Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!umcp-cs!aplcen!jhunix!ins_akaa From: ins_akaa@jhunix.UUCP (Ken Arromdee) Newsgroups: net.space,net.columbia Subject: Re: Scuttle the Space Program? Message-ID: <1866@jhunix.UUCP> Date: Wed, 12-Feb-86 21:49:48 EST Article-I.D.: jhunix.1866 Posted: Wed Feb 12 21:49:48 1986 Date-Received: Fri, 14-Feb-86 06:22:29 EST References: <661@tekigm.UUCP> <158@axiom.UUCP> <932@nmtvax.UUCP> Reply-To: ins_akaa@jhunix.ARPA (Ken Arromdee) Organization: TARDIS Repairs, Inc. Lines: 166 Xref: linus net.space:4330 net.columbia:1914 Summary: It's net.space. GUESS the answer! In article <932@nmtvax.UUCP> fine@nmtvax.UUCP (Andrew J Fine) writes: >I, personally, am in full support of the Shuttle, the Space Program, and >the exploration and exploition of space, and it's eventual population by >humanity. BUT NOBODY HAS EVER ASKED US THESE QUESTIONS, NOBODY HAS EVER >CHALLENGED US TO QUESTION OURSELVES! We need to be able to answer them,... >Let's ask ourselves a few questions: >****************************************************************************** >Does humanity (men and women) really *need* to populate space? Do we really >need to explore, in person or otherwise, other planets? Historically, >exploration and open boundaries only encouraged exploitation, slavery, and >genocide of indigenous peoples such as African, American Natives, and >East Asians. First, there are no other indigenous people in the solar system. Even if it should turn out that there is (say) life on Pluto, that wouldn't mean that we would enslave it in order to colonize the moon, asteroids, or L4/5 points. And I doubt very much we would exploit, enslave, or genocide, even to explore Pluto--we'd just go somewhere else. Space is BIG. And as for open boundaries, a good case can be made for the opposite-- dictatorships such as the USSR generally have borders much less open than democratic ones. >It widened the gap between the rich and the poor at home, and >the massive funds spent on ships and weapons in that previous era caused >more people to starve. How do you know that? Maybe the benefits of exploration made up for the supposed loss of funds to the poor. (i.e. new types of crops, increased trade) In fact, it could be argued that the delayed results of exploration eventually caused the end of that era. Anyway, how does exploration result in a loss of the poor's food? >It also increased the likelyhood of the lawless being >able to escape justice, for example Botany Bay and the HMS Bounty. Or being able to escape injustice (i.e. religious persecution). >So what do we buy with $2 billion dollars? One shuttle, good for 100 missions >(best case) with 7 people each. Or enough food, clean water, and other >necesssities to feed Ethiopia for the next ten decades, easily. The problem in Ethiopia is not just food, it's politics (i.e. the forced relocations, aid to rebels getting cut off, etc...), not to mention the detrimental effects of Communism, and a whole host of other political and so- cial problems not solvable just by buying food. Furthermore, getting the food and water isn't enough--it also has to be taken to the people who need it, also a political problem. And the 100 mission shuttle brings general benefits that have to be counted in for the comparison to be fair. >So what do space-faring nations prove when they invoke national prestige and >the desire of humanity to expand, by consuming all that money and >men-centuries? "I'm rich enough to do this and you're not, so there!". Money isn't "consumed", it's fed back into the economy. And is it wrong for somebody to do something beneficial just because they are actually capable, financially, of doing it? ("I'm rich enough, etc...") >"My rocket is bigger than yours!". "We are leaving you behind to scratch the >dust while we inherit the universe!" One man's glory is another man's >humiliation. One man's wealth is another man's poverty. One man's livelihood >is another man's serfdom. If somebody has to scratch the dust, but you can stand up, that's no reason for you to also scratch the dust. If taken to its logical conclusion, this argument indicates that all nations must crouch down to the level of the ones in the worst condition. It doesn't apply to space travel only--it's like saying that we shouldn't irrigate our farms, because it's an affront to other nations that don't have the water to irrigate with... >Why have satellites and information systems at all, except to invade the >privacy and keep records on a captive populace? You don't need satellites to control people, and in fact by helping inform people, satellites make them less captive. For instance, weather satellites can be an aid to people about to be threatened by a hurricane, or to farmers who need to know about weather patterns, etc.... Saying that our satellites are primarily used to keep our populace captive is demonstrably false. >Why have land and weather >satellites at all, except to take advantage of another nation's resources >and vulnerabilities? Land and weather satellites are useful within your own territory. >Why explore the planets, interesting though they are, except to find >more virgin landscape to despoil and riches to plunder? There's nothing wrong with "despoiling" land and "plundering" if there's no indigenous life there, and the land and riches could be useful to people. >Why put a man, or a women for that matter, in space? Putting a man is space may not seem beneficial in itself, but it's only a first step. >What is so special about anyone that we >must exhalt that person above all others in such an eletist fashion? Why >shouldn't that person be put to a task that serves the world rather than that >person's ego? The task does serve the world. And it's only seems "elitist" because only a few people are involved, but remember that the long-range goal is to have everyone involved. >The main problem with all of us is we are still essentially barbarians at >heart. The Viking who was the explorer was also the Viking that also raped >and pillaged. The Columbus who was the explorer was also the Columbus who >converted people to his religion by force. The shuttle pilot who was the >explorer was also the pilot who killed husbands, wives, and children in >North Korea and North Vietnam. We can't rape or pillage planets because there's nobody there. (see above). The term "space colonies" is actually a misnomer--"space settlements" is more accurate. Nobody's going to exploit any natives. Furthermore, generali- zation from people hundreds of years ago to people of today who do not share their desires is unwarranted. I don't rape, pillage, or convert by force, and I shouldn't be barred from doing something because someone else commits these actions. Such an attitude is essentially racial prejudice, except the race is the entire human race. >The wanderlust we all experience is just >another word for the lust and coveting for the outside world that blinds >us to the potentials of the inside world and the darkness of the soul that >we need to correct. You may in fact feel this way, but any attempt to claim these as someone else's motives is pure conjecture, without evidence. >Do we really deserve to go "out there" when we have >such a mess "down here"? It doesn't matter, because going "out there" does not make conditions "down here" worse. >Earth is enough for us, if we have the will to cooperate, to transcend the >bigotries that confound us, the borders that seperate us, to dare to have >peace instead of waging war, to share what we have as far as we can give it >without anyone having to pay for it ( the concept of having to work for one's >bread is deadly when there is not enough work to go around ), to recognize >that the most humble peasant in Mexico or India is worth more to us than >the President of the US or the Queen of England. There are things available only in space. You can't share them if you don't have them. And it seems strange to say that the Queen of England is worth less than a peasant--it's still elitism, only the peasant is on the top and the Queen is made the new peasant. Is it really right to say that ANYONE, even the Queen of England, is worth less than someone else? >If humanity can simply change from mere descendants of carnivorous apes to >something totally gentle, altrustic, and noble, then Earth will be enough. >We only try to escape the Earth because we try to escape our own natures. See above--you cannot prove someone else's motives just by stating what you think they might be. -- "We are going to give a little something, a few little years more, to socialism, because socialism is defunct. It dies all by iself. The bad thing is that socialism, being a victim of its... Did I say socialism?" -Fidel Castro Kenneth Arromdee BITNET: G46I4701 at JHUVM and INS_AKAA at JHUVMS CSNET: ins_akaa@jhunix.CSNET ARPA: ins_akaa%jhunix@hopkins.ARPA UUCP: ...allegra!hopkins!jhunix!ins_akaa