why we can't get public and political support

oker56 · 2002-11-25 13:19:08

Really, I should have seen this one, but my mom put it in a different way. I remember coming home from a park in san diego on the trolley. The trolley goes through probably the worst part(financially; and usually that means social problems area as well) of san diego. I remember saying to myself, "there's no astronomy in there!" Do politicians go down into those areas and promote themselves? No! Do these people even vote? That would be interesting to know . . . .

My mom mentioned something that put this into even better perspective. I was talking about how Hillary Clinton was supposed to be at this university to support nanotech development; this was from a nanotech news website. I come in with my mom watching Hillary Clinton at this university; they are not talking about anything nanotech; it was all about a bunch of politicking. I mentioned that my website said she was there to talk about nanotech. I can only guess that she went there and delivered a speech to nanotech researchers and maybe fundraisers and then later talked to a bunch of people about politics. Seems to me, nobody there had any idea what she had really been there for. It's like she later went to talk to all the common folk after dealing with the behind the scenes stuff.

Latelly, behind the scenes, nanotech has become the biggest issue, meanwhile the policiticians come on and sell themselves on other commoner issues. As my mom went on to say, the politicians can't go and talk to the public about space and nanotech, that stuff doesn't touch their lives. The politicians are like marketers, they let people hear what they want to hear.

The only problem here is how do we communicate the importance of space development if our leaders don't try to communicate the issues with the public?

Shaun Barrett · 2002-11-25 19:07:17

Hi Oker56!

I think we have to come to grips with the fact that the majority of our politicians are scientifically illiterate too. It's not just most of the population - our leaders, in all countries, are essentially ignorant of mathematics and basic science.

Here in Australia, and I'm quite sure in America, most of our politicians are lawyers. Even the ones who end up in charge of the science and technology departments of government, frequently know little about their portfolios. They have to rely on teams of advisers.
But that's not the same as having a proper grasp of science and the kind of space technology which interests us here at New Mars.

I bet Hilary Clinton is virtually clueless about nanotechnology. I bet she had no input into her speech about it and she couldn't care less about any kind of technology! She's just another lawyer with her eye on political power.

But this disease of ignorance, which breeds disinterest, is endemic in the world's populations as a whole. Even in 1st World countries where education is supposed to be a cornerstone of society, most people have no idea of the most basic concepts of gravity and what it means to be in orbit around a moon or planet.
Go out and ask a few people why astronauts float around in space stations. I bet nearly all of them will tell you it's because they have escaped Earth's gravity!
My own father-in-law thinks we remain stuck to the ground because atmospheric pressure pushes us down. This logic also explains (at least for him) why you're weightless in space ... no air pressure!! I began an attempt to set him straight on all this, but his eyes glazed over soon after I started, so I gave up!

People's lack of knowledge of even our own solar system is astounding - and you can forget the rest of the universe. Many don't know that the Sun is just a star. They don't know that just 10 kilometres above their heads is a place which would kill them if they were exposed to it - 10 kilometres!! A lot of us drive further than that to get to work each morning!

We are so much like ants, scurrying around on the thin crust of our rocky planet, completely absorbed in the trivialities of our lives, and totally oblivious to the true reality of our situation. It's like most of us are blind, or like blinkered horses seeing nothing but the next few metres of dirt directly in front of us.
So few of us actually understand the incredible size, beauty, and potential of the solar system we inhabit that it's small wonder we can't get "public and political support" ... most people simply don't comprehend what we're trying to tell them!

???

soph · 2002-11-25 21:34:35

is there even a scientific position in cabinet?

Phobos · 2002-11-25 23:57:31

Go out and ask a few people why astronauts float around in space stations. I bet nearly all of them will tell you it's because they have escaped Earth's gravity!

I've tried explaining this to a few people but they usually look at me like I'm high on something when I try to explain that the astronauts float around because they are in continuous free fall and not because they are free of gravity. Oh well, I guess I'd probably stare with the same look if someone tried to explain heart surgery to me.

But this disease of ignorance, which breeds disinterest, is endemic in the world's populations as a whole. Even in 1st World countries where education is supposed to be a cornerstone of society, most people have no idea of the most basic concepts of gravity and what it means to be in orbit around a moon or planet.

