A brief departure from the story that still needs telling...
Today, July 20th, 2008, marks the 39th anniversary of the Apollo 11 moon landing (July 20, 1969). The mission accomplished what John F. Kennedy dared the country to achieve over 9 years earlier in 1960. The mission was historic on many levels (first human landing on an extraterrestrial body being perhaps the most significant of them), and yet it saddens me that many people doubt it ever happened and believe that our presence in space is now just fulfilling some antiquated and somewhat misguided dream.
What about all the problems here on Earth? some will argue. Shouldn't we be more concerned with ending poverty, curing infectious diseases, stopping wars, etc than spending tax dollars to send up yet another space shuttle, yet another satellite, yet another telescope, yet another human being on the greatest adventure our species has ever undertaken.
To leave one's home is a universally recognized sign of maturity and independence. Species that travel around in troops (chimpanzees for example) routinely send out either male or female members once they "come of age" to find another troop to join, thus keeping the gene pool well mixed and reducing friction at home. For mankind to leave Earth's land, sea, and air is a feat achievable by no other extant species and one accomplished by no extinct species either. Nature abhors a vacuum and thus no known living thing can exist in the harshest of all environments. Even Thermus aquaticus, a hardy bacterium whose ability to thrive and survive in water at temperatures between 160 and 175 degrees Fahrenheit allowed for the development of polymerase chain reaction technology (discussed in a an earlier post) that has revolutionized modern biology could not survive in a vacuum. Even the phantasmagoric creatures that inhabit the darkest depths (miles down) of the ocean where pressures can be hundreds of times what we feel at the Earth's surface could not survive in a vacuum.
But lauding the merits of the manned space program is a topic for another day. For now, the 39th anniversary of the moon landing should be a reminder that even the seemingly impossible can be achieved in a short amount of time if there are enough dedicated minds, hearts, hands, and dollars to the cause. This week, ex-Vice President Al Gore delivered a challenge reminiscent of JFK's proclamation to the nation nearly 50 years ago.
Gore delivered his address at a time of impending economic recession, two wars without end, a presidential election year, a disastrous housing crisis, long-delayed recognition of the crumbling infrastructure throughout the nation, genocide in Darfur, nuclear fears in Iran and North Korea, possible war between Thailand and Cambodia, increasingly armed and friendly China and Russia, and the weakest dollar in decades. In spite of all these ills, Al Gore wants us to save...the environment? Now why on earth should be worried about the Earth's health and condition when our own health and standard of living is being threatened by so many forces? Why? Because of a simple idea few seem to recognize with any immediacy or profundity: without a healthy planet there can be no healthy life or adequate standard of living for any of us, no matter how rich or entitled we may be.
If people in America think gas prices are bad now (~$4 a gallon), imagine how they'll feel when those oil reserves start drying up and everyone, including people in China, India, and Africa once disregarded as potential consumers in older calculations, is still clamoring for more and more oil. But if we can free ourselves from the chains of petroleum we can not only avoid that kind of energy crisis, but more importantly remove the yoke of OPEC and its member dictatorships from around our neck and breathe the air of freedom certain individuals in our administration are trying so hard to instill in many of those nations.
So how does the environment factor into all this? It's no coincidence that "environmentally friendly" practices (from waste disposal to energy generation to transportation, etc) use fewer resources of all types, including energy. The best way to eventually do away with our dependence on fossil fuels is to reduce that dependence first. Reduce, reuse, and recycle. Those simple three R's that everyone's heard but few truly heed. For far too many people:
#1 unthinkable--> I want more stuff, not less.
#2 distasteful--> I want new stuff, not old stuff.
#3 inconvenient--> I can't spare the time or effort to sort my trash, and there are no recycling bins near me.
Al Gore is leading a movement to change this way of thinking, because without a new trend of environmentally conscious behavior the planet and all its inhabitants will turn into the dystopia pictured in WALL-E.
Enough ranting. The moral of my story: let's do for the Earth what we did for man in space. If we succeed in this venture, future generations won't have to doubt that our mission was ever accomplished. They will be living proof it did.
