Cultures that do not embrace space travel, are they "flawed" or "doomed"?

I gave it some thought as to where to pose this question. I think this forum covers the subject well, in the sense it's not an ET forum, but is expert on the ancient and near-extinct cultures, where the Earth itself is valued so highly, it stifles the idea of traveling onward to the "stars" , "planets" or simply the dots in the sky.

It's a well-shared notion to the ancients that the stars represent other worlds. Why was traveling to them a lost notion? Did they just not have confidence in the technology of their times? A Chinese Emperor even rode a fireworks rocket to the heavens, whatever the particulars. Vimanas are spaceships in the Indian cultural record, but are they for humans? (idk)

Aside from actual cultural issues, limitations that are "normal" or excusable, can we consider these type of cultures flawed or ultimately doomed to a finite fate on Earth....or were they just immature? Just as the reality of underdeveloped tech would inhibit the idea, ancient naivety might counter that factor.

It just seems like the idea or plan of colonizing other worlds is missing from our traditions. What's always pondered is attracting aliens here in the form of megalithic architecture, sacrifice (to a degree) etc...

Neither.

Maybe they accept the fact that they are an integral part of the planet they live on, and in fact are not really separate from it at all. This realization does not make them inferior in any way. Quite the contrary, in my opinion.

We evolved with our planet. Why is it so wrong that we die with it?

Maybe that's the way it's supposed to be. Maybe we're not supposed to go around terraforming and colonizing.

Haven't we learned our lesson with the whole colonization thing? We really need to lose that attitude toward the cosmos.

a reply to: NthOther

But but...there is so much free realestate out there...they simply need more schooling in capitalist economics.

Economy classes for lost tribes !!!!! Hear, hear !

I think if a culture is sustainable, take any of the native tribes that lived on the Americas before the white people came, don't need space travel because they are living in harmony with their environment.

However, a culture like ours today honestly does need space travel or it is doomed. What happens after Earth's resources have been depleted and its nature has been ruined? We need to colonize other planets and we need terraforming technology asap.

Does anyone think that a culture like ours that is built on ruining the Earth and stealing from the weak could turn itself around in time to avoid the inevitable end? It has two options: space travel, or a gigantic cultural shift back to tribalism and environmentalism once the Earth can't sustain it any longer and it becomes obvious that we have to change our ways or else the human race will be affected, not just random plants and animals.

Regardless of climate change deniers, eventually coastal cities will start to fall underwater, this century, in fact. The climate change could continue the mass extinction of many different plants and animals and cause droughts, stronger storm systems and a whole manner of real problems that will become real threats in the future.

In order for humanity to survive its own mistakes and live on as a species, space travel is mandatory and must happen no matter what. Earth was not meant to sustain such a high population as we have now. Natural resources will soon be gone and so will the rest of the planet.

In less than 500 years Earth will be a barren planet if nothing is changed soon. It doesn't matter to anyone here now because we are all just enjoying the ride while it lasts when we should be advocating more space travel research.

a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

Unfortunately most people who advocate planetary colonization are completely oblivious to the parallels with our own genocidal history.

But, everyone's just gotta have their f# toaster, right?

"Well, we wouldn't colonize inhabited planets."

Yeah, right. When the next closest other one is six lifetimes away, and the inhabited one you're orbiting has what you need right now...

...we'll see how far we've really "advanced".



Manifest destiny with antimatter.

The other part of the question is why isn't traveling to space stressed in the old cultures? They fancied all kinds of half-breed gods, a million way to smote your enemy, and also the tradition of colonization was in full-effect in the West (and surely other places). All these crazy idea floating around in antiquity, but not space travel? Not that it was never mentioned, but am I missing it?

Yes, the answer was offered that these peoples were already at harmony, and I guess would not forsee a NEED to leave Earth, but rather cultivate a desire and ethos to go where no one has gone before...?

a reply to: FlyingFox

Good questions.

Back then, even if they had the ambition to get into to space, there was no means of getting there. The technology hadn't been developed and has taken us thousands of years to get there.

Something as simple and crucial as a nut and bolt has depended on centuries of baby steps in technology. If you watch this video, have a look around at the building, the flooring and the equipment.



All of it is dependent on a manufacturing infrastructure and wouldn't exist without another profoundly world-changing object - the printing press. Yeah, it can be argued that the ancients had scrolls and papyrii, but mass production of texts allowed for the mass dissemination of ideas. For instance, German rocket scientists had access to libraries of technological manuals and texts and had a work force of hundreds of thousands. They also had access to mineral and ores from across the world.

What I'm trying to say is that the ancients didn't have alloys, steel, glass, books or even the fuel required to lift a heavy object into space.

a reply to: FlyingFox

We now know that the Earth's resources are finite.

We also know that a an extinction event has befallen the Earth periodically in the past and is just as likely in the future.

To stay here only is doom, either slow or fast.

a reply to: NthOther

Great reply.

Two things immediately came into my head when I read this thread: (I am not 'religious' as I don't buy into dogma" but its tells us in the beginning of the bible that "the world was fully populated' at one time. I do believe that once we get to a certain capacity of life and start to overtake it, some naturally - and highly intelligent occurring phenomena happens or is triggered then and we basically get culled, simply because the planet has a finite capacity for life support. It isn't only ourselves but its everything that exists and grows with us as well as that which sustains us.

