This is only a test. I want host pictures directly rather than using a middle man, namely Flickr. I totally love Flickr, don't get me wrong, but this makes my life much easier. This shot comes courtesy of L. This was taken during our last visit to Victoria. I'm still amazed there are little gems like this building still standing in that town. One of the reasons I had to escape Victoria was because the town ceased being attractive. When I first moved out on my own I would wander around and look at the heritage lots near downtown. Most of them stood tall like proud soldiers, showing off their fresh coats of paint. Over time, the place lost much of its luster. Maybe because I was becoming resentful of the people around me, or the frustration associated with being an introverted bookworm. But now I get share Victoria with someone new. L and I love walking around my parents' neighbourhood and beyond, commenting on the houses we pass by or the little coffee shops and such we see on our travels. Victoria is especially nice in the spring, when a gentle breeze blows in from the ocean, shaking the new, green leaves on the trees. I loved walking along the beach and smelling the salty air and kicking sand around. I think when you walk away from a place like Victoria, and then return with someone who has a fresh pair of eyes, all that is charming and gorgeous comes creeping back.
A little off-topic: I'm concerned about our species' growing curiosity with Mars (see previous post) and whether water is available. Obviously, colonization is on the horizon. The most common argument I've heard is "we should worry about our problems here on Earth before we got shooting rockets out into space," and I agree. There are people starving to death on this planet. Sending humans to Mars while others watch their families die from famine, disease and war is morally wrong. Billions of dollars are spent on building bigger, faster engines rather than attempting to rebuild devestated nations and economies. Proponents of the current space program point to simple human curiosity, we are an intelligent (sort of) species who naturally want to walk on the red sands of Mars because of scientific interest. Projects propelled by humanity's curiosity should not take precedence over humanity's well-being. Most scientists the world over would agree with that notion, assuming of course they are the secular humanists I hope they are. And, the naturalistic argument makes my teeth hurt. Any claims of "naturalistic" characteristics in human behaviour are either twisted to fit an ideological argument or just plain wrong. I suppose I'll have more to say about this later on.
What was the public attitude toward the first Moon landing? I suppose, like any epoch, citizens had diverse opinions on topical events. However, I've noticed there is little documentation or representation of those who opposed the space program in 1969.
2 comments:
Your concern is well founded. It is your tax dollars and mine that will be used to explore Mars, or to feed the people here starving to death. But you wrote "billions of dollars are spent on building bigger, faster engines..." and this is true, but how many of them are yours?
I choose to spend some money to feed starving people every now and then, but I never choose to spend it to explore Mars. I may at some future date purchase a poster made from a photo that was taken by a Mars explorer. Do you have a problem with that? Ideally, such a purchase would be spending money on exploring Mars (though with our current government, it might just be supporting lobbying of some sort).
What I wish to suggest to you is that the billions that are currently being used to builg bigger, faster engines is money in a very superficial sense. In a much deeper sense, that money represents blood sweat and tears. Pure effort, generally, is what earns money, and it earns it for whoever is willing to expend that effort, and the reward for expending that effort is the right to spend the money. If they choose to spend it to build engines or explore Mars, you can challenge them with your plea to help solve internal problems instead. What you are doing, however, arguing about how tax dollars should be spent, is not productive. Taxes represent money taken from people who actually earned it. They are the ones who should spend it, not the government.
Thanks for your comments, Dave. I'm not exactly sure what you're arguing because you made quite a few points. I'll try to respond the best I can.
No, I don't have a problem buying a poster of Mars. In fact, I recently saw a huge model of the Red Planet made to scale, and I totally wanted it. But, I don't think buying a poster of Mars will fund the space program. It may inadvertently. The money may eventually trickle down to whichever space agency, but the money will be given to the publishers of said poster, who may have to pay royalties to the photographer.
I absolutely agree that taxes are only the "surface," and we should address the current social paradigms that propel projects like space exploration, rather than dealing with the social problems here on Earth. Unfortunately, we both live in capitalist societies. Taxes are the tools that gets things done in our society. That includes fedding hungry people and sending people into space. Shouldn't we then be arguing how those tax dollars be spent? If we don't argue this point, as you suggested, then what exactly do we argue about? Lobbying is the process of building awareness and support for a particular platform. So, lobbying gets governments to spend tax dollars on project X rather than project Y.
Taxes represent money taken from people who actually earned it.
Exactly the point, Dave. Taxes are collected from the public domain. Thus, shouldn't the public decide how to spend those taxes?
They are the ones who should spend it, not the government.
I noticed you used the word "should" (as do I) and that suggests the current American (and Canadian) political system doesn't have that kind of structure. And that's correct. But, you are right in asserting that North Americans should lobby for specific tax expenditures. I'm not convinced we should blame the public entirely, especially since there are no systemic mechanisms for the public in the first place.
I really appreciate your thoughts Dave. It's great to hear from our southern neighbours, and feel free to add to this discourse.
Post a Comment