From Newsgroup: alt.tv.star-trek.tos   
   From Address: sdlitvin@earthlink.net   
   Subject: Re: The Eye of the Beholder (TAS): my review   
      
      
      
   "Led4Aces"  wrote in message    
   news:948eab67-f456-4d8e-8224-58aff989f007@w5g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:   
      
   > 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.   
      
   It was the reason he got funded.   
      
   The original land route to Asia--going through the Middle East--had    
   become imperiled by the rising power of Islam.  So Europe looked for    
   other routes:  First they tried going around the southern tip of Africa.    
     Then Columbus proposed going around the Atlantic Ocean to India.  (He    
   didn't know about the Americas or the Pacific Ocean.)   
      
   This wasn't like the voyage of the Beagle (Charles Darwin's famous    
   trip).   It wasn't a voyage of discovery, except insofar as they were    
   exploring how best to get to India and get ahold of the spices 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.   
      
   No, we were talking about whether alien civilizations would be    
   interested in making contact with other civilizations.  And I said that    
   our obsession with "seeking out new life and new civilizations" is an    
   evolutionary holdover from our hunter-gatherer past.  Aliens might not    
   have gone through such a stage.  Photosynthetic beings would never have    
   been hunter-gatherers.  They might move around just enough to find a    
   sunny spot where they can bask in the most sunshine--but that's all.   
      
      
      
   > > > 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'.   
      
   I assert that the desire to see "what's out there" is in our 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.   
      
   That's pure speculation.  If Columbus was driven by the curiosity of the    
   unknown, he didn't record that.   
      
      
      
   > 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.   
      
   And that's why it's not getting done.   
      
   The cost is not commensurate with doing it "just because it's there."   
      
   Going on voyages just to see what's out there *did* eventually    
   happen--but centuries after Columbus once ocean travel had become much    
   more cost-effective.  Even Ferdinand Magellan's voyages around the world    
   were motivated by the same thing as Columbus:  Finding a new trade route    
   to Asia.   
      
      
      
      
   -- Steven L.   
      
      
      
   --- Synchronet 3.15a-Linux NewsLink 1.92-mlp   
   --- SBBSecho 2.12-Linux   
    * Origin: telnet & http://cco.ath.cx - Dial-Up: 502-875-8938 (1:2320/105.1)