The Expanse, Spoiler Warning: This article reveals plot details.
Over the first 2+ seasons of The Expanse, this series has become my new favorite. I’m even tempted to say that I like it better than the original Star Trek! Sacrilege? I don’t think so. In its day, Star Trek was so much better than everything else in the late 60s, my father relented and allowed our family to purchase a color TV set. We needed to make watching this new wonder something better than a flat, black and white fantasy.
But The Expanse is far more real and visceral than that earlier science fiction breakthrough. Kirk, Spock and Bones now seem more like cardboard caricatures compared to Holden, Miller, Burton, Kamal, Nagata and Avasarala. Space in The Expanse is full of grit and tangible danger. The science seems more real, too. In Star Trek, errors in galactic geography seemed to taint the stories with problems that stuck in my craw only because I knew better than to put an Earth-like world in orbit about a wildly variable red giant sun.
But The Expanse is not without its own errors and problems. Fixing them would make the experience a tiny bit better, but still I think it’s worth mentioning them in case anyone is paying attention who could make future stories more thoroughly perfect.
The Expanse, Light-Speed Problem
In season 3, episode 3, Undersecretary Errinwright is in the UN’s battle room pushing the Secretary General to launch a preemptive strike against the Martian long-range attack capabilities. The 3D map projection shows the locations of the Martian launch platforms scattered around the inner solar system, with the Earth to one side and the sun at the center.
Ironically, the five Martian stealth, ballistic missile platforms are tens of millions of miles apart and Earth’s planetary rail guns (stationed at the home planet) are meant to take them all out simultaneously. While they’re watching, after Secretary General Sorrento-Gillis gives the go-ahead to attack, the rail gun package streaks across the solar system far faster than the speed of light, reaching their targets in seconds. The fifth launch is delayed a few seconds because of a malfunction. This should not be important, because any communication from the other platforms would take several minutes to reach the any of the platforms. So, it seems unreal that the fifth launch platform would have any warning or reason to launch a missile.
In episode 6, one of the UNN headquarters officers says that the delay of communications with the Jupiter A.O. is “39 minutes.” And this shows the reality of light-speed limitations that The Expanse frequently handles so well.
The Expanse, Space Tug Drones
In episode 4, the Belter Salvage Fleet uses space tug drones to change the orientation of the LDSS Nauvoo. It doesn’t show the needed repositioning of the drones to stop the rotation once the orientation has been changed. This isn’t necessarily an error. Not every action needs to be shown in a dramatic presentation. It’s possible Drummer gave the command off camera to stop the rotation.
If the writers didn’t think of this detail, then they need to keep it in mind. Once the tugs were fired up to spin the Nauvoo, the behemoth of a ship would, of course, keep tumbling in space until forced to stop. And that’s the point being made here.
The Expanse, Missing Ganymede
Episode 5, about 8 minutes in, Fleet Adm. Nguyen looks over the CIC battle board which shows the position of Io and the orbits of Europa and Callisto, but Ganymede’s orbit is missing. Why? In real life, Ganymede is between Europa and Callisto. Here are the orbital semi-major axes:
421,700 km — Io
671,034 km —Europa
1,070,412 km — Ganymede
1,882,709 km — Callisto
Is Ganymede suddenly gone? Personally, I like story context. Showing the orbit of Ganymede would have helped to connect the story lines. Leaving out seems like someone goofed, to those who know better.
The Expanse, A Problem with Inertia
Episode 5, on Io approach, the Razorback and Pinus Contorta cut engines at virtually the same time, but the Contorta (Rocinante) shoots ahead of the Razorback, leaving it behind. Oops! Moments later, their ship lands using thrusters only? That’s very unlikely despite Io’s lighter gravity. That might work on Ceres, but likely not on Io, especially with the speed of approach shown.
Throughout the series, the need for deceleration burn is a wonderful tidbit of reality that the series tends to handle well. This inertia glitch spoils some of that reality.
The Razorback should’ve cut engines, but the Contorta should’ve kept up its deceleration burn, falling into lower, sub-orbital flight. Lower orbit means faster speed, though, at least for a few moments, so the larger ship may still have pulled ahead, despite the deceleration burn.
The Expanse, No Orbital Motion of Flagship Agatha King
In episode 6, as the hybrid pods are launched, the Agatha King is hovering above the base on Io. This is nonsense. The ship doesn’t have its engines burning, so would ultimately fall from the sky, or, if in orbit about Io, would not be hovering above one spot on the Jovian moon. This goof is later reinforced when Kamal offers to put a scope on the Agatha King and the field stars remain as stationary as the injured ship.
And when Kamal later calls for the Razorback to descend from orbit, it is magically available at that very moment, instead of blocked by Io with the Razorback in orbit on the far side of the moon. Was it also hovering right above the base? Yikes!
Final Word on The Expanse
Don’t get me wrong. We’re about halfway through the season, as of this writing, and I have every intention to watch each of the upcoming episodes at least once. Episode 6 contained a glut of juicy conclusions, but it left one other story point deliciously unresolved—the “work” of the protomolecule on Venus. The characters remain the strongest points of the series, with their wonderful flaws and strengths.
Like Star Trek from the 60s, The Expanse remains a strong cultural commentary on the hypocrisy of government and the egotism of those in power. It also reveals the dangers of a one-world government. The UNN became tyrannical, wanting to put down the lowly Martians. And then the Martians exhibited the same arrogance when they abused the lowly Belters. Episode 7 has scratched a few itches and has set in motion a few new mysteries. I’m already look forward to season 4. When you have such a well-realized universe as this, it’s easy to want the story to keep going forever.
In college, my astronomy professor insisted that people were messing up the language of science by using the word “sun” for other stars. There was only one Sun, he said, and it was in our daytime skies.
I understand this need to keep the language of science precise. If we don’t, things get messy and meaning is lost. But we also need words to communicate ideas that are brand new to our language. Inventing new words can be fun, but frequently people with the original need are too busy (or lazy) to create the new words that people will incorporate easily into the common vocabulary.
I had to disagree with my professor on this one word—sun—for it seemed perfect for the new usage. To me, a sun is a star which has planets. A sun is a parent to its flock of worlds. Our own sun already has a proper name: Sol, as in Solar system.
Perhaps ironically, I have my own bone to pick with other scientists on their “sloppy” use of “solar” to refer to any system with planets. Sol is the name of our sun. Our Solar system is the system of Sol—not Alpha Centauri, not Rigel, and not Upsilon Andromedae. What’s the alternative? Call all other planetary systems, “planetary systems.” The obvious solution was right in front of their noses all the time. If they want to be specific, then call the planetary system of Rigel, the Rigellian system. Alpha Centauri? The Alpha Centaurian system. If the names get to long and unwieldy, then drop back to “planetary system.”
When you refer to a person’s home, it’s usually the person’s last name and the word “home.” For me, it would be the “Martin home.” But I don’t go around calling the structure where the Smiths live a “Martin home.” It would be the “Smith home.” See? Clarity in communication.
I don’t like our planet’s name. Dirt? I may not be a terribly sophisticated guy, but this seems worse than merely “common.” Oh, sorry. Not “dirt,” but “Earth.” There’s “earth,” which means soil or dirt, and there’s “Earth” (capitalized) which is regrettably the current name of our planet (at least in English).
Latin anyone? We could use “Terra.” That’s used in numerous science fiction stories and sounds somewhat more impressive until you realize that it has practically the same meaning as “dirt.” Ouch!
In our planetary system—The Solar system—the other planets were given names from myth and legend. Mars was the Roman god of war. The planet, because of its reddish color, reminded folks of blood, too often seen in battle. Venus was the Roman goddess of beauty and love. The planet, because of its bright white purity, reminded people of that purity.
So, in Roman mythology, the goddess of the Earth was Terra. Groan! Her name was the same as the common word “terra” which meant “earth, or ground.” The earlier name used during the Republic and possibly earlier, was Tellus, which came from the common word for “land, territory or earth.” I don’t like “Tellus” because it sounds too much like a request for feedback.
“What planet are you from?”
“Well, if I knew, I wouldn’t ask you!”
The Greek primordial goddess, Gaia, is no different. Her name also means “land” or “earth.”
So, perhaps we’re stuck with Dirt or Earth, after all.
Language of Science: Climate
In the last few years, I’ve studied climate science in great depth. My studies actually began in the mid-70s when a PhD forest ecologist friend of mine retired and gave me his two books on climate. But my interest really took off after Al Gore’s infamous film, An Inconvenient Lie. (Oops! I think I got the title wrong.) What piqued my interest was not so much the film itself. Actually, my interest skyrocketed when I found out that my love of his film was sorely misplaced—that I had been wrong!
In the language of science, words are critical for precise understanding. When the popular media messes with the proper use of words, it makes it more difficult for people to understand what scientists are talking about. But in the realm of climate science, it seems that the problem runs far deeper.
Now, scientists are starting to use the messed up definitions. Even NASA has gone stupid on the language of science. Their website even has a page on “scientific consensus.” Why is this bad? Because “scientific consensus” is an oxymoron—a self-contradictory phrase. Why? Because science is never done by consensus. Otherwise, scientists would vote rather than run experiments.
The fact that NASA has gone so incredibly stupid on the language of science is both hilarious and infuriating. But this isn’t some accident. This isn’t merely a colloquial or common use of terms falling into the wrong hands. This is a strategic crippling of language for a hidden, sinister purpose.
Corrupting the Language of Science with Conspiracy
If you feel “conspiracy” talk coming on, then you’re right. But let’s clear the air about this highly-charged word. Conspiracy, to many Americans is equivalent to “fantasy.” They shun any such talk as if it were a prostitute walking in on gentile society.
Curious behavior. Why do Americans have that reaction? When I taught college here in the Philippines, my students did not have that reaction. To them, conspiracies were quite common. They knew their government had been corrupt numerous times, and that it may well have been corrupt then.
When one of my own students asked me if one incident in history involved a conspiracy, I noticed that I flinched. My own reaction had been unnatural and uncomfortable at the mention of the word. I felt in my bones a longing to distance myself from the conversation. The feeling had not come from me—not my conscious thought. Somehow, the feeling had been implanted in my subconscious. It felt foreign.
