Phoenix. Fie upon't

I will do my Scrooge, Bah Humbug thing about the Phoenix mars lander.

Without a doubt it is the finest Mars soft landing technology that stolen money can buy. It was paid for by money extract by force from the pockets and bank accounts of people who do not give a hoot about whether life used to exist on Mars.

The only possible justification for Mars exploration is to develop Mars as a "lifeboat" for a limited portion of the human race to survive in, in case there is a Cosmic Catastrophe.

At this stage we have not got a chance in hell of terraforming the planet. If we are going to use tax funds let us track earth orbit crossing bodies of greater than a half kilometer diameter and devolping the means to divert such bodies if they are on a collision course with earth. At least that comes under the rubric of defense.

Scientific curiosity is not an itch that the tax payer is obliged to scratch by having money extracted from him by force.

!!! Added in edit !!!: Another possible use for Mars, a dried out descicated wilderness is a jump-off point for mining the asteroid belt for valuable minerals. At least this presents the opportunity for profit and private firms should do will in this venture.

Bob Kolker

(Edited by Robert J. Kolker on 5/26, 12:52pm)

Post 1

Monday, May 26, 2008 - 11:14am

The Canadians don't have a space program, mister.

Post 2

Monday, May 26, 2008 - 11:58am

The only possible justification for Mars exploration is to develop Mars as a "lifeboat" for a limited portion of the human race to survive in, in case there is a Cosmic Catastrophe.

So man's only reason for existence is survival? All his pursuits should be strictly utilitarian in nature, serving only to ensure that he lives to see the next sunrise? Sounds like an utterly pointless existence to me.

Post 3

Monday, May 26, 2008 - 12:09pm

Ted, the Canadians built the robot arms for both the Space Shuttle and International Space Station.

Although I work for NASA, I admit some sympathy for Kolker's objections. Of course our current government has its hands in many pies where it has no proper business. But even Ayn Rand had a soft spot for NASA as shown in her "Apollo 11" essay. She did admit, of course, that "eventually" humans would explore space if a totally private system existed.

Summer is right to imply that self-actualization would offer adequate motive for such private space ventures.

Kolker's point about cosmic disasters raises interesting questions about what proper role government ought to play in natural disaster planning, i.e. whether government ought to intervene to stop such disasters or leave that to totally private means. I do not recall anything in the Objectivist literature covering this topic. Does anyone else?

Post 4

Monday, May 26, 2008 - 12:47pm

Reply to $2

"So man's only reason for existence is survival? All his pursuits should be strictly utilitarian in nature, serving only to ensure that he lives to see the next sunrise? Sounds like an utterly pointless existence to me."

How about a pointless non-existence?

In addition, anyone who wants the thrill of discovery should buy that thrill with his own money or that of voluntary contributors. I fart in the general direction of looting the taxpayers.

Bob Kolker

Post 5

Monday, May 26, 2008 - 5:12pm

How about a pointless non-existence?

So it's an either/or proposition? We either live worker-bee lives, or spend all of our time engaged in pointless (but interesting) pursuits? There's got to be a happy medium.

By the way, I agree with much of your original post. But on its own merit, I find Phoenix potentially fascinating.

Post 6

Monday, May 26, 2008 - 5:18pm

Hating the Diamond among the Dross?

If it is the mere appropriation of his money that irks Mister Kolker, then perhaps he should consider:

Fiscal Year 2008

NASA Budget: $17.3 Billion
President's Budget: $2,900 Billion
(Non-Discretionary Spending: $1,788 Billion, i.e., SS, "welfare" & interest)

Hence Nasa's entire budget amounted to 0.596% of the total federal budget, and less than 1% of what was spent on interest and entitlements.

There is plenty to complain concerning government confiscation. I must agree with Luke's post, (and thank him for showing the credit due our neighbors to the north,) even though his obvious resentment of his employer makes his objectivity in the matter dubious. But why, of all things, is it this great human achievement which draws Mister Kolker's ire?

As of 2006, the total spent on the "Big Dig" in Mister Kolker's state of residence has been over $14.6 Billion. If he still resides in Billerica, Massachusetts, I wonder does he eschew the use of Federal Highways 90, 95, 93 & 495? Does he boycott Boston? Will he, like Isabel Paterson, die with all his Social Security checks uncashed?

I do not think that Mister Kolker's problem is government appropriation and waste. No, I don't think that's Mister Kolker's problem at all.

(Edited by Ted Keer on 5/26, 5:26pm)

Post 7

Monday, May 26, 2008 - 7:20pm