Today, July 20th, 2008, marks the 39th anniversary of the Apollo 11 moon landing (July 20, 1969). The mission accomplished what John F. Kennedy dared the country to achieve over 9 years earlier in 1960. The mission was historic on many levels (first human landing on an extraterrestrial body being perhaps the most significant of them), and yet it saddens me that many people doubt it ever happened and believe that our presence in space is now just fulfilling some antiquated and somewhat misguided dream.
What about all the problems here on Earth? some will argue. Shouldn't we be more concerned with ending poverty, curing infectious diseases, stopping wars, etc than spending tax dollars to send up yet another space shuttle, yet another satellite, yet another telescope, yet another human being on the greatest adventure our species has ever undertaken.
To leave one's home is a universally recognized sign of maturity and independence. Species that travel around in troops (chimpanzees for example) routinely send out either male or female members once they "come of age" to find another troop to join, thus keeping the gene pool well mixed and reducing friction at home. For mankind to leave Earth's land, sea, and air is a feat achievable by no other extant species and one accomplished by no extinct species either. Nature abhors a vacuum and thus no known living thing can exist in the harshest of all environments. Even Thermus aquaticus, a hardy bacterium whose ability to thrive and survive in water at temperatures between 160 and 175 degrees Fahrenheit allowed for the development of polymerase chain reaction technology (discussed in a an earlier post) that has revolutionized modern biology could not survive in a vacuum. Even the phantasmagoric creatures that inhabit the darkest depths (miles down) of the ocean where pressures can be hundreds of times what we feel at the Earth's surface could not survive in a vacuum.
But lauding the merits of the manned space program is a topic for another day. For now, the 39th anniversary of the moon landing should be a reminder that even the seemingly impossible can be achieved in a short amount of time if there are enough dedicated minds, hearts, hands, and dollars to the cause. This week, ex-Vice President Al Gore delivered a challenge reminiscent of JFK's proclamation to the nation nearly 50 years ago.
Gore delivered his address at a time of impending economic recession, two wars without end, a presidential election year, a disastrous housing crisis, long-delayed recognition of the crumbling infrastructure throughout the nation, genocide in Darfur, nuclear fears in Iran and North Korea, possible war between Thailand and Cambodia, increasingly armed and friendly China and Russia, and the weakest dollar in decades. In spite of all these ills, Al Gore wants us to save...the environment? Now why on earth should be worried about the Earth's health and condition when our own health and standard of living is being threatened by so many forces? Why? Because of a simple idea few seem to recognize with any immediacy or profundity: without a healthy planet there can be no healthy life or adequate standard of living for any of us, no matter how rich or entitled we may be.
If people in America think gas prices are bad now (~$4 a gallon), imagine how they'll feel when those oil reserves start drying up and everyone, including people in China, India, and Africa once disregarded as potential consumers in older calculations, is still clamoring for more and more oil. But if we can free ourselves from the chains of petroleum we can not only avoid that kind of energy crisis, but more importantly remove the yoke of OPEC and its member dictatorships from around our neck and breathe the air of freedom certain individuals in our administration are trying so hard to instill in many of those nations.
So how does the environment factor into all this? It's no coincidence that "environmentally friendly" practices (from waste disposal to energy generation to transportation, etc) use fewer resources of all types, including energy. The best way to eventually do away with our dependence on fossil fuels is to reduce that dependence first. Reduce, reuse, and recycle. Those simple three R's that everyone's heard but few truly heed. For far too many people:
#1 unthinkable--> I want more stuff, not less.
#2 distasteful--> I want new stuff, not old stuff.
#3 inconvenient--> I can't spare the time or effort to sort my trash, and there are no recycling bins near me.
Al Gore is leading a movement to change this way of thinking, because without a new trend of environmentally conscious behavior the planet and all its inhabitants will turn into the dystopia pictured in WALL-E.
Enough ranting. The moral of my story: let's do for the Earth what we did for man in space. If we succeed in this venture, future generations won't have to doubt that our mission was ever accomplished. They will be living proof it did.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment