Getty Spacey about Science

Pinkerton: After Sputnik we aimed high, now our aims are low

Krauthammer: What Sputnik launched

The more I read Jim Pinkerton, the more I am convinced he has no understanding of history, science, or technology. Krauthammer still thinks we should be going to the Moon, but if you read the two articles you will see what an intellectual midget Pinkerton is compared to Krauthammer in terms of understanding the significance of Sputnik and local space travel.

Going to the Moon was a PR event and nothing more. It may have had some impact on the Cold War or our perception as a superpower in the rest of the world, for good or bad, but any positive effects would be impossible to quantify. The real positive by-product of the race for math and science technology spurred (perhaps) by hysterical overreaction to Sputnick was satellite communication, computer technology, and yes even the Internet that Pinkerton says has turned into a collosal time waster.

Then again these things might have happened on their own with government grants or focus on science and math. We love to worship the false gods of politicians who take credit for things that really happened on their own through the invisible hand of people making their own decisions about how to spend their time and money.

I disagree with Pinkerton's negative assessment of the internet being a waste in the form of introspection (i.e. "staring at our bellybuttons") since exploring one's own mind and thoughts can be one of the most productive human activities if used positively to achieve self-understanding or progress our understanding of others. In other words, increasing our own happiness and sense of satisfaction in life. Pinkerton would rather have us wasting billions to go to some cold, desolate place where there is absolutely nothing of value for us. Why not dig a 20 mile deep hole in the Earth and send people down there on exploratory missions? All this money wasted so that the baby-boomers can feel they are part of something big. A giant Woodstock with other people's money which, at the end of the day, is meaningless.

2001 imagined daily shuttle flights to the moon because there was still a sense that there might actually be some purpose to having people on the moon. There might be hidden water or valuable and rare minerals hidden under the surface. I think the flights in the movie were even done by private companies (I remember seeing ads on the TV monitors at least). This has not happened with either the private sector or the government sector for one key reason: it serves no purpose. The moon is a giant desolate rock up close and there is nothing to be gained by populating it.

So let's abandon the belief that spending billions of dollars to put a few people on the moon is "science". It is a reflection of technological achievement, but it is neither science nor anything that benefits humanity other than some government contractors and bureaucrats. Saying that we need to be in space or we will lose our edge on science (by which he really means technological advancement) is like saying American businesses will not be productive unless we have the world's tallest building. A trip to the moon is like holding the record for the world's largest pizza - it's a trivial event that shows you have the ability to do something. Imagine if we spent that money on something productive or let people keep it instead of having it forced away by the government.