Looking back, I remembered dozens of times when the word “conspiracy” had been mentioned on talk shoes, news programs, commentary and even in movies. Every one of them ridiculed the barest mention of conspiracy. They ridiculed even simple questions which could imply conspiracy. Had this been born naturally in our own American culture, or had someone transplanted it there? And why?
This got me curious. So curious that I ended up researching and writing a book on the topic—Dirt Ordinary: Shining a Light on Conspiracies. Intellectually, I knew that conspiracies are not fantasy, but I still had the gut reaction to withdraw from the topic. Inside of me, it seemed there were two of me—a programmed reaction—a robotic self—and a critical thinking self who could not believe the reaction.
It was like going to a serious business meeting and suddenly jumping up and down like a chimpanzee without knowing why. Who was pulling my strings? And could I cut them?
In my research, I was shocked to find that there are at least 489 new conspiracies starting every second, on average, day-in and day-out, all year long, and every year. And that’s based only on documented conspiracies. We have to wonder how many undocumented ones there are. Every war started with at least one conspiracy. Many corporations have been guilty of several conspiracies—perhaps even hundreds. The fines ordered by the courts attest to that. When two or more criminals get together to cooperate on a heist, a drug sale or some other criminal activity, they have conspired to do something unethical or illegal.
Do the math. This means that at least 29,340 brand spanking new conspiracies begin each minute. That’s at least 1,760,400 new conspiracies every hour. You get the picture—dirt ordinary.
So, why do so many Americans react the way they do to the topic?
In forums and blog article comments, I’ve frequently read someone saying, “Not everything is a conspiracy.” Wow! Did I learn something new? Not!
Of course, not everything is a conspiracy, but to treat conspiracies as fantasy, or merely rare, is to dabble in self-delusion. To dismiss all talk of conspiracies without digging deeper is a product of willful ignorance. Not very bright. But that used to be me at one time. Surprise! Changing my mind was not easy, but it was possible. Thank goodness.
Conspiracies Corrupting Climate Science?
Imagine you run into a muscular drug addict on a dark street at night. He hasn’t had a fix in days and he’s hurting. He needs money and he’s desperate. One look at you and he’s like, “Oh, boy! Salvation. I can take this guy, easily.”
Two minutes later, you wake up from the sidewalk minus your wallet.
Selfishness and self-concern are a bitch. When pushed into a corner with our lives or sanity threatened, we might do some unsavory things—theft, extortion, assault and even murder. Not every one of us, but most of us. This is the heart of evil—that impulse to put self first. That fear that, if we don’t do something, we’ll suffer horribly. That viewpoint of us versus them. But it’s not the only possible viewpoint.
Now, imagine a Multi-Billionaire anxious for that next billion. Naw! Got enough money.
Instead, he hungers for more power—the only thrill left. Imagine that this Billionaire and his buddies want to run the entire planet, but ordinary folk like you or I would never allow such a thing. We’re in the way. And the biggest barrier in the way is the freedom-loving United States of America. How do these billionaires get rid of America without getting caught or killed? How do they get rid of the masses of “useless eaters” who are using up their resources?
Several political theorists have drawn up plans for such a transition. Those plans include things like eroding morals, changing the definitions of words, increasing the number of people in poverty, making people dependent upon the government, increasing the ease with which people accept murder, making sex more readily available, and many, many more.
In 1907, the bankers conspired to create a banking scare. People panicked and there was a run on the banks. Several banks went out of business. People lost money that the banks never had, so they could not honor their commitments to their customers. In 1910, the same bankers conspired to create a third central bank of the United States.
Historically, they knew such a thing was unpopular and for good reason. Bankers could only be trusted to be selfish. So, they created a name that sounded good. They called it “Federal,” so people would not easily discover that it was a private bank. They called it a “Reserve,” so people would consider it safe. And they called it a “System,” instead of a bank, so alarms of warning would not be set off. In 1913, the bankers, and a few corrupt friends in government, pushed through the creation of the private Federal Reserve System to create money and to control the interest rates of American finance.
A century later, the value of the dollar had lost 97%. Where had that value gone? To the bankers, of course. G. Edward Griffin details this conspiracy in his book, The Creature from Jekyll Island. When the Great Depression crippled America, the Fed tightened the money supply, making the depression far more onerous and dark. The number of citizens forced into poverty skyrocketed.
In today’s society, moral relativism is used all too often as an excuse to let people do what they want, no matter what harm it has on others. We have politically correct speech to protect sensitive ears, but also to destroy the lives of those who happen to say the wrong word or phrase. We have American wars now described as “peacekeeping actions.” The victims of American aggression don’t think it’s very peaceful.
Movies and television shows have made loose morals seem popular and normal. Stealing is now heroic. Cheating on your spouse is normal. Killing your baby is a lifestyle choice. Killing a loved one who is suffering a painful disease is one of life’s necessities.
The value of life, honor and morality has been eroded.
I remember in the 90s, a young Thai boy who immigrated to the United States, who had done poorly in Thailand schools, but was advanced ahead one year by the high school in Hollywood, California. To my surprise, he made top grades, apparently because the schools in Thailand had been academically superior to those in America. I was shocked. And I was dismayed when the same student’s grades plummeted shortly afterward. The reason? Being “smart” was unpopular.
