In light of all this Mars landing talk and reading Bradbury's expressed views on the colonization of Mars, I saw an interesting parallel in the Space Trilogy books (Out of the Silent Planet, Perelandra, That Hideous Strength) written by C. S. Lewis. I've been reading them lately, and, interestingly, Bradbury expresses nearly the same views as the "bad" character in the books. If you have not read these books, I suggest doing so, they are very good and quite enlightening.
As for space travel, this is what the "bad" characater, Weston, says: "Life has ruthlessly broken down all obstacles and liquidated all failures and to-day in her highest form--civilised man--and in me as his representative, she presses forward to that interplanetary leap which will, perhaps, place her for ever beyond the reach of death"
Here, he is speaking to the ruler of the planet Malacandra (Mars). This ruler can be compared to what we may think of as a high angel, serving under God. He goes on..."...I am prepared without flinching to plant the flag of man on the soil of Malacandra: to march on, step by step, superseding, where necessary, the lower forms of life that we find, claiming planet after planet, system after system, till our posterity dwell in the universe wherever the universe is habitable."
I know this is a little different than what Bradbury says, and Bradbury says it much better, but the general idea is the same.
This is what the ruler of Mars says to Weston, the reason why he is wrong (in the view of C. S. Lewis), "[your people are] wise enough to see the death of their kind approaching but not wise enough to endure it...the weakest of my people do not fear death. It is the Bent One, the lord of your world, who wastes your lives and befouls them with flying from what you know will overtake you in the end. If you were subjects of Maleldil (God) you would have peace."
Now, I don't know how many of you will take that, being out of context from the book, but I think you get the general idea. I think Bradbury is a great man with great ideas. I also believe space travel is good in a lot of ways--people on Mars may be a good thing--but the question is, how far will we go? Another question: in our space travel, will we be abandoning our planet, leaving behind its problems for others to deal with? Surely some will be left behind to clean up the mess. I know that most of us are not responsible for the world's problems and wars and corruptions, but we are, in part, responsible for striving to make it better. What good would abandoning the Earth do for mankind? Our intentions are good, but as it is said, the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. Now, it may not even come to our leaving behind Earth altogether, but it seems to be in Bradbury's head at least. I feel like I'm being almost sacreligious here, because I love Bradbury so much--all his works and inspirations--but I'm just expressing the opposing view, something to think about. What I'm trying to say, is simply that Earth is our home, we need to take care of it--problems are not fixed by putting them out of sight. I love the idea and mysteries of Space as much as anybody else. I just hope we don't solve the mystery--what will be left for the imagination? Truly, though, I think in searching for answers and aquiring knoweledge through space travel, we will once again realize how little we know, and the mystery will grow deeper.
Keep in mind, exploration is a great thing, knowledge is invaluable, but wisdom is greater in the end, and I just hope we make wise choices without forgetting about the place we have always called home. I'm sure several of you will disagree with these views, and no doubt neither is truly "correct", but I would very much be interested in hearing your own thoughts on this subject.

Yestermorrow:

Another excellent book on this very subject is "The Gods Themselves" by Isaac Asimov. I'd be interested in your thoughts after reading that!

I'll put it on my "books to get" list

I hope you like it! Asimov was a visionary of epic proportions. On my flight out to LA a few weeks ago I reread the "Martian Chronicles" and "Dandelion Wine" since I planned to meet Ray and wanted to be in appropriate spirits. On the way home, I reread Vol. 1 of "The Complete Short Stories of Isaac Asimov" and was amazed by the complementary nature and future visions of both men. They both started writing in the late 1940's. What a surprising treat for me to be able to compare them like that!

Anyway, I think you'll have a lot of fun and gain some food for thought...

Is the "Complete" short story collection really complete? There have been collections by other writers, such as Robert Bloch, which call themselves "complete," but some published stories are missing. Ray's "Complete" poems are also not complete, even of the time they were published, let alone now.

Here is a forum specifically for discussing Asimov: http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1...=Google+Search&meta=

Dandelion:

Well, according to the forward, the collection "series" is supposed to be complete. "Short Stories Vol. 1" is pretty thick, but I can't vouch for the other books because I don't have them. Plus, it's possible that Asimov's unfortunate and relatively early death interrupted the collecting process.

I just have to say to Yestermorrow that this topic is so good it makes my brain hurt. I don't know why it hasn't picked up more. And thanks for added the text of C.S. Lewis because I know very little about his works. I have read some little bits by him and my thoughts of them will follow shortly.

But as to the question I am pulled. I've heard the Dalai Lama's response to space travel saying that it would be better to explore your own mind than outer space.

The Irish author George Moore said:

"A man travels the world over in search of what he needs, and returns home to find it."

I would say that C.S. Lewis being a Christian believed that by going to the ends of the Universe it would not help one way or the other the state of a man's spirit. It may make him proud and intelligent, yes, but not necessarily good. With all the technology the world has created it still does not mean that as people we are better off in spiritual matters. A machine or robot or spacecraft cannot as man cannot make us believe in God.

I don't believe space travel can better the spirit nor hurt it. We put a man on Mars and Al Qaeda becomes a few dumbass Arabs. Any success of ours is their failure. So in that way I believe space travel to make our problems of today go away. It will not help us spiritually but our wellbeing will be much better like penicillin to bacteria makes us better.

Thanks for the headache.

An interesting side note to C.S. Lewis's faith and writings, he was dramatically changed by long discussions with JRR Tolkein and other prominent writers and philosphers of the late 20's and early 30's. They met regularly and argued, considered, and challenged for days at a time. The spiritualism in the second half of his career became quite profound.

SEE: http://www.cslewis.org/about/index.html

For those just thorough enough, (or morbid enough) to wonder about how Asimov died, here are true facts: http://www.code7r.org/inquiz/0402/asimov.htm

yestermorrow,
I have read out of the silent planet, though I have not finished the trilogy. Yes, it was a great book! I don't think I'll ever think of space travel the same way.

Dandelion:

I saw that on the Asimov website before. It was very upsetting to me, especially the false rumor thing. I know that you are particularly sensitive to that sort of thing, so thanks for posting a link to the truth.

You're welcome, JF. I was glad to be able to do Mrs. Asimov and Mr. Ellison, and the memory of the late Mr. Asimov, a good turn.

If anyone understands that third book in the Lewis trilogy, "That Hideous Strength," please say so and if possible post an explanation. It's one of the books I can truthfully say was so darn far over my head I read the entire thing and barely understood a word!

I am just now finishing "Perelandra", the second book of the trilogy, and I am soon to read "That Hideous Strength". When I finish, I'll let you know what I make of it.

Okay, wait. Maybe I missed something. All I saw was that Asimov DIDN'T die by getting aids during a heart transplant. So how DID he die?

No offense to your off-subject posts. They're just fine. It's just that I was hoping for a little more feedback from you all and your thoughts on the actual subject of this post. I guess I thought it was more interesting than the rest of you.