I think a lot of it has to do with people just not being intellectually oriented. They'd prefer to believe in things that give them security, hope, and simple answers about our existence rather than take the less emotionally satisfying and difficult road of science and critical thinking. In general though I think we underestimate the interest in space a lot of people have. I find my neighbors have an insatiable interest in looking through my telescope and I've been bringing up the space elevator to a lot of people lately and many of them find it geniunely interesting, including my sister-in-law, which I never would have thought. I think the problem might lie in education itself. It's often so impersonal and dry that you can't help but be turned off by it. We need to engage peoples' imaginations!

Shaun Barrett · 2002-11-26 00:50:51

I guess you're right, Phobos.

I admit I do get a little frustrated with the world sometimes. And then I tend to see it through rather jaundiced eyes!

Hi Soph!

Was your question about the American cabinet set-up? I'm afraid I'm woefully ignorant of how that system is organised so can't respond
There is an Australian cabinet portfolio for technology, I believe. But it rarely seems to feature in the news so I haven't really looked into how that works either. Our present government is the one which cancelled funding for the only realistic southern hemisphere search for Near Earth Objects so that it could save itself $100,000!! Even though I agree with much of what they've done for Australia, I haven't been able to forgive their myopic stupidity on this one!
Lucky for us we have the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), a superlative bunch of geniuses who constantly come up with the most innovative ideas and concepts. The down side for them, of course, is the thankless task of trying to persuade the benighted troglodytes in parliament to pick up some of these ideas and fund their develpoment!

Oops! ... There I go with the jaundiced outlook again.

Time to shut up, I think!!

Byron · 2002-11-26 07:21:04

I think the real problem with the widespread ignorance of math and science has to do with our modern educational system (I'm talking about the U.S. here..I really can't speak for other countries).

When I was a small child, I loved school with a passion, and I was a huge fan of science, astronomy, etc...and I relished going to school every day and learning whatever I could. I was every teacher's favorite student, etc. However, by the time I got to high school, I had been "turned off" to learning in general, and while I read SF books by the dozen, I was somewhat of an "anti-intellectual" in school...I just did what I needed to get by, but no more (just imagine the frustration I caused for my parents.. ??? )

I honestly think that secondary education simply takes the spirit out of learning, and it all becomes a game of grades, class rank, standardized examinations, etc...and I was seriously turned off by all that. There was so much focus on "rote learning" (which is far worse now, I hear), that I found school to be rather boring and a waste of my time...and while I must say I had some excellent teachers along the way, the "spark" I had when I was younger dimmed and was almost extinguished, and while I went on to university and did fine there, I never really recaptured that intellectual "spark" until much later, like my late 20's...when I realized how much I was denying myself...and these days, I'm doing my darnest to make up for lost time...lol...

So, I can only imagine what it's like for the multitudes of people of "average" intellectual ability...learning is just a bunch of work as most people see it, and other than getting the "grade"...there is hardly any incentive to really take the time to learn about our amazing universe, or to really figure out the role of humanity in this world that we live in...instead it's all about doing "what it takes" to get whatever degree or training that will result in the highest possible earning power...after all, it's all about making green, right? *sigh*

As for politicans...I don't even want to go down that route... ???

B

soph · 2002-11-26 14:11:09

byron, wow, that sounds EXACTLY like me. i just dont care anymore. especially since high school grades can be completely subjective.

i have great interest in school topics, but everything you do in school is designed around a test at the end of the year, which is backwards. the tests should be based on what you learn, not vice versa. tests are important, but they dont really test your aptitude, they test how well you swallowed your notes the night before.

Adrian · 2002-11-26 15:28:57

Well, testing is a knotty problem. At the heart of it is a need to distinguish students from each other - which student is better at what, that sort of thing - so that people can make decisions about whether to give a student a university place or extra academic help or whatever. This also has to be standardised so that you can accurately compare two students from opposite sides of the country in different types of schools, and hence this is why testing systems seem so rigid. It would be nice to do away with testing and just judge people on 'aptitude' and coursework, but how do you know whether one teacher is more generous than another in assessing aptitude? How do you know that they're looking at the same criteria? Like I said, it's a knotty problem.