Imagine a Billionaire who knows enough about human nature to know what motivates people and how they react to various inputs. What if that Billionaire—bored out of his mind—decided to see if he could program American society?
In February 1981, newly elected President Reagan asked his CIA director, William Casey, what his vision was for the agency. The director’s reply still sends chills up my spine. “We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.” Conspiring to program American citizens? This program was called, at least in part, Operation Mockingbird.
But what does the Billionaire have to do with the inner workings of government? When David Rockefeller wrote his memoirs, he let slip one ironic confession to treason. “For more than a century, ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure—one world, if you will. If that is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”
So, he’s proud of his treason.
In two articles I wrote for Uisio.com, I detailed the facts which place corporations and their owners at the helm of government, behind the scenes. The first was titled, “Lobbying in the United States — Foxes in the Hen House.” Though this focuses on lobbying, it includes other methods that corporations have used to overtake the reins of government.
So, what does all this have to do with climate science?
The Rockefellers have, for over a century, been big fans of eugenics—weeding out the undesirable humans. How many of our current 7½ billion are considered undesirable? Would you believe 7 billion?
When the world seemed to be headed toward sanity after World War II, the Rockefellers donated precious land in Manhattan to the new United Nations. That’s where the UN built their headquarters. Years later, Rockefeller protégé, the late Maurice Strong, headed up the environmental section of the United Nations, eventually giving birth to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. That political agency’s mission: to find out what the effects of dangerous, human-induced global warming would be, and how to combat that problem. Curious that they defined the problem so specifically. They assumed—up front—that humans were the cause of global warming and that warming was a problem. Both of these are dead wrong. And I found out why?
Ironically, they ignored the huge fact that we currently live in an Ice Age interglacial called the Holocene. What kind of psychopath promotes a fear of warmth in an ongoing Ice Age? The kind who wants to kill 7 billion people, that’s who.
You see, ice is the killer. Warmth is life-affirming. And CO2 is actually the slandered hero of all this. Carbon dioxide didn’t cause our recent warming, but its modern increases have been greening the Earth. Greenpeace should stop protesting CO2 and should start applauding its helpful effects.
Even NASA has gone stupid on this, more than what I’ve already mentioned. They’re calling our recent warming, “Earth’s fever.” How can a minor thaw in an Ice Age interglacial be a “fever?” That is not only unscientific language on their part, but incredibly wrong. NASA is being political because they are part of the government. Their bosses are appointed by politicians. They have to suck up or lose their jobs or lose funding. They have to use the language of science incorrectly, or risk being called “deniers.”
Well, it seems the entire world is in denial of those 2 little white things at the poles. When you see a pack of wolves headed your way, you climb a tree or pull out your gun. People see the polar ice caps and think cuddly polar bears, instead of deadly, carnivorous predators. They don’t realize that the ice caps can grow much, much larger and eventually destroy civilization.
Glacial conditions are not like anything in human history. The Little Ice Age was a chilled soda compared to the mountain of Frozen hurt headed our way when the Holocene ends. No one knows when it will end. The next glacial period could start later this afternoon, or 10,000 years in the future, based on past interglacials of the current Ice Age. But when it does, all of Canada will be gone. One third of the United States and a third of Europe will be buried in permanent ice for something like 90,000 years. Most current farmland will become frozen or deserts, because cooler oceans won’t evaporate enough water for rain.
Clearing up the Language of Science on Global Warming
If you have any questions on the topic or any favorite anecdotes, please let me know.
This article was originally published 2016:0713 on Blog.AncientSuns.com.
This article is a “biased” review of this software. Why biased? Simple. I wrote the software (programmed it, wrote the text and help files, and did the artwork).
Since moving overseas, I’ve had more time to promote the software and sales are picking up. Maybe I’ll never get rich with the software sales, but sharing these stunning views of our universe is a reward all by itself. Not only does the software show the location of the closest planets in other star systems, it shows what the night skies look like from those alien worlds.
I’ve added YouTube videos to my space software website, to help visitors get a better idea what the software is like in action. And I guess it’s the science geek in me—or perhaps the adventurer—but I still get a kick out of exploring our neck of the galactic woods with Stars in the Hood. A simple click and drag of the mouse turns countless trillions of cubic miles of space, letting you see our neighborhood of stars in colorful 3D.
The Closest Planets and Stars
Looking at our night sky, it’s hard for some to get the sense of depth of space. With Stars in the NeighborHood, you can open up the “sky view map,” click on a star, and in the “viewing cube,” see which stars are really close to the one you’ve selected out of our night sky. But that’s not all. Right in the “sky map closeup,” you can select the “distance” viewing mode and instantly all of the stars are varying sizes representing distance instead of brightness.
This “distance viewing mode” allows you to tell at a glance which stars are close and which are far away. Why is this an issue? Without such a tool, you can’t tell which stars are close and which are far away, because individual stars are not all the same brightness. The closest star, Proxima Centauri, is too dim to see without a powerful telescope. Rigel (Beta Orionis), on the other hand, is one of the brighter stars in our night sky, but it stands an estimated 870 light years away. In fact, Rigel can be seen throughout most of this half of the galaxy.
