Posted on 08/08/2005 6:50:27 AM PDT by The_Victor
Astronaut Eileen Collins is concerned about the environmental degradation she sees from space. On board the fragile spaceship Discovery, she lamented from her unique vantage point above the Earth: “Sometimes you can see how there is erosion, and you can see how there is deforestation. It's very widespread in some parts of the world. . . .We would like to see, from the astronauts' point of view, people take good care of the Earth and replace the resources that have been used.”
The first thought that must have sprung into many people’s minds was, “Who made her an expert on this?” Well, astronauts are actually given training in detecting major areas of environmental degradation that can easily be viewed from space. After all, we are approaching a half century of amassing detailed photos of the Earth's surface viewed from the heavens. They are trained to watch for areas of Amazonia and the Congo tropical forests and compare amounts of deforestation with photos from 10, 20, 30 years ago. Likewise, they watch for how far out into the oceans the silt plumes from the major rivers extend. Or for expansion of the great Sahelian Desert further south into sub-Saharan Africa.
After all, it was the early astronauts and Adlai Stevenson, inspired by the photographs they took, that first remarked how fragile was this tiny ball of blue and green, floating through the enormity of time and space, how this was our only home, and how important it was that we should take care of it. Thus was born “Spaceship Earth.” There isn’t anything wrong with that, but what is troublesome is more the attitude and what they are looking for. NASA, the EPA, and the Greens have been trying desperately to turn the space program into an Earth observation program — the Mission to Planet Earth — for almost 20 years, to justify perpetual funding as part of the nation's and world's environmental-protection mission. Conveniently, this means not having to constantly justify the massive expense of spacewalks, manned missions, moon landings, whatever.
The nonsense is that everything evaluated is done so simply in area extent. The desert is larger! And so man or development is evil. They never look at causes or incentives: Why do the tropical forests continue to decline? Does NASA or the White House science adviser ever suggest any institutional factors? No one owns the forests and people in many of those forested countries live in dire poverty in nations with no free-market economies, no jobs, no food. Thus their only choice is felling the forests, raising crops and livestock, and hoping they can sell some of the rare forest woods in the illegal markets that the G-8 and Tony Blair are so concerned about. Has anyone noticed that Amazonian states continue to urge the teeming populations of Brazil's coastal cities to move into border areas and clear forests to create boomtowns? Perhaps entire regions of Africa would not have to subsist on "bush meat" if their dictators would allow Frank Purdue to start up some chicken farms.
Astronauts might actually gather some useful data if they took extensive infrared photos of the U.S. forests to document the extent of unhealthy forests — the millions upon millions of acres of dead and dying trees — suffering from over-crowding, disease, bark-beetle infestations, whatever. All of those are results of failed environmental policies forced on our national forests by the Greens — all the things that the Bush Healthy Forest Initiative was supposed to start repairing. Of course, much of the nation still doesn't believe that the forests are ill, preferring to believe that the HFI was passed to pay off the Bush administration's Big Timber donors.
As for Eileen Collins’s comments themselves, a moment’s thought reveals them for the platitudinous claptrap we have come to expect from people who don’t know all that much about Spaceship Earth. She has seen “widespread environmental damage,” whatever that may be. “Sometimes you can see how there is erosion.” Huh? That is one of the most fundamental and basic processes on the planet. There is uplift and there is erosion — the two big players in the geological game. What are wind and rain and freezing and thawing supposed to do besides erode? “And you can see how there is deforestation.” Again so what? And why? Why do you suppose the trees get replanted in the vast clear-cuts of the giant timber companies, but not in mankind's common tropical forests?
She keeps on going: “We would like to see. . . people take good care of the Earth and replace the resources that have been used.” What is that supposed to mean? Refill copper mines with more copper or start pumping crude oil into depleted reservoirs?
As for the comment, “We don't have much air,” well. . . what is her concern? That people are using it all up by breathing? This is grade-school environmentalism at best, not the sort of thinking we should expect from the highly qualified scientists that astronauts are supposed to be.
With the shuttle seemingly falling apart around her, Collins might spend a little time worrying about how she's going to get her crew safely back to terra firma, even if it is badly polluted. Home, sweet home — be it ever so humble.
— R. J. Smith is scholar in environmental policy and Iain Murray is a senior fellow in international policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a free-market advocacy group.
There you go, again!!!
See how closed minded and dismissive you are being? I never said it had anything to do with "superiority!" I said, in essence, that the repititious mantra, coupled with the knee-jerk put-down of any alternative train of thought that attempted to re-balance the discussion by extending ANY redemption to mankind... exhibits an extreme bias toward a phony sense of moral superiority!!!
It's almost like... the evil humans will forever be the perpetual perpetrators of pollution, erosion and turbidity on the face of the mother goddess and any of you mere mortals that should have happened to have incorporated your successful business operation are automatically guilty of the sin of lack of concern and are forever condemned to continue that sin forevermore because that's gotta be the ONLY danged way "you people" can make a (here comes the trump word) profit!!!
The reason none of this makes any sense to you is that you, as yet, haven't gone back to read what you typed and perceived how arrogant and pejoritive is comes across!!!
Now THIS is what I'm really complaining about... This statement indicts "industry" and convicts the industrial element as the bad people that cannot do what they do without hurting everyone and you, Williams, by gum, you're gonna place yourself firmly on the very pinacle of EnvironMental JUSTICE!!!
So you can NEVER be impugned like you are impugning the industrious perpetrators of pollution for the evil curse of profit!!!