So, testing is not the best solution (IMO) to determining someone's aptitude, but it's the best we have so far. Incidentally, since testing in general can be approximated to IQ testing, it's worthwhile to note that IQ tests are *the* best indicator of job performance - better than interviews, previous academic grades, graphology or whatever. Believe me - I've had a psychological training

Phobos · 2002-11-26 21:02:10

So, testing is not the best solution (IMO) to determining someone's aptitude, but it's the best we have so far. Incidentally, since testing in general can be approximated to IQ testing, it's worthwhile to note that IQ tests are *the* best indicator of job performance - better than interviews, previous academic grades, graphology or whatever. Believe me - I've had a psychological training

One of the drawbacks to testing, particularly when it's used to judge whether a school is doing a good job or not, is that teachers tend to focus completely upon material that will be on the tests and exclude everything else. I have a few relatives who are teachers and they tell me this is a bad problem in the schools where they teach. Testing certainly has its place but it's definately not the end all be all of education, which I think is something you were getting at anyway.

dicktice · 2002-11-27 19:16:26

Hi Oker56!
I think we have to come to grips with the fact that the majority of our politicians are scientifically illiterate too. It's not just most of the population - our leaders, in all countries, are essentially ignorant of mathematics and basic science.
Here in Australia, and I'm quite sure in America, most of our politicians are lawyers. Even the ones who end up in charge of the science and technology departments of government, frequently know little about their portfolios. They have to rely on teams of advisers.
But that's not the same as having a proper grasp of science and the kind of space technology which interests us here at New Mars.
I bet Hilary Clinton is virtually clueless about nanotechnology. I bet she had no input into her speech about it and she couldn't care less about any kind of technology! She's just another lawyer with her eye on political power.
But this disease of ignorance, which breeds disinterest, is endemic in the world's populations as a whole. Even in 1st World countries where education is supposed to be a cornerstone of society, most people have no idea of the most basic concepts of gravity and what it means to be in orbit around a moon or planet.
Go out and ask a few people why astronauts float around in space stations. I bet nearly all of them will tell you it's because they have escaped Earth's gravity!
My own father-in-law thinks we remain stuck to the ground because atmospheric pressure pushes us down. This logic also explains (at least for him) why you're weightless in space ... no air pressure!! I began an attempt to set him straight on all this, but his eyes glazed over soon after I started, so I gave up!
People's lack of knowledge of even our own solar system is astounding - and you can forget the rest of the universe. Many don't know that the Sun is just a star. They don't know that just 10 kilometres above their heads is a place which would kill them if they were exposed to it - 10 kilometres!! A lot of us drive further than that to get to work each morning!
We are so much like ants, scurrying around on the thin crust of our rocky planet, completely absorbed in the trivialities of our lives, and totally oblivious to the true reality of our situation. It's like most of us are blind, or like blinkered horses seeing nothing but the next few metres of dirt directly in front of us.
So few of us actually understand the incredible size, beauty, and potential of the solar system we inhabit that it's small wonder we can't get "public and political support" ... most people simply don't comprehend what we're trying to tell them!
???

I have to interject: Ants at times sprout wings and fly, so their impression of surface features can't be all that limited! We fly, and the relation of our size to ants and relative heights above terrain could be arguably comparable. My tiny point is: awareness of surface features and distances must be enhanced by heights above. Intelligence then takes over. Merely talking about it, without experiencing eg. Earth from a distance, is probably futile. Which is why I long to see on some TV channel (interspersed with commercials, if need be) a continuous image of the whole Earth.... I leave the extrapolation for the moment to you, but will think further on the concept as a do-able means of conveying what you wish to your dad, et al.

Shaun Barrett · 2002-11-28 00:25:14

Byron, I think you've certainly put forward a very valid point here.
Education is supremely important in all this. But it's not just the system, as such, which is failing us. We need teachers who genuinely love science and can convey their enthusiasm to their pupils. It's sad to hear of your own experiences at school where, apparently, the teachers didn't succeed in firing your imagination. Were they stifled by the system or did they just not have that infectious fascination with the subjects they taught? Maybe we'll never know for sure in your case.
???

