Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!space
From: COWAN@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU (Richard A. Cowan)
Newsgroups: net.space
Subject: Re: Do we really need to leave this planet?
Message-ID: <12188923772.45.COWAN@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Fri, 7-Mar-86 20:18:01 EST
Article-I.D.: XX.12188923772.45.COWAN
Posted: Fri Mar  7 20:18:01 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 9-Mar-86 00:09:31 EST
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 37

Gene Ward Smith, discussing Andrew Fine's critical message about
space colonization, said this:

>   I submit that the highly emotional tone of both your original posting
>and this response shows that my analogy does have some degree of appositeness.
>I propose, and am quite serious about this, that there is a kind of hysterical
>quasi-religious cult feeling about some of the postings to this newsgroup (a
>minority, I should hasten to add).
>...
>Your effusions do not seem to me to be well thought out.

I'd like to ask Mr. Smith to explain what he means by a "hysterical
quasi-religious cult."  It is not clear to me. Also, I thought Mr.
Fine's questions were better thought out than most things that appear
on this list.  Finally, what does Gene mean by "emotional"?

Could it be that the influence of vested interests in the national
debate warps the arguments we hear, thereby manipulating our needs?
Just think of all the optimistic articles that appear in
the newspaper and stories that appear on TV glorifying some new
technological development.  Organizations with a large public
relations offices and a financial interest in positive public
perceptions of these technologies constantly vie for media attention.

Is the outcome of this manipulation that a limited range of arguments
or questions are "tacitly sanctioned"?  i.e. Questions or arguments that
stray beyond this range sound "emotional" for they contradict the
assumptions we have been indoctrinated to take for granted.

My advice in general: whenever you see or read something about how a
technology is going to revolutionize some aspect of our civilization,
A BELL SHOULD GO OFF IN YOUR HEAD.  Only if you consider who's making
money off this publicity can you factor out the hype and come up with
an impartial analysis.

rich (cowan@xx)
-------