Continued space exploration is vital for the advancement...

In a manner of speaking. Read Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs and Steel.

Brandon9000 wrote:

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

Brandon9000 wrote:

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.

ok....you said that since mankind surely is better of having ventured out of africa, all exploration must be good.
she pointed out, that though the africa move was brilliant, and neither cost any tax money, some other moves, like taking over the americas - weren't too popular with the people at the receiving end of it.


so clearly ALL exploration can't be good.

Merry Andrew wrote:

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.

...I am saying that the human race has been and is better off for occupying the whole world than we would be had we remained confined to one small region of Africa where we evolved. Let's see how many ways you can distort this rather simple idea.

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.

...I am saying that the human race has been and is better off for occupying the whole world than we would be had we remained confined to one small region of Africa where we evolved.

Brandon9000 wrote:

...I am saying that the human race has been and is better off for occupying the whole world than we would be had we remained confined to one small region of Africa where we evolved.

the human race was not occupying the whole world, including the americas and australias, before the cooks and the christophers arrived ??


if you didnt mean that ALL exploration was good, its cos you indirectly meant that only all eurocentric exploration was.

Please show me where I said or implied this? I insist that you back up your accusation. I assert that you simply made it up.

My point remains that the human race is better off for having spread over the Earth than we would be had we played it safe and stayed in one little area. Anyone who thinks that we ought to have stayed confined to equatorial Africa forever is an imbecile.

And Queen Isabella of Spain could have helped a lot of poor people with her jewels instead of donating them to Columbus, but in the long run, her contribution was well spent.

I mean, it really would have been a terrible thing for the human race to have remained confined to one continent on Earth, just because we evolved there.

yitwail wrote:

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.

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. This makes you a prize fool.

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.

Ray, will you post some more on the sun getting bigger? Oh, and do ya'll just get on at a certain time and hammer each other for an hour on purpose? i admit, it is funny to watch, but ya'll add pages really quickly...

Actually, these arguments could prove very useful, so thanks. But, I was wondering if anyone did have a useful definition(s) of civilization advancement?

"beneficial" is not a word in the topic, however. Only "advancements"

but perhaps something could be neither harmful nor beneficial yet vital.

yitwail wrote:

but perhaps something could be neither harmful nor beneficial yet vital.

what if space exploration turned out to be harmful (in some ways) AND benificial (in other ways) and yet NOT vital ???


<------------------ note

Brandon9000 wrote:

Please show me where I said or implied this? I insist that you back up your accusation. I assert that you simply made it up.

My point remains that the human race is better off for having spread over the Earth than we would be had we played it safe and stayed in one little area. Anyone who thinks that we ought to have stayed confined to equatorial Africa forever is an imbecile.

here -

Brandon9000 wrote:

And Queen Isabella of Spain could have helped a lot of poor people with her jewels instead of donating them to Columbus, but in the long run, her contribution was well spent.

in the long run, her contribution also ensured the wiping out of a people and the last few remaining being rendered voiceless in their own land.

so well spent it is, only from a eurocentric point of view.

and in saying

Brandon9000 wrote:

I mean, it really would have been a terrible thing for the human race to have remained confined to one continent on Earth, just because we evolved there.

do you not imply that the spreading out/exploration of the new world by the original peoples, arn't good enough? as if humans had remained confined in sub saharan africa, till the europeans arrived .

Actually, I have to prepare both sides. I just foresee a need for a better stance on aff.

brahmin wrote:

here -

Brandon9000 wrote:

And Queen Isabella of Spain could have helped a lot of poor people with her jewels instead of donating them to Columbus, but in the long run, her contribution was well spent.

Please tell me how this quotation implies that "only Eurocentric exploration is good." This quotation merely states that one historical case of European exploration was good. How do you infer from that that other peoples' exploration and colonization is not good?

brahmin wrote:

in the long run, her contribution also ensured the wiping out of a people and the last few remaining being rendered voiceless in their own land.

so well spent it is, only from a eurocentric point of view.

and in saying

Brandon9000 wrote:

I mean, it really would have been a terrible thing for the human race to have remained confined to one continent on Earth, just because we evolved there.

do you not imply that the spreading out/exploration of the new world by the original peoples, arn't good enough? as if humans had remained confined in sub saharan africa, till the europeans arrived .

You are taking an extremely simple assertion and making it into something very convoluted and confusing. The human race evolved in sub-Saharan Africa. At some point in time, humans occupied only this one area. I said only that it's a good thing that Man spread out over his planet. This bizarre racist stuff is nowhere but in your mind.