The “Star” of the Movie
Click another checkbox, “Show Alien Skies,” and the “sky map” shows not our own night sky views, but those of the star you’ve selected. Looking at those alien skies gives me the thrill of actually being there—having traveled through space to a new star system. Even for nearby Alpha Centauri (our next-door neighbor, and “star” of the James Cameron movie, Avatar), there are interesting differences in otherwise familiar constellations.
Below our own sun in the “viewing cube,” the brighter star, Delta Pavonis, is famous in the fictional realm of Frank Herbert’s award-winning work, Dune—the sun of planet Caladan, long held by the family Atriedes. In the galactic “locator cube,” you can see that the sun of Arrakis, Canopus, is just outside the Solar neighborhood. With the XYZ controls, you can scroll down and over to it to get a closer look in the “viewing cube.”
Many Ways to View Our Galactic Neighborhood
For any interesting stars you find, you can add a color tag, visible in the “viewing cube,” and you can even add notes on your thoughts and observations.
The galactic “locator cube” also helps you home in on some of the nearby star clusters like, Ursa Major (the “Big Dipper”), the Hyades and the Pleiades (in Taurus), the Coma (Coma Berenices), and the Praesepe or “Beehive” (in Cancer and “twin” to the Hyades).
Perhaps my favorite part of the software is the “Zoom Out Universe” feature. This allows you to zoom out from Earth all the way to the scale of the local group of galaxies. Go to zoom level 3 (the 1,000 parsec scale), and you see how the Solar neighborhood “viewing cube” and galactic vicinity “locator cube” relate to the disk of the Milky Way galaxy (our home city of stars). Be sure and turn on the “Increase Visibility” checkbox to get a clearer view of all those stars! Some of the more famous stars, like Rigel, Betelgeuse, Antares and Polaris, are outside the Solar vicinity, and this lets you see just where they are in 3D space.
If you have a chance to stop by Space Software, let me know what you think. And if you happen to purchase the software, I’d like to know what you think of that, too. User comments have helped to make the software better and better.
What are your dreams about space? What excites you when you look up at the night sky?
This article was published earlier on 2013:0611, and originally as “Guide to Our Corner of the Galaxy”, 2010:0405 on Blog.AncientSuns.com.
Did you ever hear the story of the goose that laid the golden egg? That one goose could make anyone moderately rich forever. [Spoiler Alert!]
But some idiot cut open the goose. Why? To get the source of the gold, but they found none. The flow of gold dried up with the death of the goose.
Selfishness is blindness. Just ask the ghost of the goose. What does this have to do with space travel? The answer is complicated. A complicated tale needs room in which to breathe. So, please bear with the storyteller.
Patterns in Nature, Ripe for the Plucking by Intelligence
There are patterns in nature. Scientists have done a remarkably good job of discerning those patterns, most of the time.
Scientists and engineers have become so clever that they have turned dirty sand into thinking machines. The silicon chips that run your computers (smart phones, laptops, notepads, car modules and more) have been doped with other elements like germanium. Basically they’ve taken the key ingredient of sand and adding a contaminant to change its properties. Very clever, indeed.
But cleverness is not always intelligence. Some scientists got together in New Mexico 70 years ago to find bigger and better ways to destroy. The lead scientist later realized that he had made a big mistake. Oops! Too late. Pandora’s box had been opened and spilled its madness upon the world.
Selfishness, otherwise known as “ego,” makes even scientists blind. It’s a selective blindness. If someone knows the patterns of selfishness, they can manipulate scientists (and citizens-at-large) to do things they might not otherwise do. Things like those of the scientists of the Manhattan Project and their development of the atomic bomb.
The Need for Humility in the Definition of Intelligence
Intelligence should also be measured by humility. If someone arrogantly thinks they have it all figured out, then they will not be open to evidence to the contrary.
Wasn’t skepticism supposed to handle this shortcoming? Perhaps it’s one indication of a scientist’s vulnerability that they have never seen the glaring bias in their most prized paradigm. Skepticism contains the potent bias of doubt. For many situations doubt actually seems to help, but that’s misleading. Doubt is still a counterbalancing bias against the bias of overconfidence.
But then skepticism becomes perverted with ego and scientists get rowdy. They frequently betray skepticism by jumping to unfounded conclusions, dismissing ideas without rigorous investigation. I call that “unsupported dismissiveness.”
But it gets worse. Some scientists get hot under the collar and descend into “self-indulgent ridicule.” We saw this with the “Clovis First” dogma. It also happened with the cold fusion discovery. It even happened with NASA scientists discovering arsenic-friendly microbes. Scientists can get downright nasty. This is the norm. Scientists learn that they need thick skins. But is this healthy? Is this logical? Not at all. And it’s not very intelligent, either.
A far better paradigm for science is one of restraint and humility. But where’s the fun in humility? Ego loves to trash the views of others. Ego loves to ruin careers of lesser minds. Too bad if they were not quick enough to prove their thesis. Too bad if they had something valuable. “My belief, or the highway, buster! I’m top dog in this science. To heck with evidence.”
