----- Original Message -----
From: "Norman Levitt" <njlevitt@...>
To: <Scipolicy-L@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 02, 2003 7:07 PM
Subject: Re: [Scipolicy-L] the "sentimental crap" of manned space travel?


<<"Yoour" evident indignation might better be slaked by supplanting the
administrations current policy on population control by one that is more
concerned with efficacy and less with placating a dubious pack of religious
zealots.>>

Look, I hold a mixture of conservative and liberal views. I tend to liberal
about social issues, pro-choice, etc.

Up until children are involved, which is where I get hard nosed. I believe
that people who have children owe both those children and society, that they
owe the children a nurturing environment.

Also, being a scrawny asthmatic with an intellectual bent, I learned early
on that there was only one way to deal with bullies - namely to kick the
crap out of them. Perhaps this drives my view that the only way to deal
with terrorists and those who support them is to make sure they understand
the true meaning of terror.

And for the record I have very little use for Bush. I disagree with him
about most issues, with the exception that I think we need to kick the crap
out of terrorists and those who support them.

>
>Balancing competing interests is the essence of politics. I spend a
>considerable amount of time lobbying Washington every year about a variety
>
><<As for studying the physiology of weightlessness, wasn't that
>done pretty well on Mir?>>
>
>Are you saying we understand the physiology so well that there is nothing
>more to learn? And what about industrial processes in zero G?
>
>There are things which need to be studied where manner missions make the
>most sense, and other things where unmanned missions make sense.
>

<<What is the precise point of getting even more information about human
tolerance of zero g? What would it enable or veto that is not already
enabled or vetoed? As for 0-g industrial proceedures, there have been
endless promises but no economically significant work for 30 years, a
situation that will continue indefinitely so far as I can see. Finally,
isn't it obvious that an appropriate manned space program would avoid using
manned craft as cargo-haulers?>>

What is obvious is that you have opinions for which you do not have actual
facts to back those opinions. If you can not see what the value is of such
knowledge then I am wasting my time arguing with you. Which is why I put so
much time into pleading my case in Congress. It gives a better return on my
investment then this type of exchange is likely to produce.

><<And may I suggest that there is a lot more sentimental cr-p
>here? Hundreds and probably thousands and maybe far more persons
>were suffering and dying from all sorts of horrible diseases
>and accidents yesterday and none of them got any public expression
>of sympathy, and many of them did not even have any friends or
>family to help console them. I think we would do better
>to direct our sentiments to innocent cancer and burn victims than>>

Another inventor who lived just a few miles from me invented the machine
which allowed large amounts of skin to be accurately cut off was Milford
Barron. He passed away a few years ago.
www.InventorEd.org/inventors/Barron/

<<>to lionized professional risk takers who may have died so
>quickly that they did not suffer.>>
>
>We have always pursued new frontiers even as people are dieing from a host
>of causes. In fact many of the cures or tools in a huge number of
>disciplines have been spun off of the space program.
>
>Also, some people's value to society is far greater then others.

<<So how would you rate some clown who gets into Yale only because daddy is
a
wealthy and powerful alum and who emerges unable to get through a single
sentence without perpetrating unspeakale horrors on English usage and
syntax?>>

We all know that Bush is not the brightest bulb in the pack. The brains are
behind the scenes, pulling his strings. So what is new?

The more
>highly trained a person is the greater the loss to society. Perhaps crass,
>but never the less true.

<<"nevertheless" is a single word in standard written English.>>

I am prone to make these types of mistakes. But then the mistake really has
nothing to do with the discussion, does it? Kind of a cheep shot. Argument
weak here, yell like hell- was a common debating tactic.

<<BTW, there was a disastrous building collapse in Lagos, Nigeria today. The
initial death toll was 20, though the fatalities are likely to mount greatly
as bodies are uncovered from the wreckage. On what moral view are these
deaths less to be lamented than those of the Columbia crew? Just asking.>>

Some people have far more value to society, to humanity, then others.
Einstein, Hawking for example. I my case I know many of the top inventors.
People like Jerry Lemelson (2nd most prolific inventor after Edison)
www.InventorEd.org/inventors/Lemelson, Ray Damadian (MRI), Wilson Greatbatch
(pacemaker), Gertrude Elion (leukemia treatment)
www.InventorEd.org/inventors/Elion. I am willing to acknowledge that any of
these people have more value to society that either you or I.

Jerry Lemelson was a good friend. A brilliant man who produced inventions
in a staggering number of disciplines. He was quiet and kind, but possessed
a steel will. Ray Damadian is the father of the MRI industry. He spent
over twenty years defending his rights against the likes of corporate crooks
like GE. Wilson Greatbatch and his wife are both incredibly nice and down
to earth people. Gertrude Elion was one of the nicest people I have had the
pleasure to know.

Now, should we take all the money which funded these people and use it feed
the starving ignorant masses? Would doing so be in humanity's collective
interests?

I think not.

Ronald J. Riley www.InventorEd.org