Sign in to follow this  
Guest Ktrek

Patrick Stewart speaks about Space Travel

Recommended Posts

Guest Ktrek

LONDON - The captain of the USS Enterprise thinks people should stay on Earth instead of boldly going where no man has gone before.

 

thumb.nyet10602032000.people_stewart_nyet106.jpg

 

 

 

Patrick Stewart (news), who played Captain Jean-Luc Picard in the TV series "Star Trek: The Next Generation," said in an interview published Tuesday that he thinks interplanetary travel for humans is a bad idea.

 

 

"I'm a bit of a wet blanket when it comes to the whole business of space travel," Stewart was quoted as saying on the British Broadcasting Corp.'s Web site.

 

 

"I would like to see us get this place right first before we have the arrogance to put significantly flawed civilizations out onto other planets — even though they may be utterly uninhabited," he said.

 

 

Stewart, 63, said he approved of unmanned missions such as NASA (news - web sites)'s use of twin rovers to explore the surface of Mars. But he objected to sending astronauts, saying the trips were too expensive.

 

 

"As I get older, my unease at the time and the money that has to be spent on projects putting human beings back to the moon, and onto another planet, is so enormous," Stewart said. "And it would take up so many resources, which I personally feel should be directed at our own planet."

 

 

President Bush (news - web sites)'s new budget proposes an ambitious program to return Americans to the moon as early as 2015, and eventually to send a mission to Mars. However, the budget only contains $1 billion in new money for the effort over the next five years, with another $11 billion reallocated from current NASA programs.

 

 

The BBC said Stewart made the comments in an interview with its World Service radio broadcast

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My "explorer" side disagrees but my "logical" side agrees.

 

I've been closely following the rovers and frankly I've been choked with the amount of scientific returns these two little machines are delivering to Earth, I can't keep up with it all and the best is still to come.

 

So as much as I'd love to see man go I can't in good conscience back manned missions until I see we've reached the limit of what robotic missions have to teach us.

 

The Moon however is a different story, I'm behind manned missions to the Moon again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My "explorer" side disagrees but my "logical" side agrees.

 

 

I agree...we really should clean up our act here on earth first...Stewart does make sense. :o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And what he says is what Trek is too. Earth got straightened out after Vulcan first contact - the boldly going came after. :o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I completely disagree with him. The journey to get there will improve humanity. The study of how to get there will give so many benefits to human kind that we can't even imagine.

 

It's just "politically correct" so say that humanity would put "significantly flawed civilizations" on other planets and a bit arrogant too in my view.

 

I know he is a political socialist though, so I know that that is what drives this view. I just think it's short sighted not to see the benefits of space.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me get this straight: We should wait until we have perfected the human condition BEFORE we leave this planet? With all due respect to Mr. Stewart, who is a fine actor, he does not "get it".

 

Did Columbus wait until humans had perfected Europe before he ventured across the Atlantic? If he had waited, he would still be waiting.

 

If humans did not explore, our species probably would have died in Africa thousands of years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Let me get this straight: We should wait until we have perfected the human condition BEFORE we leave this planet? With all due respect to Mr. Stewart, who is a fine actor, he does not "get it".

 

Did Columbus wait until humans had perfected Europe before he ventured across the Atlantic? If he had waited, he would still be waiting.

 

If humans did not explore, our species probably would have died in Africa thousands of years ago.

Yeah, lol

 

 

Maybe the Europeans should have waited to discover the New World?

(You know because they weren't ready and not to mention that this "New World" has not made the world any better off)

 

 

Master Q

StarTrek_Master_Q@yahoo.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's not make any more movies. Or theatre productions. Only think of the millions of £ and/or $ that are wasted on these things when there is poverty in the world. I'm sure Patrick Stewart would forgo the rest of his career for that - yes?

