Arafat is already reneging on his agreement to turn over all the prisoners to U.S. custody.

Arafat is already reneging on his agreement to turn over all the prisoners to U.S. custody.

Thomas Hawthorne has been heavily engaged in the fray over in the comments section of the last post on this subject, and seems to be at least attempting to argue issues (though not very well), so I’ll do him the courtesy of addressing his arguments, such as they are. I’m spending a lot of time on this, and dealt with it in my Fox column last week, because I think that it’s a very important topic.

I should note that there is no ability for people to edit their posts in the comment section, and Thomas noted in a follow-up that there were many grammatical and spelling errors in the following. It is duly noted, and no more will be said on the subject–I’m more interested in the substance. The only time I comment on others’ writing style is when it’s in a post criticizing my writing…

WOW!!! What a reaction!! Thank you for proving my point that you guys would rather call names like children than debate.

Note that this is from the same person who variously accused me and others of being, among other things, “extreme militia types,” “conservatives,” and (horror of horrors!) “Republicans,” with zero evidence.

For the record, I am not now, nor have I ever been, any of those things. I wish people could develop a more sophisticated sense of political ideologies than simply left-right.

“Marxist scum?” I have to remember that one. First Barb, I never said you were Hilter. The reason why I used that because YOU said exploitation was not bad….but it is. How could you not believe that?

It is not, unless you’re using some narrow definition of it that makes it so by that definition.

When I look up the word “exploit” (verb form) on dictionary.com, the first definition is: “To employ to the greatest possible advantage: exploit one’s talents.” Only the second definition deals with unethical or selfish behavior. Now perhaps Mr. Hawthorne believes that it is bad to get the most out of one’s ability, but I hope not. For instance, when I stick a solar panel on my roof, and power up my granola oven with it, I’m exploiting the energy of the sun. I would presume that he doesn’t find that unethical or evil. We are simply proposing to do the same thing in space.

I am ALL for human advance. But how can colonize another planet when we can even take care of this one? Anyone pleae explain this logic.

Yes. You see, in logic, we have these things called premises. We also have things called a syllogism. Your argument is broken on both counts. Your premise (“we cannot take care of this one”) is false. We are quite capable of doing so, and in fact aren’t doing all that bad a job of it. Go read Lomborg for more details.

But even if, just for entertainment and the sake of the argument, we granted your premise, your conclusion would still not necessarily follow. You’re missing another premise in order to make it a valid argument, to wit: an inability to properly steward one planet necessarily implies an inability to do so on all planets. There’s no reason to suppose that this is so.

For instance, this might be an extraordinarily difficult and complex planet to manage, and others might be easier. Or since we’re starting clean on the new planet, we have ample time to learn how to manage things before they get out of control, particularly considering all of the lessons learned from this one.

And actually, there’s a third unspoken premise–that we are going to settle only on planets. Many people believe that it makes more sense to simply build floating cities out of debris in the solar system (asteroids, comets, etc.) What would be unethical about that? How could we be said to screw up something that hadn’t even existed until we constructed it? Unless, of course, you believe that asteroids and other space rocks have rights…

Second Rand, you give me planet that can support HUMAN life….Mars? When you get there go ahead a take you helmet of and breathe in that wonderful air.

You don’t seem to have understood my point. There are many places on earth that we cannot survive without technology (e.g., extremely high latitudes). An unsheltered human being will die in short order in a settlement on the Bering Sea. Yet people (e.g., the Inuit) have been living there for centuries, perhaps millennia.

Why? Because they employ technology. We can do the same thing on Mars, or even in free space. And eventually, we could even terraform Mars so that we could come out of the domes, and take off our helmets. I simply fail to see the relevance of the ability of a naked human animal to live in an environment to the ethical considerations of moving there.

Unless, that is, you believe that the Inuit should pack up and leave as well, and go and sin no more. If so, please explain why.

Third J. Walsilesky, it’s our right because WE say so? Who are we? What makes us great enough that we have absolutely no restraint and clarity to blindly go and do whatever we want.

Who else will decide?

Seriously, if not us, who? We are the people who will go. If you believe in human freedom, that is sufficient. But perhaps you don’t believe in things like that.

Fourth David, who in the world said anything about religious beliefs? That has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion! I am talking about ethics, I don’t know what you talking about.

