.

Another factor contributing to the rise in antimicrobial resistance—over-prescribing by physicians—has been heavily influenced by patient expectations and demands. Growing patient awareness (not necessarily accompanied by understanding) of antimicrobial agents (largely from direct-to-consumer marketing) sets up an expectation when being treated that they should receive such treatments, even in the absence of appropriate indications. Multiple factors such as diagnostic uncertainty, lack of opportunity for patient follow-up, and lack of knowledge regarding optimal approaches on the part of the physician may influence the response to patient demands
.
.
..



http://www.iom.edu/CMS/3783/3924/8620.aspx

You don't know what you think you know

Please get Educated so that you can participate in a meaningfully discussion..
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Jul, 2009 07:02 pm
@hawkeye10,
Once more the average life span is going up repeat up repeat up and the average health is also going up repeat up.

So read a little history about how the upper class would leave large cities in the summer times and only return in winter to avoid diseases outbreaks.

Here I am 61 years old with all my teethes and able to cycle a hundred miles in a day without problems in the hot Miami weather and with a mother also with all her teethes who still drive,live alone and only medical problem at 88 is in her knees.

Never in history of the human race would either of the about be likely and now it is becoming common.

So read all the doom day nonsense you care to but it is nonsense as I need to go to the gym and work out for a few hours and look at the young women out of the corners of my eyes.

hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Jul, 2009 07:17 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:
Once more the average life span is going up repeat up repeat up and the average health is also going up repeat up.


You remind me of the Wall Street genius who ran complicate risk equations on Credit Default Swaps....with four years of data. As if the last four years of behaviour would tell them everything that they needed to know about the risk going forwards.

Average life span, and particularly life span predictions, are a LAGGING indicators. These numbers are strictly rear view mirror measurements. Those working in the field, scientists, do have some ability to predict the future based upon trend lines that have not yet shown up in the death rates. They are alarmed, and you should be too.
Eorl
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Jul, 2009 07:21 pm
@Brandon9000,
Brandon9000 wrote:

Eorl wrote:

It should be Mars. "We choose to go to the moon, to prove we still can" isn't going to inspire the world that much.

Not sure if it will be, or even should be NASA though.


Going to Mars first is like telling a baby to skip the crawling stage and start with walking. It should be the Moon, then Mars, then the outer planets.


I'm not sure it's possible to go Mars first at this point.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Jul, 2009 07:26 pm
@Eorl,
Quote:
I'm not sure it's possible to go Mars first at this point


There is a solid argument that it is not possible to go to the moon....at this point.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Jul, 2009 07:30 pm
@hawkeye10,
Lord is the fact that we do not have the kind of large scale outbreaks of diseases in large cities as we used to is also a lagging indicator my friend?

How silly can you be if the big bad micros was winning we would see large scale outbreaks of diseases returning to our cities killings ten of thousands or more.

We are crying about a few deaths in the whole country from the flu where in my grandfathers lifetime it was millions.

Give me a break from this nonsense and I do need to leave for the gym.


0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Jul, 2009 07:33 pm
@hawkeye10,
There is a solid argument that it is not possible to go to the moon....at this point.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We never did go to the moon now did we<grin> if you are going to be silly go for it and please take a break from writing nonsense so I can tear myself away from the computer and go to the gym.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Jul, 2009 09:32 pm
@Brandon9000,
You don't know what the hell you're talking about--as someone with a scientific background, you should know better than to start from assumptions for which you have no data. Crime, poverty and disease were not outside limits common throughout Europe at the time. You also seem to have missed a major point. Ferdinand and Isabella didn't spend any money on the expedition--they simply seized the assets needed for the expedition and handed it over to Columbus, providing letters of credit which were not in fact backed by anything other than an assumption that the dual monarchs would honor them, which in the event, turned out to be a foolish assumption.

Spain, in fact, did not exist at the time. The reconquista was only accomplished in 1492. Spain would not exist for several generations to come. Ferdinand and Isabella were a dual monarchy of Castille and Aragon, and the the territory from which they took the assets on which they then operated had been conquered from Andalusia, the former Muslim state in the southwest of the peninsula. No nation in Europe was spending money to improve the lives of their subjects, the concept was so alien to the times that no one would have even thought of it.

I saw your point, but you're missing mine. This was precisely a case of Ferdinand and Isabella gambling on a quick pay-off, and Columbus was expected to produce a quick pay-0ff, while the dual monarchs provided ****-all for financing. Columbus only convinced them because he claimed he saw a clear path and a quick pay-off. Of all period in European history, the middle ages and the early modern era were the most ruthlessly capitalistic. Virtually every overseas venture of any nation in Europe was a joint-stock operation (such as the Virginia Company or the Massachusetts Bay Company) or an entrepreneurial venture by military types (such as Cortez or Pizzaro).