 

The manned exploration of space was halted other than orbital stuff, in the seventies because people said the same things. The money should be used for that, this and the other. So manned exploration has been halted for nearly thirty years. Thirty years without Apollos or anything else. And, of course, we have had no poverty or illiteracy or drugs or gangs, have we? Because all the money that was going into space was directed back here and stopped it all. Didn't it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Let me get this straight: We should wait until we have perfected the human condition BEFORE we leave this planet? With all due respect to Mr. Stewart, who is a fine actor, he does not "get it".

 

Did Columbus wait until humans had perfected Europe before he ventured across the Atlantic? If he had waited, he would still be waiting.

 

If humans did not explore, our species probably would have died in Africa thousands of years ago.

And what happened to the New World after it was discovered? How many wars did it cost? How many lives were lost? I completely agree with him

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you telling me that if this New World was not discovered then the world would be less free?

 

Is not our standard of life greater because of this little discovery? Has not the spread of the Soviet Union stopped because of the wisdom of president that ended the cold war who of which was the leader of this little discovery? Has not this little discovery ended the evilness of Hitler? Has not this little discovery ended the rape rooms of Iraq?

 

All of these questions are clear and have completely undeniable answers. It is fact from stats that the U.S. has the highest of living standards (if I need to post the links then I will). It is the most prosperous nation because of its freedom. There is a direct connection between the reason of why the U.S. is the world’s super power and its freedom. The whole idea of what made the U.S. to this status is the whole concept of what the founders had in mind. The whole basis of what they wrote in paper was the concept of limited government and of true freedom.

 

Besides making such erroneous statements that go against any deducible or empirical reason why not post something with those two fundamentals of reasonable comments?

 

 

Note: Yeah I do note we are probably already slipping into a polemic Risa debate. If needed this topic will be moved.

 

 

Master Q

StarTrek_Master_Q@yahoo.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, think about it. All the governments in the world at the time were already set, and none of them were democratic. People needed to get out, and get land that didn't already have a government on it, to start a new one. It would have taken soooo much longer to revise the old governments into democracies, expecially if the rulers didn't want to change it. Doing something new is always (or at least mostly) easier than changing an old habit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the New World had not been discovered, how many billion people would all be living in Asia, Africa, and Europe? Anyone for jungle, desert, or tundra? There's still space there...

 

Sending astronauts is not spreading our civilization. Sending astronauts to the moon is not polluting a rock with our civilization. Almost no problems are solved merely by throwing money at them.

 

Some dreams and goals are bigger than this planet. God gave us the universe - why not explore it if we can?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I completely disagree with him. The journey to get there will improve humanity. The study of how to get there will give so many benefits to human kind that we can't even imagine.

I don't think the middle-East cares what's out there right now. I think Stewart was conveying that we need to get Earth out of a time of war and into a time of peace before explorring other worlds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you read his whole statement? He didn't say anything about the middle east or war at all. He didn't even imply he was talking about war. In fact if he was talking about the war in the middle east I'd think he was even more short sited then I already do.

 

"I would like to see us get this place right first before we have the arrogance to put significantly flawed civilizations out onto other planets — even though they may be utterly uninhabited,"

 

"As I get older, my unease at the time and the money that has to be spent on projects putting human beings back to the moon, and onto another planet, is so enormous," Stewart said. "And it would take up so many resources, which I personally feel should be directed at our own planet."

 

Having heard Patrick Stewart speak about political and social issues I feel pretty secure in saying that he is speaking about wanting to spend the money on social programs like welfare or things of a similar nature to turn Earth into a "Utopia" before we begin to look outward.

 

As for the Middle East not caring about space, that seems to be a bit of a stereo typical view of middle easterners, bordering on racist. I know you didn't intend it that way but it could be viewed that way.

 

Have you ever heard of Farouk El-Baz? He was a big part of the Apollo program, granted he was from Egypt which is Africa and not the Middle East but it is the same region of the world.