Do scientists actually think such things? Yes, they do. One geoarchaeologist with a Texas university said of the Valsequillo, Mexico archaeological finds that he would never accept an ancient date for those artifacts no matter what the evidence. Ego rules over intelligence.
When government scientists tried to sell the American public on the notion that solid steel could ever offer zero resistance, they proved their corrupt nature. It was like they hung a sign around their necks that said, “I’m a prostitute for government propaganda. Science doesn’t matter to me.”
When did this happen? The NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) report on the 9/11 World Trade Center 7 collapse finally admitted to free fall. But they tried to make it seem a natural consequence of office fires. Incredible. And dumb!
Scientists selling lies is only intelligent in the sense of selfishly holding onto a corrupt job. But if they love science, then they would quit their job in a flash. Could it be that they were scientists who weren’t making it in the real world? Could it be they had to sell their souls in order to get a job? Not exactly the height of intelligence, if this is the case.
Should Evil Intelligence Be Allowed into Space?
If there are other civilizations amongst the stars, I would not wish humans on them. Even if those civilizations are superior in technology and wisdom. Why? Because of the corrupting influence of ego.
The American government has all but thrown its Constitution out the window. Its presidents seem to be working by a far different script. They seem to be following a hidden agenda dictated from somewhere other than the founding fathers or the average citizen. In fact, the bulk of government seems to have been bought out by the criminals of Wall Street.
The events of 9/11 were also used as an excuse to shred the Constitution. This is an ongoing process which threatens to eliminate the founding document altogether.
Beyond 9/11 and its fallout, the government is conducting tests in the atmosphere that are detrimental to the health of its citizens. Chemtrails are a controversial subject. The typical contrails that jets leave high in the atmosphere have never lasted that long, until the 1990s. Chemical dumps of powdered aluminum, barium and other substances last far longer. One environmental specialist formerly with the Air Force, Kristen Meghan, has blown the whistle on the military stockpiling of these substances and loading them onto planes for unspecified (secret) missions.
If you pay attention only to the Military-Industrial-Complex-run Corporate Party Mainstream Media, then you’re not going to learn anything other than what they want you to know. Fair enough. So, it doesn’t take much intelligence to figure out that you need to get your information from elsewhere. Oh, but those clever Corporate Party thugs have poisoned the well. They’ve done this by insinuating that any other source is full of “conspiracy theories.” Oooo-o-o! Scary! As if there have never been any legitimate conspiracies in the history of humanity. Good luck with that delusion. But it seems to be working. Most Americans seem to be sheep, sound asleep. (So, wake up, if you haven’t already.)
Globalists (Rockefellers, Rothschilds and their ilk) would love nothing better than to have every government in the world pay Trillions of dollars in carbon taxes because of global warming. But oops! Global warming stopped 17 years ago. It has been cooling since then. So, they change the terminology to “climate change.” They try to ignore their misstep. They hope people don’t wake up to their international shell game.
NASA scientists are even in on this con job. Many former NASA scientists, astronauts and engineers decried the agency’s unscientific support of man-made climate change. But those who still work for the agency, work for a now increasingly corrupt government. Selfishness keeps them dishonest. If they want to keep their high-paying jobs, they have to lie to the government propaganda tune.
The Primary Factor in Discovery is Not Intelligence
Humility is the key to discovery. You have to be ready to receive answers. The selfishness of wanting to keep a corrupt job blinds scientists, engineers and administrators to the damage they’re helping to create. Intentional blindness, including normalcy bias, help to cover up crimes and lies.
Intelligence is a good tool. But like any tool, it can be misused, abused and even dulled into unusability. Space travel implemented on a corrupt foundation of lies and selfishness can only harm the universe around us. No thanks!
As much as I love space travel, humanity doesn’t deserve it—yet. As long as there is ego (the heart of selfishness), humanity will never have enough intelligence to overcome the inevitable corruption.
A very wise man once said that the “first” (egotistical) shall be last (left out in the cold). He also said that the “last” (humble) shall be first (given every reward possible).
What are your thoughts on how we can instill more humility in humanity? Where is a good place to start?
This article was originally published 2014:0419 on Blog.AncientSuns.com.
This past Cinco de Mayo (Fifth of May) was a birthday of mine. The party was nice. Having family nearby and happy was rewarding all by itself. I even indulged in a little birthday cake. Chief on my mind, though, was the nearing completion of a long-standing project—publishing Touch the Stars: Diaspora, sequel to Touch the Stars: Emergence.
The day-long festivities were enjoyable, but I kept sneaking away from them to push the final edit toward completion. Then I noticed that my main character, Gordon Roanhorse, was celebrating his own birthday away from family, doing what he loved—flying his starship to other star systems and planets. I also noticed that I had made Gordon’s birthday to match my own. Why? Because a part of me has long wanted a starship of my own and to be flying to other star systems and planets.
