From Newsgroup: alt.tv.star-trek.tos   
   From Address: Led4acs@aol.com   
   Subject: Re: The Eye of the Beholder (TAS): my review   
      
   On Oct 12, 9:04aam, "Steven L."  wrote:   
   > "Led4Aces"  wrote in message   
   >   
   > news:315d6c6e-7dfa-4dc8-b4f3-347c7ac05a7f@o35g2000prn.googlegroups.com:   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   > > On Oct 10, 10:26aam, Graeme  wrote:   
   > > > On Oct 9, 10:14aam, "Steven L."  wrote:   
   >   
   > > > > Our own obsession with exploration is an evolutionary holdover from our   
   > > > > hunter-gatherer ancestors, who were constantly on the move in search of   
   > > > > new game to hunt and new fruit to pick. aBut a civilization that didn't   
   > > > > evolve from hunter-gatherers might have a totally different set of   
   > > > > values.   
   >   
   > > > That's the problem with evolution. aNot the science part, but rather   
   > > > all the philosophy and speculation that people try to grandfather in   
   > > > under the label "evolution". a   
   >   
   > > More accurately, the problem lies with people who speculate and then   
   > > draw conclusions.   
   >   
   > > The worst offender there was probably   
   > > > Phlox deciding that evolution wanted a race wiped out. a   
   >   
   > > True. Evolution is not a 'thing' or a prime mover in any way. It   
   > > doesn't have an ethos.   
   >   
   > > There are   
   > > > obviously many values we hold that cavemen didn't have, so it seems   
   > > > kind of silly to say that all the ones we do have in common with them   
   > > > (assuming that we do at all) must have been passed down in some kind   
   > > > of mystical process, which accounts for all our values except for the   
   > > > ones it doesn't. aThat's not really science.   
   >   
   > > Humans were once hunter-gatherers and or nomadic. Steve L maintained   
   > > that that is why we have our curiosity today, as a carry over from   
   > > when humans were constantly on the move. Yet humans have been residing   
   > > in towns/settlements and farming for at least 10,000 years now, yet we   
   > > haven't lost that desire to umm.... seek out new life and new.... well   
   > > you get it.   
   >   
   > it's not a mystical process as Graeme thought.   
   > It's Darwinian natural selection.   
   >   
   > It's in our genes to be restless, since those hominids that didn't feel   
   > like moving on when food was scarce died of starvation and left no   
   > descendants.   
   I agree we our a product of our genes, but we are also more than that.   
   Which is why I mentioned brain power. We are not slaves to our hard   
   wiring. Certain parts of our brain fuel our imagination. You seem to   
   think that a trade route to India was the ONLY reason that Columbus   
   traveled to the New World. I guarantee you that more than one person   
   responsible for his voyage wanted to know what was out there.   
   >   
   > > And I'm not sure why non hunter/gatherer civilizations would somehow   
   > > lack curiosity about the universe or even what lies beyond the nearest   
   > > mountain.   
   >   
   > A species that gets its energy from photosynthesis has no reason to find   
   > out what lies beyond the nearest mountain. aThat's why there aren't any   
   > mobile plants on Earth. a(Even a Venus Flytrap can't uproot itself and   
   > move to another locale where there are more insects to feed on.)   
   I was under the distinct impression we were talking about human   
   beings.   
   >   
   > > It's really about brain development and ,quite to the   
   > > contrary, when humans started growing their own food and domesticating   
   > > animals, it actually freed up more time to ponder other things....like   
   > > art, architecture, tech innovation.... which in turn led ultimately   
   > > led to space exploration.   
   >   
   > No. aYou could have an advanced society that was isolationist.   
   That's not really the point though is it? You claim we get our desire   
   to explore from our hunter/gatherer ancestors yet we haven't been   
   hunter-gatherers for thousands of years and never lost the desire to   
   see 'what's out there'. So there must be something else at work that   
   drives us rather than being steered by pure genetic 'hard wiring'.   
   >   
   > On Earth, the original purpose of exploration was to find new natural   
   > resources and land. a(Columbus was trying to find a new route to India   
   > to obtain valuable spices.) aWhich as I said is based on why   
   > hunter-gatherer tribes traveled.   
   >   
   > Space exploration has proceeded more slowly than science-fiction writers   
   > had expected--precisely because we haven't found natural resources in   
   > space that make the trip worthwhile.   
   I concede that was part of the reason for Columbus's voyage. He needed   
   some reason to justify the expense to Queen Whatshername. You just   
   choose to leave out that someone could have been driven purely by the   
   curiosity of the unknown.   
   And our reasons for not going to Mars just yet, are a little more   
   complicated than our ability to fully exploit the Martian soil for   
   whatever precious metals lie beneath. The travel time and great cost   
   of the initial investment are a bit of a put off at the moment. But   
   most people, I believe anyway, want to go to Mars for the same reason   
   that Edmund Hillary climbed Mt Everest or Neil Armstrong walked on the   
   Moon. Not because it would make some corporation rich but because it   
   would be a crowning human achievement.   
   --- Synchronet 3.15a-Linux NewsLink 1.92-mlp   
    * Origin: http://groups.google.com (1:2320/105.97)   
   --- SBBSecho 2.12-Linux   
    * Origin: telnet & http://cco.ath.cx - Dial-Up: 502-875-8938 (1:2320/105.1)