When I was transplanted from Australia to London at the age of ten, I managed to bluff my way through a selection process and gained entrance to a Grammar School. This was, in retrospect, one of my luckiest breaks in life!
The teachers were called 'masters' and some were still wearing their degree gowns to classes. We addressed them as 'sir' (or 'miss' ) and were required to stand when they entered the room, and again when they were leaving.
They were brilliant!! They knew their subject inside out and were generally full of enthusiasm for it (still! ). In physics classes, we spent many happy hours repeating some of the salient scientific experiments of the past three centuries and collating our results to see if we agreed with the likes of Young, Newton, and Boyle! We played with ripple tanks to learn about diffraction, slits to demonstrate the wave-like nature of light, miniature cloud-chambers to observe the paths of radioactive particles, etc. In chemistry, we learned how people like Lavoisier, Mendeleev, and Avogadro had revolutionised our understanding of atomic and molecular interactions. In biology we cultured bacteria and conducted our own little genetic experiments on fruit-fly.
The masters seemed to enjoy it and I just loved it!! They taught us science, sure, but more importantly, they taught us how a good scientist's mind works. We were educated to think critically and to avoid jumping to premature conclusions.
I still remember their faces, their voices, their mannerisms. They were wonderful teachers (maybe some still are) and I developed enormous respect and affection for them. I owe them all a great deal.

In Australia in recent years, the standard of teachers has dropped alarmingly. I've seen my own children's report cards full of punctuation, grammar, and spelling mistakes.
It's not hard to see why, either. Many of our friends' older children, who failed to get into their preferred careers because of poor academic results, went into teaching!! Teaching has become a depository for people who can't get into anything else.
This to me is absolutely scandalous! The profession of teaching should be sacred. Only the best and brightest should be allowed to impart knowledge to our children because it's crucial to every child's future and, ultimately, to the success of our society.
It's been suggested that they should 'raise the bar' considerably when it comes to the academic standards of would-be teachers, while simultaneously raising the rates of pay to very high levels. We need to enhance the status of teaching and start attracting the highest calibre of applicant for the job ... putting it up there with law and medicine.

Oops! Sorry, Byron. I guess I got a little carried away and rambled a bit!

Dicktice, I really like your idea of using the media to continually emphasise to the public 'the bigger picture'! It would be great if we could get some inspiring film footage, taken from a good vantage point, of the Earth-Moon system as a whole. That could be interspersed with some of the beautiful film of Earth taken from the ISS, and maybe some shots of the lunar surface too.
I agree with you that educating the public in this way would be an excellent method of literally 'raising awareness" ... (No apology. Pun intended!! )
Thanks for the response.

AltToWar · 2002-11-28 01:06:19

I have a 3 year old here at home. He is a learning machine. He learns somthing new every day. Several new things. I am always amazed at how much information he absorbs. I have to race to keep him stimulated.

Children are learning machines.

Humans are learning machines.

Children don't need to go to school to learn how to learn, they are born with the ability. Children need schooling to present information to them in a comprehensive way.

In general, the most important lessons children learn in he modern american public education system are not academic, but social.

Public education is about social conditioning.

When I first took up this premise, I confronted every teacher I came across. While I prepared to stack up my arguments, nearly every one of them simply agreed from the very beginning.

If a child is interested in a subject and has access to the information, they will gobble up and learn every bit they can get their hands on.

dicktice · 2002-11-28 09:51:57

Thanks, Shaun, I needed that bit of positivity. Gets the old thinker going when someone "out there" responds...especially by adding something to the offering!

Echus_Chasma · 2002-12-16 18:07:54

In Australia in recent years, the standard of teachers has dropped alarmingly. I've seen my own children's report cards full of punctuation, grammar, and spelling mistakes.
It's not hard to see why, either. Many of our friends' older children, who failed to get into their preferred careers because of poor academic results, went into teaching!! Teaching has become a depository for people who can't get into anything else.
This to me is absolutely scandalous! The profession of teaching should be sacred. Only the best and brightest should be allowed to impart knowledge to our children because it's crucial to every child's future and, ultimately, to the success of our society.
It's been suggested that they should 'raise the bar' considerably when it comes to the academic standards of would-be teachers, while simultaneously raising the rates of pay to very high levels. We need to enhance the status of teaching and start attracting the highest calibre of applicant for the job ... putting it up there with law and medicine.