Not to speak for him, but I assume that he means that, since many of your statements lack logic and facts, that your beliefs must be based on some sort of religious faith. This doesn’t mean necessarily in the sense of Christianity, etc.–it’s more likely some form of paganism, and worship of inanimate objects (such as rocks on Mars), even if you don’t explicitly recognize it as such.

And here lies my whole arguement. There’s a great line in Jurrasic Park by Jeff Glodbum that goes something like, “they were so caught up with if they could, that they didn’t think about if they should.”

We have thought about it. Or at least I have. We believe that we not only can, but should.

My arguement is that since the beginning of time man has evolved in extraordinary ways. We’ve built huge cities, created technology that puts one person from one side of the world in direct contact with another person on the other side. BUT what about the the negative things human have done? There is more pollution in the world then there have ever been.

That’s not really true, at least in all cases. For instance, the air in American cities (particularly Los Angeles) is much better than it was forty years ago. London had much more of a pollution problem in the nineteenth century than it does now.

And actually, much of it is being reduced. It will continue to do so as nations grow wealthier and can afford to do more cleanup, and as technologies increase efficiency and allow us new techniques for environmental amelioration.

Not only have we created the atomic bomb, but it has been used. The quest for the best technology created and arms race between countries that can destroy each other 100 times over with a click of a button. My point is that when people make mistakes, then tend to learn from them so they can make better decisions next time around.

Ignoring the hyperbole (no nation has that capability), I don’t think that anyone here would disagree.

We have a chance to expand the human race beyond this planet which is very awesome to think about, and I am very much for it. But RIGHT NOW we live on this planet and we are doing everything in our power to destroy it.

Nonsense. If we wanted to do everything in our power to destroy it, we could do much worse. In fact, as already noted, we are actually improving things in many ways, and will continue to do so as the technology advances, as we overthrow hierarchies in the third world that keep their people in poverty, and as the world population starts to decline in the next few decades, it will improve even more.

Eventually, as we develop the capability to move out into space, and move people off the earth, it can become a large nature park and vacation location, which is the use for which it’s ultimately best suited, in my opinion.

This ought to be a goal that all environmentalists can get behind. I wonder why they don’t?

Not just be pollution but by wars, and extreme globalization.

“Extreme globalization”? What’s wrong with globalization? It’s the only means by which the world’s poor will climb out of poverty.

How can we have the ego to think that we can go to another planet and blindly believe that it won’t happen again?

No one said that we would. It (whatever “it” is that’s bad) could happen again, but we will do our best to prevent it. But the fact that we can’t guarantee that it won’t happen is no reason not to attempt it. Because if we fail to go, it is a certainty that most of the known universe will remain barren of life, and that would be a tragedy in itself.

You guys choose to focus to good on the good mankind has done which is fine. BUT you also choose to disregard the negative things that mankind has done which is very dangerous.

We are not disregarding that. However, unlike you, we have faith in humanity.

Before you go into any venture, gain some wisdom.

Physician, heal thyself.

Now let me kind of wrap this up, because I have to move on to other topics. My opponents’ position seems to be that I am hell bent on going out and pillaging the universe, without regard to ethics or morality, or thought. This is utter nonsense, and a strawman argument.

My only argument is that we are capable of settling the solar system, that there is, as far as we know, nothing to “destroy” or “ravage” out there, but that if we find it, we will use sensitivity developed over the past few centuries, and lessons from our earthly development, to preserve it to the best of our ability. But even if we fail, and we do have the occasional mishap, the net gain will still be positive, because we will be bringing life to places where there currently is none.

My argument is not with people who think that we should “be careful out there.” I agree. My argument is with people who think that I am incapable of doing so, and that I and mine must therefore be quarantined to one tiny planet, in a vast lifeless universe.

As a poster on sci.space.policy. put it, “People who cannot tell the difference between malignant cancerous growth and the sudden growth spurt of an awkward teenager are very, very scary.”

Indeed.

A US Air flight was turned around after it was discovered that several men of middle-eastern descent had purchased one-way tickets with cash. No mention of why this wasn’t discovered prior to allowing them to board.

I am just so glad that we have those competent federal employees running the passenger-screening system…

One of the definitions of “faux pas” is when a politician accidentally tells the truth.

Along those lines is this statement by Congressman Ron Paul.

I don’t know for sure that it’s legitimate, but I have no reason to think not, given other things that he’s said in the past. Without getting into the details of what he said (you can go read it yourself if this post piques your curiousity), I want to reiterate one metapoint.

