Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!umcp-cs!mangoe
From: mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate)
Newsgroups: net.space
Subject: Re: Scuttle the Space Program?
Message-ID: <3192@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 13-Feb-86 01:53:14 EST
Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.3192
Posted: Thu Feb 13 01:53:14 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 14-Feb-86 06:27:09 EST
References: <661@tekigm.UUCP> <158@axiom.UUCP> <932@nmtvax.UUCP>
Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD
Lines: 103

In article <932@nmtvax.UUCP> fine@nmtvax.UUCP (Andrew J Fine) writes:

>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.  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.  It also increased the likelyhood of the lawless being
>able to escape justice, for example Botany Bay and the HMS Bounty.

This agrees with no history I have ever read.  The truth appears to be that
it was the desire to exploit which originally drove some explorations, and
not the other way around.  This isn't even true in all cases, there being a
sufficient number of expolrations for exploration's sake.  As for widening
the gap between rich and poor-- a dubious conclusion.  If one takes the USA
as an example, it is unclear that its colonization increased English
poverty-- and American prosperity, brought out of the poor we received, is
truly remarkable.  My guess is that the porr would starve no matter how the
rich choose to squander their funds.  THe mere choice not to spend on one
"luxury" simply meant squandering it on another.

>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.

How much is the annual budget of N.M. Tech?  Why don't we spend it all in
the same manner?

>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!". 
>"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.

Nonsense.  Even the poor of today enjoy a much higher standard of living
than their anscestors did.

>Why have satellites and information systems at all, except to invade the 
>privacy and keep records on a captive populace? Why have land and weather
>satellites at all, except to take advantage of another nation's resources
>and vulnerabilities?

How about our own resources and weather?

>Why explore the planets, interesting though they are, except to find
>more virgin landscape to despoil and riches to plunder?  Why put a man, or a
>women for that matter, in space?  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?

I, for one, think it is vitally important to continue this sort of "useless"
research.  I firmly believe that "man does not live by bread alone"; mere
survival cannot begin to compare with the richness of culture and knowledge,
however debased.  A number of studies have shown that people persistently
retain some "essential" luxuries, even though they may have to cut back on
essentials to do so.

>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.  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.  Do we really deserve to go "out there" when we have
>such a mess "down here"?

Deserve?  WHo appointed you God?  And what about yourself?  YOu seem to be
willing to infinitely debase survival so that it may be (supposedly-- I
doubt its practical application) had be all.  Is this really such a great
good?

>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.

I'm afraid that, in many matters, the President or the Queen is much more
valuable than any peasant.  The Queen, for instance, serves as the rallying
point for many  British charities engaged in the work you seem to favor.

I really see no justification for this rather Luddite viewpoint, especially
in light of the irony of its transmission over a computer net whose net
contribution to world survival is likely to nil.  This net, in fact, attests
to the wrongness of Mr. Fine's position.  It produces almost nothing.  Its
sole purpose  is as an exchange of ideas and opinions, and it thus testifies
to the human need for knowledge, entertainment, and the other mental
activities which raise man above mere survival.

Certainly we have an obligation to improve the human condition.  Ending the
space program will not do it.  The money will simply be diverted to DOD
where it can be used directly to subsidize destruction.


C. Wingate