Thats very true, my first science teacher was the man. I could ask him about absolutly everything and he would go out of his way to explain it to me, and if he did'nt know off the top of his head he would find it out for me. My science teacher now does'nt have anywhere near his knowledge, I think she is cool and all but in some things I know more than her which I think is kinda wrong.

So yeah, teachers are very important.
In countries like Japan, everyone goes through the system and works very hard. Even after they go to countries like NZ, Aussie or the US and they are very successful. I think we need that 'educational spirit' attitude back. The only way I know that we could do that is possibly make education cost again. There will be heaps of arguements about it but the people who abuse the education system wont be much worse off than they are already.
In the early New Zealand history ('bout 1880, can't remeber), when education became free everybody went and studyed hard. After a while the interest wore off and education was made complusery up until 15. But then education was'nt important as it was now. We have to get that interest back into the education system.

I admit, I did'nt really try all that hard at school this year, but the maths and stuff we did was way easy for me so I got bored. That came back to haunt me with my exam results, I only got like 85% for science and even worse 63% for maths. I was shocked to hear the average for maths in my year was about 23%!!!! ???
Education has to be made more fun for young people cos we just loose interest, also I did'nt work to my full potental this year because it did'nt actually count for anything. If this year was actually worth something I could stick on my C.V., I would've have knuckled down and worked. Next year though is a different story. Im ganna work my butt off.

Well thats the point of view of the education system from somebody inside it. Excuse grammatical mistakes and stuff.

CalTech2010 · 2002-12-16 20:37:13

I'm split two ways on the testing issue. I think it is vital to seperate student's abilities, but at the same time, most test taking is just about cramming notes the night before (thanks, soph).

I think we should leave testing as it is. If you really, truly learn the material, and absorb it, and comprehend it, you will be able to apply it further down the road, and that's the stuff that gets you into a good college, career, etc. The kids who cram notes the night before the test forget what they learned, and can't apply it later in life. Not to mention that cramming helps to only "get by", not do well. I'm sorry to say, but virtue is, once again, its own reward.

I suppose we can rest assured knowing that the kids who crammed notes went on to be IHOP fry cooks. GOD BLESS AMERICA!

soph · 2002-12-16 22:26:15

education should be centered around learning--not tests. i am far more in favor of a few long research projects or reports to show that the student has an understanding of the topic. classroom discussion is also better than testing. i dont even bother cramming, because all i do is pay attention, no homework no study. gets me an A.

i think studying makes people do worse, because they get nervous...this is what i dont like about tests. i also think single shot performance evaluations in jobs are less telling than long term evaluations: you see the good days and the bad days, and the sense of immediacy and anxiety is not there as much.

Echus_Chasma · 2002-12-17 16:25:48

education should be centered around learning--not tests. i am far more in favor of a few long research projects or reports to show that the student has an understanding of the topic. classroom discussion is also better than testing. i dont even bother cramming, because all i do is pay attention, no homework no study. gets me an A.
i think studying makes people do worse, because they get nervous...this is what i dont like about tests. i also think single shot performance evaluations in jobs are less telling than long term evaluations: you see the good days and the bad days, and the sense of immediacy and anxiety is not there as much.

Thats right, I would rather do a few long research projects.

A few people in my class stress themselves completely when a teacher says we have a test and then they completely kill them-selves with studying. I don't think tests are very fair on students.

Ian · 2002-12-27 19:49:38

"The only way I know that we could do that is possibly make education cost again."

What do you mean "cost again"? There should be free schools for people who can't afford to pay for schools.

Ian · 2002-12-27 19:50:04

"The only way I know that we could do that is possibly make education cost again."

What do you mean "cost again"? There should be free schools for people who can't afford to pay for schools.

Echus_Chasma · 2002-12-27 20:12:42

What do you mean "cost again"? There should be free schools for people who can't afford to pay for schools.