Since this all takes place in the future, I then wondered about this Gordon Roanhorse character. When was he born? A simple calculation pegged his birth at 2015:0505. That’s a year from now. So, it’s an early happy “birth” to Gordon Roanhorse. But also, it’s a different kind of birth. A novel which had taken me thirty years to produce was finally nearing its completion. Why so long? I’ve wondered that for some time. John Dalmas and I wrote the first of this series together, published August, 1983 by Tor Books, New York. I had gladly accepted his help on completing my first novel. I knew I had much to learn. My first solo attempt came with the heavy burden of knowing that I was venturing out of the nest. This first “baby” of my own received an inordinate amount of fussing. Even before finishing this book, I had published several others—two of fiction and a few of non-fiction under the pen name Rod Martin, Jr. For Diaspora, I was in no hurry.
Touch the Stars: Diaspora—Book 2
This new book is now available on Kindle at Amazon. I hope soon to have it available also in trade paperback and hardcover. This is Book 2 of a series which originally started out as a trilogy. The last title of the 3 is Touch the Stars: Resolution. I had started writing it several years ago and it seems destined to be a long book like Touch the Stars: Diaspora. In fact, Diaspora is nearly three times the length of Emergence. So, if you like a nice, long book, hopefully this will scratch that itch. If the book is a good one, the nice thing about greater length is getting to know the characters better, and getting to live with them for a longer period of time and to share more adventures with them.
The ‘Got it Solved’ Attitude of Touch the Stars: Diaspora
One of my personal favorite aspects of the new novel is the growth of its central character—Gordon Roanhorse. Jason, his father, is still a prominent figure, but Gordon takes center stage. He moves from childhood to maturity far faster than most, partly due to his positive surroundings, but also to the challenges given to him on a gradient which helps him to maintain an ever-expanding foundation of confidence and responsibility. One of the tools Gordon uses to maintain his edge is his “Got it Solved” attitude. If faced with a seemingly insurmountable problem, he will simply snap his fingers with a rush of apparently unwarranted enthusiasm and say with unshakable conviction, “Got it solved.” Delusion? Quite the contrary. Results are what matter. And the solutions found by young Gordon Roanhorse are what make Touch the Stars: Diaspora worth more than one read.
Yes, I’m prejudiced about the book. After all, it’s my baby. I wrote it. But I get a thrill every time I read it. When I need that same “got it solved” attitude, I merely read Diaspora to see the master at work. Though Gordon Roanhorse does not yet exist in that other universe, I wish him an early “happy birthday.” And I hope his story is as inspiring to others as it has been to me.
Even though the story is my “baby,” I always welcome constructive criticism, even if critical—especially the critical stuff, because I learn from all input. If you get a chance to read the novel, let me know what you think.
The star nearest Earth? Alpha Centauri? I can hear it now. Someone is getting “literal” on me and declaring that the star “nearest” Earth is our own sun. Okay, they’re right, but only in one sense. Our sun is literally a star, certainly. But in the vernacular, “star” usually refers to those tiny points of light in the night sky—not the daytime. So, even though the star nearest to the Earth is our sun, literally, it is not so in the everyday sense of common language.
Other purists will likely complain that Proxima Centauri is closer than “Alpha Centauri.” They would also be right, but only in a sense. Proxima is not a star that we can see in the night sky. Okay, I’m quibbling. But Proxima is also a part of the Alpha Centauri system. So, you see, in one sense Alpha Centauri really is the star nearest Earth. And it’s actually 3 stars.
The star nearest Earth now has a known planet
October 17, 2012, NASA announced the discovery of a planet orbiting Alpha Centauri B, the second brightest star in the trinary (ternary or 3-component) system. In that announcement, they congratulated the European Southern Observatory (ESO) team (Xavier Dumusque, et al) for their discovery.
That world is far too near to its sun to allow life as we know it, but the mass of that world is close to that of our own home planet. We don’t know the exact mass, because we don’t know the tilt of the planet’s orbit. But the minimum mass is approximately 1.13 ± 0.09 times the mass of Earth. If the orbit is perfectly edge-on, then this minimum mass would be the actual mass. The greater the orbital tilt, the greater the actual mass.
But the orbital period of this world is a brisk 3.24 days. That means that its year is less than half of our week. This also means that the planet is so close to its sun that it likely remains scorched on one side and frozen on the other. It is doubtful that it even has an atmosphere. The intense heat of being so close to its sun surely has stripped the world of any but the thinnest veil of gas.
And yet, if the mass is considerably more than that of Earth (high orbital tilt), then the planet might retain an atmosphere by the shear brute force of gravity. But the heat would still be unbearable. That heat would likely be transferred by winds all around the world, in a way much like that on Venus.
The prospect of finding other worlds in this nearest star to Earth
Each of the 3 stars of Alpha Centauri might have planets. What interests us most are the brighter two. Proxima is little more than a hot planet itself, with violent flares from time-to-time.
Could an Earth-like world exist in the habitable zone. Could such a world remain unperturbed by the elliptical orbits of Alpha Centauri A and B about one another? The prospect is exciting. To find a world just like Earth in the star system next door is a dream come true for those of us who have had many dreams of such things. What would that world be like? Would it have jungles like our own world? Would it be completely desert? Or would it contain only oceans and perhaps a few islands?