There is just no possible way to compare any of the enterprises of the age of European exploration to present conditions, because the differences in societies and outlooks are so profoundly dissimilar.
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Jul, 2009 10:04 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
but that that's no justification for never doing adventurous things that don't have a clear path to a quick payoff.


the ability to wait for an open amount of time for a payoff that is not definable and may never happen is a luxury of the civilized world. Even in the best of times the budget for this type of endeavour has limits, and these are not the best of times. In my opinion the only project that is worth huge investment with unknown pay-off given our vast known investment needs is working on a new energy source that is sustainable and non-toxic. If you have a space program to work on that then I am all ears.

Again, when humans occupied only a small area of Africa, and every day was a struggle for survival and to find enough food to stay alive, what was the clear, definable, quick payoff for sending people out to look over the next hill? Was it a mistake for them to do so? Obviously, not, since the result was civilization.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Jul, 2009 10:06 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
Sorry this is complete nonsense since when was the last time we loss 1/3 of the known human race to a microbes for example.


the experts disagree with you....almost all of the drugs are well on their way to becoming useless, as the microbes have gained immunity. We have made the situation much worse by over using the drugs and not using them properly. The race is on to come up with new drugs in time, but there is zero reason for optimism. I think I remember reading that we got less than 1/4 of the lifespan that was expected out of the current drugs...because we are not organized and motivated enough to use them correctly. The scientists currently have nothing that looks promising. The future is a known if we don't have the drugs, given how packed like sardines humans now live.


Maybe if we keep exloring new horizons and new ideas, we'll learn some new things.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Jul, 2009 10:08 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
I'm not sure it's possible to go Mars first at this point


There is a solid argument that it is not possible to go to the moon....at this point.

Yeah, we'd actually have to resolve to do it, and then start working, and stick with it until we succeed. Let's all go and hide under our beds.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Jul, 2009 10:12 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

You don't know what the hell you're talking about--as someone with a scientific background, you should know better than to start from assumptions for which you have no data. Crime, poverty and disease were not outside limits common throughout Europe at the time. You also seem to have missed a major point. Ferdinand and Isabella didn't spend any money on the expedition--they simply seized the assets needed for the expedition and handed it over to Columbus, providing letters of credit which were not in fact backed by anything other than an assumption that the dual monarchs would honor them, which in the event, turned out to be a foolish assumption.

Spain, in fact, did not exist at the time. The reconquista was only accomplished in 1492. Spain would not exist for several generations to come. Ferdinand and Isabella were a dual monarchy of Castille and Aragon, and the the territory from which they took the assets on which they then operated had been conquered from Andalusia, the former Muslim state in the southwest of the peninsula. No nation in Europe was spending money to improve the lives of their subjects, the concept was so alien to the times that no one would have even thought of it.

I saw your point, but you're missing mine. This was precisely a case of Ferdinand and Isabella gambling on a quick pay-off, and Columbus was expected to produce a quick pay-0ff, while the dual monarchs provided ****-all for financing. Columbus only convinced them because he claimed he saw a clear path and a quick pay-off. Of all period in European history, the middle ages and the early modern era were the most ruthlessly capitalistic. Virtually every overseas venture of any nation in Europe was a joint-stock operation (such as the Virginia Company or the Massachusetts Bay Company) or an entrepreneurial venture by military types (such as Cortez or Pizzaro).

There is just no possible way to compare any of the enterprises of the age of European exploration to present conditions, because the differences in societies and outlooks are so profoundly dissimilar.

Noted, but you must admit that in retrospect, financing his trip, even had they really used their own money, would have been a good thing for mankind, even though the same money could have been used instead to relieve domestic problems.

As a side note, though, just out of curiosity, what about the story of Isabella donating her jewels?
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Jul, 2009 04:19 pm
Hmmm, the same debate seems to be on CNN now...

Moon or Mars? 'Next giant leap' sparks debate

0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Jul, 2009 05:06 pm
@Brandon9000,
Quote:
As a side note, though, just out of curiosity, what about the story of Isabella donating her jewels?


It was just that, a story. As has been observed by others, from the point of view of the aboriginal inhabitants, this was not necessarily a good thing for "mankind."
BillRM
 
  2  
Reply Mon 20 Jul, 2009 05:12 pm
It was just that, a story. As has been observed by others, from the point of view of the aboriginal inhabitants, this was not necessarily a good thing for "mankind."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hmm give the history of human sacrifices and other such charming behaviors of the cultures in question somehow ending them might had been a good outcome for the descends of those cultures after all and a good thing for mankind.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Jul, 2009 05:21 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

Quote:
As a side note, though, just out of curiosity, what about the story of Isabella donating her jewels?


