I just want to pull my hair, of which I have little to spare, when I read editorials like this:
Luckily, technology means that man can explore both the moon and Mars more fully without going there himself. Robots are better and cheaper than they have ever been. They can work tirelessly for years, beaming back data and images, and returning samples to Earth. They can also be made sterile, which germ-infested humans, who risk spreading disease around the solar system, cannot.
Here we go again. Humans versus robots, it’s all about science and exploration. It is not all about science and/or exploration. The space program is about much more than that, but the popular mythology continues.
Humanity, some will argue, is driven by a yearning to boldly go to places far beyond its crowded corner of the universe. If so, private efforts will surely carry people into space (though whether they should be allowed to, given the risk of contaminating distant ecosystems, is worth considering). In the meantime, Mr Obama’s promise in his inauguration speech to “restore science to its rightful place” sounds like good news for the sort of curiosity-driven research that will allow us to find out whether those plumes of gas are signs of life.
Hey, anyone who reads this site know that I’m all for private efforts carrying people into space. They also know that I don’t think that anyone has a right to not “allow them to do so,” and that I place a higher value on humanity and expanding earthly life into the universe than on unknown “distant ecosystems.” What have “distant ecosystems” ever done for the solar system?
I also question the notion that Obama’s gratuitous digs at the Bush science policy had anything whatsoever to do with space policy. And of course, to imagine that they did, is part of the confused policy trap of thinking that space is synonymous with science.
Ugh. “Distant ecosystems.” Environmentalists have abandoned religion but still see themselves as the center of the universe. Do they have any idea how much “there” is out there? Sheesh.
I am constantly amazed by the Economist’s ability to maintain its modicum of economic sense without losing a drop of the rest of the Standard Leftist Rhetoric.
The Economist has declined considerably since around 1995. It has become particularly bad in the past 5-6 years. Although it was among my favorites in the late 80’s to early 90’s, I no longer read it these days.
Also, bear in mind that The Economist is British, with the British sentiment that everyone should stay at home and live within the fixed patterns set forth by our “betters”. Although I like European people that I have personally met, it is precisely this mentality that I despise about Europe, in general. It has never occurred to the writer of this editorial that people may want to move into space (like they did the Old West) precisely to get away from those who think that they “should not be allowed to” go.