I'm not trying to attack you personally and I'll bet if we really had time to thoroughly verbalize our points of view, we'd find much to agree upon. But the way you started out, up the thread, caused me not to read between the lines, but to anticipate you next bringing up the slaughter of buffalo, or some such, just to reinforce your comments that were beginning to sound like the useless rhetoric I've heard from the tired old militant leftists who found a home in the EnvironMental Movement, just like Gorbechov and his "Green Cross International!!!"
You didn't quite go that far and did stop short... I was just anticipating what I hoped was not next! Sorry...
Also, I'm seeing more and more appearant Freepers who exhibit all the features of what's called "The New Republican Majority," here in CA, who are death on conservatives and love to make them out to be anti-environment, exactly like the leftist have been doing, by making statements that are wearing thin, like: "surely conservatives should be more concerned with the environment than anyone" as if they weren't! And that's dead wrong!!!
Thanks for your understanding and support. I'm beginning to feel a little lonely here on FR, of late. But that's probably just my imagination...
No. I know RJ Smith. He's been speaking and writing on these issues for decades.
The phrase "Spaceship Earth" came from Buckmonister Fuller back in 1927.
"...we're all astronauts aboard a little spaceship called Earth"
http://www.bfi.org/map.htm
>>I'm beginning to feel a little lonely here on FR, of late. But that's probably just my imagination...
You are not alone. :-)
We should husband our resources. This might best be done by building nuclear power plants and treating forests like productive agriculture instead of leaving forests to decay and burn. And of course to mine asteroids for iron, copper and aluminum.
You know, you jump to an awful lot of conclusions. Somehow the statement that there are industrial pollutions and that some substances need to be controlled - became a statement that all industry is guilty of pollution, profits are evil, and all industry must be banned. I never said or thought such things, why are you so defensive? I know the environmental movement at large is a bunch of leftist idiots. But I also know the communist countries, which had no environmental controls, became soot laden wastelands which poisoned their people en masse. I'm perfectly happy to take a middle approach in an effort to reduce some pollution while encouraging industry to operate.
Yep! Which proves how two-faced the dems are - whining about everything Bush wants to do - while knowing Bush's policies are good ones. It's pathetic.
LOL this from a guy who tolerates no other opinion but his own and dismisses any argument without understanding it. You brand ecological efficiency and sensibility as "left wing "
"I never said it had anything to do with "superiority!"
Actually you used those exact words
"I said, in essence, that the repititious mantra"
repetitious you never gave anyone a chance to discuss their opinion before branding it "left wing" thats just plain ignorant. Like I said it smacks of an emotional and not an objective opinion on the subject. I think you need to grow up some and debate with people you might actually enjoy it
2re-balance the discussion by extending ANY redemption to mankind... exhibits an extreme bias toward a phony sense of moral superiority!!! "
So now if a person discussing this subject does not address YOUR pet issues they are wrong? I see now where you are coming from LOL
BTW you used the word superiority again LOL.
Do you perceive a need to preserve the Amazon rain forest or better educate the developing countries so they do not make the earlier mistakes our society made? The USA is in the unique position to be able to do this. An astronaut in space is in a unique position to see this happening in front of their eyes and comment about it.
It's unlikely that any poor denizens of South America will likely heed her words but hey i figure she was waxing philosophical.
but Nooooooooooooooooooooo to you that means she is a "lefty" what a crock....
"It's almost like... the evil humans will forever be the perpetual perpetrators of pollution, erosion and turbidity on the face of the mother goddess "
This is turning into a rant , you seem to now be putting your pet hate forward as the agenda of the day. Do you even realize that you are putting your own words in everyone mouth ?
"and any of you mere mortals that should have happened to have incorporated your successful business operation are automatically guilty of the sin of lack of concern "
Now hold the hell on, where are you getting this from? The woman is a scientist from NASA she works for one of those successful operations you cited above where do you get off telling anyone who has bitten off chunk of the American Dream that they are guilty of sin? What a nerve
He sounds emotional rather than intelligent it may be a wasted effort
I made this point earlier he never listened to that one either
you don't have to be an environmentalist to have an opinion on the environment. Any thinking conservative should have a correctly balanced an informed opinion on this subject. It does not of course reflect the left wing opinion so why does this person appear to think only liberals have an opinion on the subject?
The correct attitude is to realize that conservatives have a SUPERIOR perspective concerning the environment not a total lack of one. That would just be "flip floppery"
Not sure what orionblamblam's source is, but mine is a guy who works on the shuttle daily. The new foam was implemented several years ago and predates the last tank used on Columbia.
I'm defensive for the very reason that you next statement belies the fact that you join the whackos everytime you engage in their exagerated rhetoric, hyperbole and frightfully extreme statements!!! You cannot back that statement up with mountains of dead and diseased bodies as it implies... It's just nuts and you should stop it.
Conservatives that make statement to the opposite extreme should stop it too, but I find that the only reason most of them do it is that they are defensive to the 30 year barage of the "tired tirade" of GovernMental EnvironMental B.S.!!! (read excessive overstatement)
Comments like yours allow environmentalists to characterize all conservatives as totally clueless on the environment. If you don't think there was substantial soil erosion and loss of cropland in the US before the advent of better farming practices you're either uninformed or have your head in the sand.
I do NOT live in fear of various EnvironMentalists mis-characterizations as you seem to... why have you become such a timid soul??? Stay safe in that crowd with all that "conventional wisdom!"
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.