 

People like Patrick Stewart are being short sighted, and to think that the money spent on social programs is just foolish. It would be used for other things, there would be waste and some might be used for social programs but a small amount. I also believe it is arrogant presumption on his part to say what US tax dollars should or shouldn't be spent on since he's not a US citizen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was just using the war as an example. :frusty:

But how do you get that example from his statment. It indicates more of a concern for social programs then any military actions that are going on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Again, it didn't come from his statement, it was an example.
I don't think the middle-East cares what's out there right now.  I think Stewart was conveying that we need to get Earth out of a time of war and into a time of peace before explorring other worlds.

 

That doesn't look like an example, it seems more like a summation or more to the point an assumption. And that's ok if it is, but there's nothing in his statement that even lends itself to that assumption (or example if you wish to use that term).

 

I like Patrick Stewart's role of Picard, he did a fine job in it. But in listening to him speak I have found that I don't really have much that I agree on with him. Not that that matters, he and I will never meet (unless I happen to meet him at a convention or something) and what I agree or disagree on with him means nothing to anyone except me. He is completely welcome to his view that humanity has no business in space right now and he is completely free to lobby his government on how they should spend their funds. I personally think it's very short sighted to hold that view because of all of the benefits that are gained from space exploration. The money it would pump into the economy, the jobs it would create the spinoffs that would develope.

 

We're not talking about conquering the Klingon Empire, we're talking about going to our own moon and to Mars. To Study these places, not establish civilizations (flawed or otherwise).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The space exploration program has brought so much value and technical advancements to our society. The continuation of it is something that we need to do. My past post I talked a bit about the benefits. I don't care if I'm talking about the benefits that this new world resulted in or befits that are to come (and ones that have already come) due to space exploration. I do have my own ideas on how that can be done better and ideas of privatization but I don't want to get into a tangent

 

 

Master Q

StarTrek_Master_Q@yahoo.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i read somewhere that the british space agency doesn't want to send anymore humans into space (please correct me if i err in this, i have tried to find corroborating evidence but have so far been unsuccessful) so maybe stewart is agreeing with his government's policy.

 

if there had been a prime directive stopping european nations from colonising Africa, i wonder how Africa would have developed. i believe that exploring is fine, but interference is another thing.

 

Also: i believe that earth is an environmental disaster zone, and would hate to see humans stuff up another planet in the same way.

Edited by trekker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we have enough space here to last us a couple more 1000's of lifetimes. I really don't think we need to be THAT concerned about it. As someone said before, there's lots of space in asia. Let's use it people. We don't need THAT many trees ALL preserved. granted they're nice, but let's get real economists..... (no offence to any out there)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One reason I think space colonization would be nice is that it would give people a chance to get a way from the idiots they're stuck sharing a planet with.

 

Consider history - Several people have commented about the "results" of colonizing North America. First of all there is no one size fits all definition of those colonists. There were those seeking gain but there were also those "fleeing" persecution. Yes, many of our forefathers did live in countries where they were denied the right to vote and other citizenship rights because they didn't belong to the right church; others were fleeing a more persistent oppressor - poverty. Poverty of course has many causes but sometimes it results from bad government (like the government taking too much of your money or placing too many barriers to your subsistence) Many tried and succeeded in living in peace with the people already inhabiting the land (others of course weren't interested in peaceful co-existence). I often find it ironic that people screaming about human rights seem to feel those early colonists didn't deserve any.

 

There will always be "bad apples" in any society - but when bad apples rule you're in trouble. This becomes even more complicated when you consider not everyone will agree with what a bad apple is. And that is what troubles me with Stewart's statement. Fix things here - you mean like raise taxes to support ever increasing services that are ineffective - and hence doomed to failure. Perhaps he meant eliminate taxes and return to a society based on personal responsibility (but I doubt it)

 

One thing about colonization of space - there will be no room for dead weight. People will work together for survival and common goals and that IMO would be a definite improvement in human destiny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this