The other day, I made a huge “gaffe” on national TV: I told the truth about the crimes of the U.S. government. As you can imagine, the ceiling fell in, and a couple of walls too. Congressman are supposed to support the government, I was told. Oh, it’s okay to criticize around the edges, but there are certain subjects a member of the House of Representatives is not supposed to bring up. But I touched the real “third-rail” of American politics, and the sparks sure flew.

A congressman has no duty to support “the government,” at least if that means supporting every action that every government employee takes, or even supporting every law or agency that has been created by an out-of-control Congress. A congressman’s (and President’s) duty, and oath, is to support the Constitution. While I disagree with Congressman Paul on a variety of issues (though I’m sure nowhere near as many as most people do), he is one of the few people in Congress who gets that significant difference.

Soon-to-be-ex-Congressman Condit certainly seems to be allergic to testifying under oath.

Soon-to-be-ex-Congressman Condit certainly seems to be allergic to testifying under oath.

Soon-to-be-ex-Congressman Condit certainly seems to be allergic to testifying under oath.

Here’s an interesting discussion among policy makers of current issues with NASA. What I found interesting (and disappointing, as always, is that there was almost no discussion whatsoever of what we’re trying to accomplish, or why NASA even exists. Again, there are a lot of unspoken assumptions in all of the conversation, and it’s not clear that they’re shared.

I found the transcript from Crossfire on Thursday night, about space tourism.

This is the reason that I write this blog (and maybe will have to sit down and write a book, if anyone would read it). It’s always embarrassing to me to watch (or read) things like this. The amount of ignorance displayed in this short transcript, particularly by the media pundits, is amazing, and all four participants are arguing from wildly different assumption bases, but there’s not necessarily any way to tell that for most people.

Programs like this may be entertaining to some, but they are the opposite of informative.

It’s clear that Carville is as ignorant of space (in fact probably more, since he clearly has no interest in it), as he is of almost all other subjects, other than demogoguery to elect Democrats. Carlson is slightless less clueless, but not much.

Bob Park is a physicist. He has no interest in space himself, other than as an environment to be studied scientifically, and he’s incapable of imagining that anyone else might have an interest in it other than that. He hates the space station, and manned space in general, because he perceives them as a collossal waste of money that could be spent on his pet projects (and in this sense he differs in no significant way from any other pleader for the public purse–the fact that he’s a physicist, rather than a farmer seeking crop subsidies, or the head of Amtrak, should grant him no special respect on this subject). The reality is that if we weren’t spending it on station and Shuttle, NASA still wouldn’t be spending it on the space science so near and dear to Professor Parks’ heart–it would just come out of NASA’s budget entirely and go back to the general federal pot.

Professor Parks doesn’t understand that space science cannot justify the money spent on it, in the mind of the public and their representatives in Congress. It gets the few crumbs that it does only because it looks cheap in comparison to the billions that are spent on the manned space program, which has absolutely nothing to do with science. And because he does not, and will not, understand that, he comes off looking like an aloof fool, who hates for people to have a good time, even with their own money.

And his math is wrong as well. The Shuttle budget is not four billion per year, and he also betrays his ignorance of the difference between average and marginal costs, or worse, he’s simply glossing over the difference to make his ugly rhetorical points. I’m not sure which, but having read his diatribes for years, either is equally likely. The marginal cost (that is, the cost of flying the next one, given that you’re already flying some that year) is, in round numbers, about a hundred million. Still a big number, but an order of magnitude of what he’d have us believe.

Lori came off the best. This is not surprising since she a) knows much more what she’d talking about, at least relative to the rest of the panel and b) could present a sympathetic point of view, i.e., “I’m a soccer mom who wants to go into space–the space station is for learning how to live in space, to allow people like me and you to go.” Which is true, to the degree that station has any purpose at all other than a high-tech jobs and foreign-aid program.

I would question her cost numbers on the Soyuz, though. I don’t think even the Russians know what those cost. All they know is that if they take a paying passenger for a flight that’s going anyway, they’ll have twenty million dollars more than they will if they don’t.

Just once, I wish that we could have a serious discussion about space, by knowledgable participants, and with some kind of groundrules and common assumptions established, as opposed to the freak show called Crossfire. Until we do so, there’s little hope of making any significant policy progress, at least none based on what the American public might want.