Oh yeah,
I think I meant make the majority of schools private, like very high fees but the schools are very well equipt. Unlike my school which is public and gets government funding which isn't very much, so it isn't as well equipt as it could be.

Josh Cryer · 2002-12-28 01:27:31

Echus_Chasma, that's because there are more important things to take care of... like military, and our national deficit (whose interest of which takes a good chunk of our national budget). Sorry you have a shitty school, though.

I think though, that to get major public support, you have to show incentive. Right now, the world is in an economic slump. Space enterprise could be promising, especially initally when the technology is new. A moon base would undoubtedly spur economic growth into space, especially if we had a low cost transfer vehicle. (Mars wouldn't due to its great distance.)

From a colonization point of view, the moon isn't as great as Mars (due to all sorts of considerations, like physical resources, and so on), but from an economical point of view, we could have all sorts of things there. From hotels, to cities!

Shipping minerals from the moon could actually be profitable, since the moon has plenty of sunlight, providing plenty of energy to shoot stuff to the Earth. Get moon development started, and you'll get general space development started.

You just got to prove that it's profitable at the momment.

soph · 2002-12-28 07:39:58

i think if we get that elevator up, orbital development will be enough to spur space development. we dont need the moon to get to mars.

Echus_Chasma · 2002-12-28 15:19:25

i think if we get that elevator up, orbital development will be enough to spur space development. we dont need the moon to get to mars.

Thats sorta true I suppose, but a base on the Moon will come a hell of alot faster than an elevator would.

soph · 2002-12-28 15:50:14

using current technology, i doubt that. the space elevator would be more likely to cause a moon base than vice versa.

Semi OT: todays New York Times had an article about a huge study that says that "high stakes" tests (ex. a high school graduation test), are bad for the educational process...they cause the curriculum to degenerate and focus on that test, and academic achievement goes down.

hmmm, sounds a bit like what i said heheh.

Echus_Chasma · 2002-12-28 16:46:57

using current technology, i doubt that. the space elevator would be more likely to cause a moon base than vice versa.

Really?

Semi OT: todays New York Times had an article about a huge study that says that "high stakes" tests (ex. a high school graduation test), are bad for the educational process...they cause the curriculum to degenerate and focus on that test, and academic achievement goes down.

Hehe, thats true

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2002-11-25 13:19:08

Re: why we can't get public and political support

#2 2002-11-25 19:07:17

Re: why we can't get public and political support

#3 2002-11-25 21:34:35

Re: why we can't get public and political support

#4 2002-11-25 23:57:31

Re: why we can't get public and political support

#5 2002-11-26 00:50:51

Re: why we can't get public and political support

#6 2002-11-26 07:21:04

Re: why we can't get public and political support

#7 2002-11-26 14:11:09

Re: why we can't get public and political support

#8 2002-11-26 15:28:57

Re: why we can't get public and political support

#9 2002-11-26 21:02:10

Re: why we can't get public and political support

#10 2002-11-27 19:16:26

Re: why we can't get public and political support

#11 2002-11-28 00:25:14

Re: why we can't get public and political support

#12 2002-11-28 01:06:19

Re: why we can't get public and political support

#13 2002-11-28 09:51:57

Re: why we can't get public and political support

#14 2002-12-16 18:07:54

Re: why we can't get public and political support

#15 2002-12-16 20:37:13

Re: why we can't get public and political support

#16 2002-12-16 22:26:15

Re: why we can't get public and political support

#17 2002-12-17 16:25:48

Re: why we can't get public and political support

#18 2002-12-27 19:49:38

Re: why we can't get public and political support

#19 2002-12-27 19:50:04

Re: why we can't get public and political support

#20 2002-12-27 20:12:42

Re: why we can't get public and political support

#21 2002-12-28 01:27:31

Re: why we can't get public and political support

#22 2002-12-28 07:39:58

Re: why we can't get public and political support

#23 2002-12-28 15:19:25

Re: why we can't get public and political support

#24 2002-12-28 15:50:14

Re: why we can't get public and political support

#25 2002-12-28 16:46:57

Re: why we can't get public and political support

Board footer