Somewhat strangely, I was only thinking last night about whether we can physically, especially with our extremely vulnerable bodies actually get through the radiation we are told exists in space. Is the radiation in space different to the radiation that was dropped on Negasaki and Hiroshima - in which case humans can live in irradiated areas and thrive?

But we then have to accept our short lifetimes and the long distances involved. Sure we can flit to the moon, time wise, but could we ever leave our Solar System and how would we cope without the regularity of our day and night cycle as well as the benefits from our sun on our bodies etc. There are too many obstacles such as no oxygen to breath that crop up and I wonder if the ancients, whom we know had considerable wisdom and knowhow knew about this and decided that staying put and making our 'put' better was our literal 'lot'.

a reply to: Kandinsky

I see the points you raised, but they did manage to manufacture amazing stone buildings and lift that stone and place it where they desired. With the lifting capacity they clearly had and the knowledge of things like the precession of the equinoxes, they were far more advanced than some would credit them with (I know not yourself obviously).

The fact the ancients didn't choose to pollute their lifetimes with oil, but used electricity - albeit as we understand it in a limited way, means for me they chose other means of energy and also had a far deeper understanding of the resources of this planet. I still think possibly in the past they utilised gold in a manner we no longer fully appreciate.

I also think they probably had far better memories than we did. I have read the argument that since we developed writing, we possibly stopped using our considerable brains. Occasionally you came across someone who was unable to write and read yet possessed a memory capacity quite unbelievable to us today. (Our old milkman could remember everyone's bill and orders for over 75 households as well as odd people who caught him on their way to work).

I don't say the printing press was a bad thing at all, for me it was a blessing, but I merely wonder whether our reliance and the fact that today I constantly hear, if memory is involved. the comment 'I can't remember a thing I have to make lists and write stuff down or I forget'.

a reply to: Shiloh7

With the lifting capacity they clearly had and the knowledge of things like the precession of the equinoxes, they were far more advanced than some would credit them with (I know not yourself obviously).

No. With that capacity they clearly had an understanding of things like leverage. Which is actually quite basic. Not advanced.

a reply to: FlyingFox

When you think it still takes us 24 hours to get to the other side of the world by modern technology plus we have stopped using Concorde for some reason, which certainly cut down travel time. I would wonder if simply the time it took to travel and the dangers involved in journeys had a certain effect on their attention. However their nights were spent looking up at the cosmos but perhaps they were sustained by the idea that when you die, you became or went to the stars so were contented to wait for the inevitable - who knows, we have little record of what the common man/woman thought or dreamed of?

a reply to: Phage

I think they managed to understand more than just leverage, they also were masters of measurement and especially intricate design. I suspect we know considerably less about their actual knowledge and its capacity, or that of different civilisations than is credited to them.

a reply to: Shiloh7

I think they managed to understand more than just leverage, they also were masters of measurement and especially intricate design.

Measurement and "intricate design" don't have much to do with moving large objects which is what you were talking about. Nor do they require any advanced technology.

a reply to: Shiloh7

Hiya Shiloh, I agree with your general thoughts on memory. The Internet Age will likely bring those notorious unforeseen consequences and there are already signs of changes in the ways our brains are processing memories.

With the other points, we see things differently. People have always lived the lives their environments allowed for. As we've become increasing instrumental on our environments (even Mars and the moon have been changed), we use every available resource. The manufacturing plant in the video is a pinnacle example of how we change our world in our favour for, typically, short-term goals.

In that way, our ancestors didn't 'choose' not to use oil. They had to wait for the knowledge and technology to combine before they could make any choice. Like all people, they opted to use the new resource as soon as they saw the benefits. Perhaps another parallel would be Native Americans or Australian Aborigines 'living with nature' and then switching to rifles and steel blades as soon as the technology was available.

a reply to: Phage

I am wondering how workmen would have levered this block out of the ground in the Aswan Quarry.
www.ancient-origins.net...

As you will see there is precious little room to manoeuvre leverage poles within the space around this block which weighed 1168 tons. Interestingly, it was also still attached to the ground, not having been cut away yet, which suggests a capability I suspect we don't have the ability to match today.

I appreciate the stone was split, but we don't know when that occurred. It would not be logical for workmen to have laboured on such a huge task if they did not think they could cut it free then lift it up from its bed and move it.

Flinders Petrie was of the opinion that machining took place in ancient Egypt. As machining technology was in its infancy in the early 1900's, the attached article makes the point that it is only in recent decades that "modern-looking machine tool marks have been fully recognised" that match the marks found in the quarries there.

a reply to: Shiloh7

Once they chiseled the bottom of the obelisk out, they likely would have used levers, windlasses, and man/animal power to winch it onto a sled (or multiple sleds), then drug it on the sled to its' final destination.

a reply to: Kandinsky

What I'm trying to say is that the ancients didn't have alloys, steel, glass, books or even the fuel required to lift a heavy object into space.

Yes, this problem is absolutely known, to us, in hindsight. But old civilizations were also very naive. Given the proper inspiration, why wouldn't they think it possible? Spaceships could be made of mud, for all they knew.

Seriously, we know it's hard but the Space Shuttle is mostly just ceramic tiles, and fire...

illuminutti.files.wordpress.com...

i0.wp.com...

img.gawkerassets.com...

www.blastr.com...