Re: Why is Star Trek so robophobic?

"Steven L." <sdlitvin@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:13pq5bea49u4o9e@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Victor Velazquez wrote:
>> "David Johnston" <david@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
>> news:tb2qp35ugd4r0gbkv6gibpo751ajivr12c@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 15:39:45 -0600, "Ken from Chicago"
>>> <kwicker1b_nospam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>> "Reading by the light of a lost Christmas day
>>>>> It begins...."
>>>>>
>>>> They can't even use robots remotely controlled by the wonderful
humans?
>>> What's so wonderful about a species of couch potatos?
>>
>> Ask all those rich guys in the Renaissance with nothing but time on
their 
>> hands.
>
> The difference is that back then, those rich idle guys were not the 
> EXPLORERS.  They may have been artists, musicians  , etc.  But they
didn't 
> man the ****ps.  The crews of Christopher Columbus, Ferdinand Magellan, 
> Captain Cook, etc., had a whole lot of hard work and danger ahead of
them.
>
> If you show what robotics and automation will have progressed to by the 
> 23rd century, you beg the question of why humans are needed to explore 
> space at all.  Which, in fact, is why humanity has stopped doing that 
> since the Apollo moon landings ended.

I've been saying for decades space exploration should be done by
robots--tho 
space colonization should be done by humans.

> Even with present-day automation and computers, we've been successfully 
> exploring our entire Solar System without having to send any humans 
> anywhere.  And if you extrapolate that trend, the Star Trek concept 
> collapses.  You can send automated machines "to explore strange new 
> worlds," blah-blah-blah.

STAR PROBES
Nothing by star probes
They can not bar probes
They're here to stay

-- Ken from Chicago