Continued space exploration is vital for the advancement...

I doubt you can construct a persuasive argument that we would be better off generally had we remained confined to Sub-Saharan Africa, and used our time productively to gather as many nuts and berries as possible to feed our hungry people.

Brandon9000 wrote:

I doubt you can construct a persuasive argument that we would be better off generally had we remained confined to Sub-Saharan Africa, and used our time productively to gather as many nuts and berries as possible to feed our hungry people.

i doubt i can, and i'm not going to try. by the same token, i don't think you can demonstrate that all exploration is inherently beneficial. to me it boils down to an economic question, getting the most bang for the buck. i personally think that finding a renewable source of energy that doesn't add more green house gases to the atmosphere is a higher priority than space exploration, at this time.

I think I just did demonstrate that this kind of exploration is inherently beneficial.

Brandon9000 wrote:

I think I just did demonstrate that this kind of exploration is inherently beneficial.

precisely; you said, "this kind of exploration". so which kind is that? if you say, the beneficial kind, then obviously it's beneficial. also, when you talk about prehistoric hunter-gatherers "exploring" you're stretching the meaning of the term a bit, since hunter-gatherers are inherently nomadic. to hunt, you have to follow the prey. that's how humans moved from Asia across ice to the Americas, following the prey. exploration generally refers to journeys to unknown places from an established base of operations, quite different from permanent migration of nomads.

there have been expeditions in my sense that were not beneficial, such as attempts to find the fountain of youth or golden cities. and even your first example, Columbus' expedition, would have been a failure but for the fact that there were civilizations in the Americas who mined the precious metals that the Spaniards could loot, since his original goal was to find a route to China or India. or what about Eric the Red's expedition to Greenland? it's hard to argue that the expedition was beneficial, since all the settlers from Iceland eventually perished.

One could, of course, argue that a sizeable chunk of the world's population -- the Native Americans, for example -- would be far better off today had Columbus never made those four journeys at the time that he did. Given another few hundred years to develop by themselves, they might have achieved a level of civilization that the Europeans could not so easily conquer. All guesswork, of course. But you seem to be arguing, Brandon, that the settlement of the New World by a bunch of slave-holding, gold-grabbing, torch-and-sword-wielding savages was inherently good. That's hard to defend.

not to mention all the Africans who were displaced & enslaved to cultivate cash crops in the New World. Brandon's position is extremely Eurocentric, as you point out, Merry Andrew.

one significant difference between space travel and prehistoric humans dispersing from Africa is that the early humans didn't tax anyone in order to finance their exploration.

... that the settlement of the New World by a bunch of slave-holding, gold-grabbing, torch-and-sword-wielding savages was inherently good.

If you don't agree with me, then you disagree with me.

Brandon9000 wrote:

If you don't agree with me, then you disagree with me.

now, who was the other dude who made a similar statement ??

Merry Andrew wrote:

... that the settlement of the New World by a bunch of slave-holding, gold-grabbing, torch-and-sword-wielding savages was inherently good.

but i read in books and sites that it was disease carrying religious pilgrims that caused the deaths (by disease) to all those natives

brahmin wrote:

Merry Andrew wrote:

... that the settlement of the New World by a bunch of slave-holding, gold-grabbing, torch-and-sword-wielding savages was inherently good.

but i read in books and sites that it was disease carrying religious pilgrims that caused the deaths (by disease) to all those natives

Yeah, that, too. Couldn't shoot 'em all. Those early firearms were notoriously unreliable.

brahmin wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

If you don't agree with me, then you disagree with me.

now, who was the other dude who made a similar statement ??

Alright, then tell me what the third alternative is, please.

I made a very specific, single assertion and yitwail implied that it's not correct. So, how, pray tell, am wrong when I say that this indicates disagreement?

Brandon9000 wrote:

brahmin wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

If you don't agree with me, then you disagree with me.

now, who was the other dude who made a similar statement ??

Alright, then tell me what the third alternative is, please.

I made a very specific, single assertion and yitwail implied that it's not correct. So, how, pray tell, am wrong when I say that this indicates disagreement?

i'll leave it to you and dubya to work out what the third alternative is.

If you don't agree with me, then you disagree with me. Since my assertion is that mankind is better for having not remained confined to its birthplace in Africa, then you are asserting that manking ought to have remained confined to its birthplace in Africa

Because you can't answer? Bush said, "If you're not with us, you're against us." I said, referring to a very simple, single assertion of mine, "If you don't agree, you disagree." These are entirely different things. Now answer or admit that you cannot.