# Are manned space missions obsolete **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 23, 2006, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-manned-space-missions-obsolete/349648 "2006-03-23T23:09:57Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 2\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2006, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-manned-space-missions-obsolete/349648/41 "2006-03-26T23:21:51Z")
And I agree with **Xtisme** and **Tuckerfan:** The point of going to space is to **go** there, not just to send robot probes to serve as our eyes. If we ever reach a point where about as many human beings are living off the Earth as are now living on it – or even 1/1000th of that figure – then we can confidently expect the human race to survive for another billion years, whatever happens to the Earth. ---
**Author:** ![Tuckerfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@Tuckerfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuckerfan)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2006, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-manned-space-missions-obsolete/349648/42 "2006-03-27T00:53:24Z")
[QUOTE=Stranger On A Train] A few of points: [ul] [li]The viewpoint article you’ve cited doesn’t really mesh with the majority view, nor does it jive with the reality of modern predators, most of whom seem fearful, or at least shy, of the upright stature of man. [/li][/quote] Of course, they’ve had a couple of millenia of weapon wielding bipeds to break them of the habit of thinking we’re a tasty snack, not to mention that animal attacks on humans _do_ still occur. [quote] [li]The notion of developing intelligence as a means of “outsmarting the predator”, while not unseen in other animals, is both unacceptibly reductionist and fails to account for the lack of other highly intellectually developed land mammals. Most animals escape predation not by growing oversized, energy-intensive, and childbirth-complicating brains but by physically outcompeting with either the predator or their fellow speices-members. There are clearly other adaptive pressures that lead to the development of intelligence beyond merely escaping predation.[/li][/quote] True, but at the same time, but we _don’t_ know very much about DNA in the grand scheme of things, and it might be that our DNA is more “flexible” than others thus allowing for a slightly different evoluntionary path. Nor do we know the exact conditions which allowed humans to evolve. There’s also the sudden disappearance of Neanderthals, perhaps our ancestors found them to be a bit surly in their growing intelligence. [quote] [li]Far from being “pretty much agreed that deliberately tinkering around with our DNA to a large extent is _verboten_,” I find it highly likely that gene therapy and modification will continue to progress. Despite the protestations of a minority group comprised of self-identified expert bioethicists and religious pundits, the advantages in eliminating weaknesses and chronic defects it too appealing to leave aside, and thus seemlessly follows modifications and enhancements. We may not do the necessary research in the US–at least, not so long as the standing morality is driven by ignorance and superstition–but research is continuing apace in Europe and on the Pacific Rim. [/li][/quote] I seriously doubt that _any_ nation in the world will consent to allow research in genetics that will lead to the rise of an entirely different species of humanity. Gene therapy to correct genetic problems is, IMHO, _small_ in comparison to nearly completely rewriting the human genome. > [@](#): > > [li]There’s no indication that moving into space will make humanity any less of a “bunch of warmongering, enviroment destroying beasts that we presently [are]”; regardless of the vast wealth that awaits us elsewhere in the solar system, we can continue to expect political conflict and violence to be a part of life. As a race, we can take some measure of comfort that the eggs are better dispersed and able to survive a cataclysmic assault, but we will also cringe at the unenforcability of the social contract in the vast wastes between worlds. [/li][/ul] We have ample evidence that staying around here on the planet isn’t doing much to change those things, and humans will most certainly evolve (and probably quite rapidly), given that the evolutionary lines which survive are those that _enhance_ species survival, then it seems highly likely to me that we’ll change in the ways I mentioned. > [@](#): > > There are good reasons to explore (and exploit) the solar system, but arguing evolutionary perrogatives isn’t really a good sell. The real reason–the one that will cause the unwashed and anti-intellectual masses to unflaggingly and reliably support space exploration–is that there is profit and resource to be had. In order to make that case, though, you first have to demonstrate the feasibility of doing so, which does not seem to be a menu item on NASA’s plate. But the “great unwashed masses” will _never_ get behind space exploration, no matter _what_ argument you present or how cheap it becomes. They’ll dismiss every argument you can make with handwaving and comments about how the money could be better spent here on Earth, nevermind that if it weren’t for the space program, we’d not have things like accurate weather forecasts, etc. To them it’s a waste because the money isn’t being spent on their pet program, even if it’s all done by private enterprise that cuts the costs to that of Earthbound transportation prices and discovers new materials that can only be made in space that give us a technological leap forward greater than we’ve been through in the past 200 years. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-manned-space-missions-obsolete/349648.md?page=2)