Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site genat.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcs!mnetor!genat!phoenix
From: phoenix@genat.UUCP (phoenix)
Newsgroups: net.columbia,net.philosophy
Subject: Re: Escape tower for shuttle orbiter?
Message-ID: <2593@genat.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 19-Mar-86 15:56:01 EST
Article-I.D.: genat.2593
Posted: Wed Mar 19 15:56:01 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 20-Mar-86 09:15:55 EST
References: <9696@ucla-cs.ARPA> <588@qantel.UUCP>
Reply-To: phoenix@genat.UUCP ()
Followup-To: net.columbia,net.philosophy
Distribution: net
Organization: Genamation Inc. (Toronto Ontario, Canada)
Lines: 67
Keywords: life vs. megabucks
Summary: explation of terms

In article <12469@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> desj@brahms.UUCP (David desJardins) writes:
>>   I hate to sound callous, but I don't see the point of all of this just
>>to save the crew.  If you could save the orbiter, that would be great, but
>>you are talking about something that has got to cost hundreds of millions
>>of dollars just to save the crew.  Doesn't this seem a trifle excessive?
>
>
>>Of course cost-vs-safety factors have to be considered, NASA has a limited
>>budget.  What ticked me off about David's posting is his suggestion that
>>the orbiter is more precious than "just the crew."  This is the same kind
>>of criminal mentality employed by nuclear strategists when they talk of
>>10 million casualties during a nuclear exchange to be "acceptable."  I'm
>>sorry but I value human life and I find this reasoning to be repulsive.
>>I stand by my original comment!
>
>   If you find rational consideration of the alternatives "repulsive,"
>how do you think our country should make strategic decisions?
>
>phoenix@genat.UUCP (phoenix) in <2582@genat.UUCP>:
>>The point is, that orbiters, though expensive are REPLACEABLE:  Life, human
>>or otherwise, is not.  If the crew were not important, the orbiter would be
>>unmanned, would it not?  The contribution of the crew is unique, not to be
>>replaceable by computers or remote control.  The orbiter is *not* unique,
>>only the crew is.  The fact that human lives, an irreplaceable resource,  are
>>used at all and thus placed at risk proves the value of their input to the
>>mission.  Should they not, therefore be more important to save than the 
>>orbiter is?  
>
>   "Life, human or otherwise, is not [replaceable]."  I'm not quite sure
>how to respond to this statement, because it doesn't make any sense.  Of
>course human (and other) life is replaceable; people die and are replaced
>all of the time.
>   "The contribution of the crew is unique, not to be replaceable by
>computers or remote control."  True.  Neither can the orbiter be replaced
>by extra crew members.  What is the point?
>   Please clarify what you are trying to say so I can respond to it...
>
>   -- David desJardins

What I was trying to say (tell-me-twice), is that Life is ideosyncratic;
that is, each living being (human, sentient, or otherwise) is different
from all other living beings:  like snowflakes.  It is this diversity of
life that cannot be duplicated.  Generally speaking, each machine (no matter 
how expensive) is, to all intents and purposes, identical to all other
machines of the same type (yes, I know that they can come with different
paint jobs...:-); I'm talking *significant* differences), and at any time
more can be built to exactly the same requirements as earlier one's were.
Yes, making another human being is less expensive than making a new shuttle
BUT that new life cannot be an exact replacement for the life that was taken.
Because each human mind is unique and different from any other such mind.
The primary point I am trying to make is that a life is more important
than a machine is.
For example, John Doe gets into a traffic-accident in his Farrarri.  To save
his life, the car must be cut open, aka *destroyed*.  Because it is an
expensive car that will be damaged, does this mean we leave John Doe to
die while we save the sportscar?
Hoping I have made my position clear,
		Be seeing you,

-- 
					The Phoenix
					(Neither Bright, Dark, nor Young)


---"A man should live forever...or die trying."
---"There is no substitute for good manners...except fast reflexes."