Alan Boyle has a review of the Great Debate, and publishes some emails from his readers. I found this one amusingly (but also sadly) wacky:

The only viable reason for space exploration or study is to learn as much as possible about the stars and planets without man physically interfering. There is no rational justification for manned space exploration! None! Neither does man (American or otherwise) need to colonize the planets. The only reason this country is pursuing space exploration is to locate minerals and natural planetary wealth for private American conglomerates to exploit! Scientists are being used; they are positively stupid and unintelligent if they think for one minute President Bush is promoting space exploration for true scientific study.

Yes, those exclamation marks sure make the argument more persuasive…

Would that his paranoid ravings were true. I’d love for us to be “locating minerals and planetary wealth for private American conglomerates to exploit” (with or without exclamation marks), but I certainly heard nothing about that in the president’s plans.

It’s a little frustrating to be blamed for something that isn’t happening, when we’d like to see it happen–we get all the bad press with none of the benefits.

And why do these loons think that just because they value only “pure science” that everyone does? I wonder where he thinks that the computer into which he typed this monumental ignorance came from, if not by “exploiting minerals and planetary wealth”?

Alan Boyle has a review of the Great Debate, and publishes some emails from his readers. I found this one amusingly (but also sadly) wacky:

The only viable reason for space exploration or study is to learn as much as possible about the stars and planets without man physically interfering. There is no rational justification for manned space exploration! None! Neither does man (American or otherwise) need to colonize the planets. The only reason this country is pursuing space exploration is to locate minerals and natural planetary wealth for private American conglomerates to exploit! Scientists are being used; they are positively stupid and unintelligent if they think for one minute President Bush is promoting space exploration for true scientific study.

Yes, those exclamation marks sure make the argument more persuasive…

Would that his paranoid ravings were true. I’d love for us to be “locating minerals and planetary wealth for private American conglomerates to exploit” (with or without exclamation marks), but I certainly heard nothing about that in the president’s plans.

It’s a little frustrating to be blamed for something that isn’t happening, when we’d like to see it happen–we get all the bad press with none of the benefits.

And why do these loons think that just because they value only “pure science” that everyone does? I wonder where he thinks that the computer into which he typed this monumental ignorance came from, if not by “exploiting minerals and planetary wealth”?

Alan Boyle has a review of the Great Debate, and publishes some emails from his readers. I found this one amusingly (but also sadly) wacky:

The only viable reason for space exploration or study is to learn as much as possible about the stars and planets without man physically interfering. There is no rational justification for manned space exploration! None! Neither does man (American or otherwise) need to colonize the planets. The only reason this country is pursuing space exploration is to locate minerals and natural planetary wealth for private American conglomerates to exploit! Scientists are being used; they are positively stupid and unintelligent if they think for one minute President Bush is promoting space exploration for true scientific study.

Yes, those exclamation marks sure make the argument more persuasive…

Would that his paranoid ravings were true. I’d love for us to be “locating minerals and planetary wealth for private American conglomerates to exploit” (with or without exclamation marks), but I certainly heard nothing about that in the president’s plans.

It’s a little frustrating to be blamed for something that isn’t happening, when we’d like to see it happen–we get all the bad press with none of the benefits.

And why do these loons think that just because they value only “pure science” that everyone does? I wonder where he thinks that the computer into which he typed this monumental ignorance came from, if not by “exploiting minerals and planetary wealth”?

Clark Lindsey also has an interesting analysis of how well Dwayne Day’s prognostications for Mircorp and commercial manned spaceflight from a few years ago have turned out (see February 8th entry).

Clark Lindsey also has an interesting analysis of how well Dwayne Day’s prognostications for Mircorp and commercial manned spaceflight from a few years ago have turned out (see February 8th entry).

Clark Lindsey also has an interesting analysis of how well Dwayne Day’s prognostications for Mircorp and commercial manned spaceflight from a few years ago have turned out (see February 8th entry).

In a “Battle of the Bobs,” Adam Keiper and the Ethics and Public Policy Center hosted a debate between Bob Park and Bob Zubrin. I didn’t think that we’d hear much in the way of new perspectives or new arguments from either of them, and I was largely right, as one can see from the transcript. Clark Lindsey thinks that Dr. Zubrin had the upper hand (see February 7th entry), and I agree. Dr. Park remains firmly in the “science uber alles” camp, which is an unuseful position to take when trying to determine what the nation’s space policy should be. Dr. Zubrin made several good points:

Here’s one that I’ve made before:

I wonder what Dr. Park would have said if he had lived about 50,000 years ago in Kenya, along with the rest of the human race, which lived in Kenya at that time, and received a proposal from someone who thought maybe humans should colonize Europe or Asia. “Those places are impossible to live there. It?s much too cold.” The — you know, if they had robotic probes, “our robotic probes show you could not survive a single winter night in Europe.”

Well, people were able to colonize Europe by technology: clothing, houses, fire. That?s why people can live where I live right now, Colorado, which no one could survive a single winter night in without such technology.

It is on the basis of our technological ingenuity that humans have left our native, our natural habitat, the Kenyan Rift Valley, and transformed ourselves into a global species with whatever, 150 nations, 100 languages, hundreds of literary traditions, traditions of heroic deeds to inspire the future, technological contributions, ideas on human social organization.

On Park’s irrational robophilia:

You mentioned Lewis and Clark. Okay, here we are, 200 years after Lewis and Clark. There is not a robot on this planet that you can send to the grocery store and pick up a bag of unbruised apples, let alone perform the Lewis and Clark expedition. So, if they can?t do a trip to the grocery store, how?s it going to explore a planet?

Now, I?m not putting down the robots. I think that it is excellent to do robotic missions. But, I completely contest the notion as fantastical that a robot explorer on the surface of a planet can duplicate what a human explorer can do.

And along the same lines, I loved this zinger at the end:

ADAM KEIPER: The man who believes in sending robots to space, you can get his book via machines at Amazon.com for $15. Fifteen dollars, Voodoo Science, Amazon.com. So, that?s great.

DR. ZUBRIN: Or just send a robot down to the bookstore to get it for you.

To coin a word, that’s the donkeys’ problem if they nominate Kerry, as looks exceedingly likely. Bush remains likeable, while Kerry seems loathable (particularly to much of the press, which will dampen their normal enthusiasm for Democrats). And it’s not at all clear what the new JFK can do about his loathability index.

Dwayne Day pummels Alex Roland (and others) and their pathetic arguments against the new space policy.

It has been common for various critics of the plan to establish unrealistic strawman arguments that they then demolish in order to try and discredit the plan rather than to debate its merits or shortcomings.

Yes. Opponents of missile defense engaged in similar sophistry throughout the eighties and nineties.