It was just that, a story. As has been observed by others, from the point of view of the aboriginal inhabitants, this was not necessarily a good thing for "mankind."

Oh, interesting about Queen Isabella.

Coming to the new world was a good thing from the point of view of the society that did it.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Jul, 2009 11:16 am
@Brandon9000,
More than most people know. Spain and France fought for years and years in and over the control of northern Italy. The "Great Captain," Cordoba, recruited so much of his dreaded infantry (for nearly two centuries, the Spanish infantry were considered the finest troops in the world, until the French defeated them at Rocroi in 1643) from Estremadura, from among the impoverished nobility, middle class, and to a lesser extent, from among prosperous peasant families, who were unable to make much of a living in some of the poorest farmland in what is now Spain. As was common with the Spanish monarchy, they usually didn't actually pay their troops, they would just let them loose for three or four days in a newly captured city.

Having unemployed soldiers on your hands, though, is a problem for any nation. Columbus, of course, came along at the end of the reconquista, and many of the unemployed soldiers of those campaigns against the Muslims followed his lead to the new world. But there was a pause while the Spanish filled the islands, and looked on the mainland, wondering about its potential. The grandson of Ferdinand and Isabella was Carlos, who was elected Holy Roman Empire through lavish bribery, and a temporary fit of incredible stupidity on the part of the German Electors. It was as the Emperor Charles V that he opposed Martin Luther and fought the wars of the Reformation. The veterans of Cordoba's campaigns in Italy against the French, and of Charles' campaigns in the wars of the Reformation often sailed for the "new world" to try their fortunes. The best account of the conquest of Mexico we have from the Spanish side is by Bernal Diaz, in his The Conquest of New Spain--and he was a veteran of Cordoba's campaigns in Italy.

Monarchs in Europe rarely paid their bills, and usually attempted not to deal in cash. To get support for the reconquista, Ferdinand and Isabella held out the promise of new lands and titles from among the wreckage of the former Muslim Andalusia. The new colonies in the Americas and then in the far east were a way to keep restless veterans out of Spain, and to pay off officers who otherwise might have fomented or lead discontent.

****************************************************

When the Russians launched Sputnik, it circled the globe beeping out the message that the Soviet Union could build and successfully launch intercontinental ballistic missiles, at a time when the United States had none. The space program had the justification, for whatever Kennedy said, of bringing us up to speed, and then surpassing the Russians. After the last moon missions, though, it was kind of a white elephant, and the government was stuck with NASA in an "all dressed up and no place to go" sort of way. Reagan's Star Wars programs breathed some new life into NASA, as we raced to grab the military "high ground" in space. But since the 1960s, it has gotten harder to justify the expenditures.
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Jul, 2009 02:12 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:


... Columbus, of course, came along at the end of the reconquista, and many of the unemployed soldiers of those campaigns against the Muslims followed his lead to the new world.


Another version I read was that the Inquisition came along at the end of the reconquista, and Columbus, with the aid of Spanish Jewish financiers went to look for a land around India that was supposed to be an autonomous land where Jews lived, and governed themselves (and the Spanish Jews leaving Spain would have another destination choice, rather than just Italy, Holland or Portugal). Interesting how that version gets left out of so many history books. My point is that the new world was discovered serendipitously via the impetus of Spanish racism (Jews coming to Spain 300 BC (BCE) were not "true Spaniards," since they were not Catholic; they were more "Spanish" than the Christianized Visigoths).

Regardless, our space program has no such impetus, other than giving jobs to those who got degrees in related engineering fields, and would like a nice paying job in the field of space. If one was writing a novel, the logical sequence would be solve all problems on Earth, and then venture out to space, I believe.
Francis
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Jul, 2009 02:26 pm
Deluded foofie wrote:
Another version I read was that the Inquisition came along at the end of the reconquista, and Columbus, with the aid of Spanish Jewish financiers went to look for a land around India that was supposed to be an autonomous land where Jews lived, and governed themselves (and the Spanish Jews leaving Spain would have another destination choice, rather than just Italy, Holland or Portugal).


If you knew only a little bit of history, you would know that these kind of theories arise time to time but they have a common point: - wishful thinking.

Obviously, you are not know for you historic accuracy or even for your impartial reasoning..
 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 04/19/2024 at 11:05:32