tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8695598.post115379008679540221..comments2023-12-17T19:35:07.459-08:00Comments on Bouphonia: Mission CriticalPhilahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15849261651028725772noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8695598.post-1153943364056845722006-07-26T12:49:00.000-07:002006-07-26T12:49:00.000-07:00Quite clearly a good proportion of what NASA does ...<I>Quite clearly a good proportion of what NASA does is the exact opposite of protecting the planet.</I><BR/><BR/>I don't disagree. But it's possible for people of good will to disagree on what constitutes protection, or whether the benefits of these programs outweigh the costs, or what have you. <BR/><BR/>Still, we generally justify research programs - even ill-conceived or dangerous ones - in terms of reaping benefits, and making progress towards a better world. Rationality is supposed to govern scientific inquiry and self-preservation alike. No legitimate scientific body is going to say in its mission statement that it's "committed to making the earth uninhabitable." <BR/><BR/>There's always been a huge gap between the romantic theory and politicized practice of science. All the same, I find it weird that NASA is apparently crippled by having a mission statement that doesn't <I>explicitly</I> reject self-destructive behavior.Philahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15849261651028725772noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8695598.post-1153922299452151692006-07-26T06:58:00.000-07:002006-07-26T06:58:00.000-07:00> At the same time, the notion that the ultimate g...> At the same time, the notion that the ultimate goal of science is “to understand and protect our home planet” is pretty goddamn basic.<BR/><BR/>"Understand", yes, "Protect", no. Quite clearly a good proportion of what NASA does is the exact opposite of protecting the planet. Rocket launches are not what you might call environmentally friendly activities.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com