Given that 72% (and growing) of the Earth's surface is covered in water, and given that we know less about the floor of these oceans than we do about the surface of Mars (according to Robert Ballard, Tuesday on The Colbert Report), how can we justify space exploration in lieu of oceanography? I am keenly interested in the exploration of space, but wonder whether or not we are neglecting a vast resource of untold information about life on Earth, simply by neglecting to fund ocean research.
Agree fully, although as an ex marine-biologist, I might be just a little biased. Julie is right though - there are many more hidden depths and nasty, slimy monsters in the banking world!
You know who lives in the water Sufi? Ducks, that's who!
I am going to have to go with...because most of the oceans are impossible to reach without being killed.
I forget who it was that explorer who actually went down into the abyss and nearly died and so I think it is completely within reason that since it is easier to explore the magnatude of space then it is to safely explore our Ocean bottoms that it is probably the reason.
But I can only say that everything we could possibly know about our Universe and life can be found right here on Earth and in the deep dark depths of our waters but since we can't really go there safely and can only build machines that can reach certain depths and peer out or in so far; exploring space may be the key to finding out how we can get to the bottom of the Oceans.
I dunno, plus I think that underneith it all, we really want to know if life can only exist on Earth and if water truly is the source of life.
I could imagine if we found life somewhere where water was not a useful element, that it would change everything.
'Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea' versus 'Star Wars'
something like that...
Who would be funding the research? America? We are too busy exploring the banking world right now. But who else could fund that kinda underwater research? China? Do you really think they would be interested?
Quite a choice, innit? Ballard said that one year of funding that currently goes to NASA could fund what he does for about a thousand. But then, he may be slightly biased?!?
Anyway - everyone knows there is nothing but boring sea monsters on the ocean bed. Who wants to see more of that?
Boring sea monsters that contain information about the type of photosynthesis they are able to produce in darkness (which seems just downright sneaky of them, if you ask me).
It is magic. Everyone knows this. That's why we stick to space
Completely agree with Teresa, though boring but our sea holds volume of information that mankind can use or replicate for its benefit. And if you see it that way then we should not have explored space at all..... it does not even have those monsters, its all empty .
And yes nothing is magic. It all depends how we take things around us; we may just give a blind eye to something by calling it just a magic or may take pain to understand what it is and in turn benefit from it or from the information it provides.
This reminds me of that amazin 35 ft long squid dissected last year in New Zealand. The species was discovered in a whale's stomach in 1925, but very few have been seen since then:
The half-ton female squid had eyes 11 inches across:
It took me a while but I got it... Are we missing the word "on?" I don't have the courage to look at the picture. So I'm just reading everyone's word for it... I am so scared of the ocean I can't imagine going a thousand leagues under the sea. However; which country provides the most funding for Marine Biology? Does the United States?
If we keep up at the pace we are going; don't ya think that maybe we should be funding field research on how to live in 150 F temperatures... free?
It would be kewl to just be able to recreate our own environment within a hostile environment .. now that would be good spending, imagine living underwater? or on the moon...wow! lol
What would we do without the sea and all its mystery? In my life, there's just gotta be an ocean--as well as the stars above it.
Both space and marine exploration and should funded--but maybe a little after medical research.
They sent two samples of germs into space with that shuttle to the space stn n they came back super bugz...thats skeery ... dont know why doin that should be exciting...dont we have enough bugz in da world to conquer before introducin new ones ? got to wonder where their heads are @ , lol
Has anybody heard of that scientist that discovered how to burn salt water? He actually got the salt water to burn and produce energy. I can't remember his name though. But if we have that type of technology now, why aren't we using it?
Soon there will be no new American cars left to use that substance, .
If oil companies were really mad crazy for money, why don't they tap into this salt water burn thing? Imagine the market they'd have? Imagine the resources they now would own and would produce? Imagine the "trickle down" effect? Where are the scientist, with sharp keen business minds? Bill Gates is getting old. Someone knew needs to step up and take the forefront. Is there no one who is capable of figuring out how to tap into this market? Where did all the smart business people go- too 'hell' with the banking system? Apparently so! Amazing when you think about it, simply amazing. I just don't get it.
The "world" went about refining oil when they knew nothing about it. They knew nothing of the dangers. We have lived above ground w/ salt water our entire lives... and there is no one who can think outside "the oil" box? Sad, very, very, very sad.
Well it is the money already invested in the oil infrastructure - trillions and all the support, drilling, shipping refining, oil automobiles, repair
parts and trillions. Would have to remake the economies world wide.
Here is the link to the burning salt article. Very interesting:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news … water.html
I imagine that if this actually works, our oceans will start shrinking very quickly as we burn them for fuel.
I thought that too. An engineer I know, pointed out the fact that with constant glacier ice melting, weather, and salt H2O reproduction; that depleting the ocean supply of water would not be an issue. That is; as far as he could tell. The idea of making salt H2o burn, should have brought out the idea of 'radio frequency' as the source to the "fuel". Finding the rate which burned the salt h2o, why can't scientist find the rate to regenerate the by product? Why aren't converters of energy used in this thought process. Now, I had to admit-t his is all over my head. My field is Building Architecture. I am more or less, a retired draftsmen. I'm am not an engineer in nuclear science or biotect.
I thought my friends points made for a good case.
Lot involved with things like this. I mayself have some inventions or designs that could be produced. Too much work, too many hours, build a buisness, even though maybe it is easier now with the internet. And yet you don't give it away, because you think never know - may need it as an economic insurance policy.
He kinda had the same attitude.
Now why is it that we complain about gas prices and oil? lol.
Oceans vs Space-
question still stands... Whose gonna foot the bill for discovery? America can't... I think it is a mute point and a dead issue. I feel however that that is a dog gone shame.
I totally agree,
We can't even make use of anything we find in space at this point.
Better to spend resources on discovering areas of the earth, and possibly resources we can put to direct use.
I vote Ocean exploration.
Interesting question. I think it has to do with economics, there's potentially more $$$ to be made from space exploreation than from further ocean exploration. Not saying it's right, but so many things seem to be driven by economics.
This is a fascinating thread with an even more interesting digression on saltwater...
I think the main premise that prevents further exploration of the world's mostly empty oceans is that what's 'down' represents ancient history, as opposed to what's 'out there' having more to do what we conceive of as 'the future.'
Ironically, though, when we look 'out there,' we are actually viewing pictures of the past (based on space-time differential).
Like I said: Fascinating.
Copyright © 2016 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.