Is humanity quietly abandoning a futuin space?

Brooks:

Let me first say that our approaches to life are probably quite different, or else I would not have wound up a Scientologist and you would not have wound up an anti-Scientologist.

So, we have a problem of approach, not just of fact.

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "brooksn" wrote:
>
> 1. It think we have a pretty good grasp of the dangers of space, including radiation, though I'm sure there are gaps that need to be researched. I don't think experts on space have any knowledge on what's happening socially or spiritually in space, except what humans do on the ISS. Nor would they 'hide' it from the public.

I don't recall mentioning "dangers." That's not the point. The point is:
What is really happening out there?
What is space-time really composed of or caused by?
If the spirit exists, what is its relationship to matter and energy?

Now, this gets down to the problem of approach.
I am willing to entertain all available data on the above subject.
And there are massive amounts of data out there on what is happening, spiritually and socially, in space. Quite massive amounts. I cannot believe that someone deemed an "expert" in this field would be totally unaware of this data.

Of course it is part of the scientific approach to be skeptical.

But it is only the authoritarian that demands denial of the obvious.
Someone who would state (as a spokesperson for NASA recently did in response to a petition to the White House on the subject of Disclosure) that we have no evidence for higher forms of life visiting earth is denying the obvious. It may be poor evidence. It may be inadequate for proof, or from dubious sources, but it is certainly more than NOTHING.

My belief, Hubbard's conclusion (and he was a lot closer to people who should know than I ever have been) and the conclusion of many others is that science and academia, to a great - not total - extent, have been taken over by the authoritarian approach. This takeover has come very close to ruining these institutions as viable sources of innovative pro-survival ideas, theories, and technologies.

>
> 2. Same as above.
>
> 3. Why would you listen to 'unofficial' experts? Which I assume means people who wouldn't be considered experts at all.

The "unoffical" experts are those found unacceptable by authorities in science and academia. I would, for example, consider Hubbard an expert in human psychology. But most psychologists would not. I would consider Dr. Steven Greer an expert on evidence of ET visits to earth. The authorities think he's some kind of balding hippie.

The list goes on and on.

>
> A. We've survived in space for the past 40 years. We've survived on Earth, as humans, for 200,000 years, behaviorally for the past 50,000 years.

But we have only survived as a human civilization on earth for about 5,000 years. And calling what we have been doing here "survival" is being generous.

Again, there is a difference in approach. I am not just talking about survival of the species as an animal. I am talking about survival as sentient beings seeking to control and enhance their environment. Animals in the forest don't dream of building space habitats; we do.

Some off-world societies, by their own claims, and according to research done by Hubbard and others, have survived intact for millions of years. That's what I mean by a "significant period of time."

>
> B. It is very very likely there is other life in the universe, it is likely there is life outside Earth in the solar system. It is unknown,

This is a false statement. It is NOT unknown; it is DENIED.

>and likely very rare if at all, that there is intelligent life at the level of humans; complex language, writing, reasoning, and being technologically advanced, etc. elsewhere in the universe.

This phenomenon is not rare in the least. But I have no way of convincing you of that. I, however, am convinced.

>Given our extreme uniqueness, and the uniqueness of complex life on Earth, it would be immoral for humans to allow this planet to remain the only known place in the universe for intelligent life.

Well, that was exactly my own thinking when I was much younger.
But as it turns out, it is not biological uniqueness that distinguishes us; it is our spiritual uniqueness. We still believe in personal freedom.

>It is a moral imperative that we as humans leave and expand, and in the end to bring as much other complex life with us to expand the unique feature that complex and intelligent life offers.

I do not agree with a "takeover" strategy. I agree with a preservation strategy. There is no doubt that earth is special as a planet. We need to keep it alive and kicking as long as possible, and figure how to replicate it, ideally.

>
> C. Columbus, the vikings, the asians over the bering sea, might as well have stayed home to?

Yes. Though trying to translate earth exploration to space exploration doesn't really work in my book.

>
> 1. through 5. is pretty much scientology, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology this seems as accurate an account of their organisation and religious thought.

It may be, though this article is pretty infected by the usual BS.

And it is missing something important:
Scientology technology.
You don't need to be a doctor to learn first aid, and you don't need to be a Scientologist to learn how to do assists and Book 1 auditing. Furthermore, the basic technology is written up and available for free in many libraries (where the books haven't been stolen by anti-Scientologists).
The technology of the subject is vast compared to the theory. The basic theory is contained in roughly 20 books, most of which are quite short. But the technology takes up thousands of pages, and thousands of hours of lectures.

Hubbard did not concentrate on theory, but on practice.

I am an electronics technician. If electronics didn't work, I wouldn't use it. And I can use it without knowing all its theory, and without joining the IEEE. I don't even care that much about the latest formulation of quantum mechanics. Technologies work or they don't work. The claim has been made that Scientology works as a technology.

The conjecture is that this is why it is so strenuously denounced.

>
> 6. A conspiracy theory like many others, 9/11, illuminati, Kennedy, UFOs, Obama as 'insert evil scary term here', etc. as usual no evidence and lots of paranoia.

There are profound amounts of evidence for many "conspiracy theories."

For others, there is very little.

"Conspiracy", by the way, is the way things most often get done on this planet. The American revolution was started by a conspiracy. Criminal operations like drug smuggling and gun running are usually operated as conspiracies. The "Illuminati" of 1776 (Bavaria) is an historical fact. Their founding document was discovered and published. Similar exposures have happened to Freemasonry in the US.

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed, citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."
Margaret Mead

And what will such groups be labeled as by those in opposition? Conspiracies, of course!

So conspiracy cuts both ways. I would not deprecate the word or the concept. It is too prevalent in history.

- Larry