Traveling to the star nearest Earth has long been a passion of mine. To see the worlds of that ancient star system would be like waking up at Christmas with lots of presents. And Alpha Centauri is indeed ancient—at least a billion years older than our star system. If it developed life and civilization on a timetable similar to that in our own system, its civilization would’ve been a billion years old when ours just started.
The Viewing Cube on the left shows Alpha Centauri selected with the green “focus” marker. Just above the Alpha Centauri system, the similar yellow dot represents our own sun. The distance between them is a mere 1.33 parsecs (4.33 light years).
On the right in the screen shot above, the Locator Cube shows the blue Viewing Cube’s location within our galactic vicinity. The yellow dot within marks the position of our sun.
To the right, this second screen shot (from “Stars in the Hood” software) shows alternately the night sky looking toward Alpha and Beta Centauri and the “Distance View” of the same portion of sky.
Here, the more distant, Beta Centauri is selected with the green “focus” marker. Alpha Centauri is just to the left. In the “Distance View,” the size of the stars is an indication of how far away they are.
As you can see, the star nearest Earth, Alpha Centauri, is very large (close) while Beta Centauri is very small (distant). This is despite the fact that they appear to have very similar brightness in our night sky.
Below, the software image shows the location of Beta Centauri. This is nowhere near our own Solar neighborhood. This brings into sharp contrast the closeness of Alpha Centauri—the star nearest Earth.
In all of our gargantuan galaxy, the relatively tiny distance to Alpha Centauri seems small indeed. It’s somewhat comforting to know that there are planets next door.
What if we someday find a planet like our own in our next-door neighbor system? What are your thoughts on finding an Earth-like planet so close?
Since this article was originally published, scientists have challenged the finding in the Alpha Centauri B sub-system. Perhaps the discoverers were being a bit hasty with their original claim. But the same observatory which “found” planet Alpha Centauri Bb, has now discovered a planet orbiting Alpha Centauri C (Proxima Centauri). If that planet is confirmed, then it very well could be an Earth-like world orbiting the star nearest Earth.
This article was originally published 2013:0618 on Blog.AncientSuns.com.
Increasingly, science has become corrupted by corporations and big money. Money talks. Scientists need funding. Those with the most money get science done their way.
Even the term “anti-science” has been misused and abused by those who either don’t understand all the issues, or have a vested interest in the corruption.
Part of the problem is that scientists who raise warnings that are not popular are lumped in with those who are considered by the mainstream to be uneducated and thus “anti-science.” But more confusing is the fact that the ones who have used the term the most may themselves be anti-science. Let’s take a closer look at this controversy.
Cheap Labels, Cheap Shots
People who disagree with the popular, mainstream media viewpoint are repeatedly labeled with cute and not-so-cute labels—denier, twoofer, “anti-science,” “conspiracy theorist” and others.
First of all, the labels are meaningless without facts to back them up. And some labels are entirely ad hominem distraction. The trouble with these labels is that many people read only the labels and move on. This is a plus for those who want to stop all dissent.
When a ridiculer leads with such a label, they are not debating the facts or their merits. They are attacking the person. Some so-called “skeptical” websites say that some people deserve to be ridiculed. I disagree. Ridicule never solved anything except to pump up the perpetrator’s ego. Science by ridicule seems to be growing in frequency and ferocity. And this is eroding the progress we’ve made in civilization.
We already have “witch hunts” in the climate field. Some politicians have attacked researchers who hold unpopular views and those politicians have worked to block the scientists’ funding.
There are numerous examples in history of breakthroughs in science taking far longer because of an atmosphere of hostility. It took over a thousand years for the geocentric view of the universe to fall to more reasoned minds. It seems that we are returning to a Dark Age mentality where logic and transparency are subverted by corporate greed and by groupies with big egos that need feeding.
Anti-Science with GMOs
Unlike every other industry, genetically modified organism manufacturers don’t want you to know you’re buying their product. Imagine for a moment buying a new model of car only to find out that underneath the slick exterior is the worst make of car in history. Would you feel cheated?
If you don’t suspect something fishy about this behavior, I’ll apologize now and recommend you stop reading (this article is not for you). The only time a manufacturer doesn’t want you to know you’re buying their product is when they have something to hide.
In order to get GMOs through the American FDA, they were declared essentially equivalent to natural organisms of the same species. But what the public and the mainstream media clearly ignore is the “M” in GMO—”modified.”
The scary part of all of this is that there has been too little study on the safety of GMOs and Monsanto rushed them to market over a decade ago. Why is this scary? For one thing, we’ve already found problems with GMOs adversely affecting health. But GMOs also contaminate non-GMO crops and organisms. Soon, we may not have any organisms that are not affected by GMOs. Some of the damage is permanent and irreversible.
Genetic Fallacy: How Monsanto Silences Scientific Dissent
At the most basic level of logic, we have to realize that DNA is complex programming. We are still learning how this programming works and we have a long way to go before we know everything there is to know. Any seasoned software engineer will tell you that shotgunning code from one program into another will very likely result in countless bugs in the software. This is virtually guaranteed. Expecting there not to be problems is naive at best; criminally sinister at worst.
Another fallacy promoted by GMO supporters is the notion that GMO techniques are similar to those used for the last several thousand years. This is horribly wrong. With the tried and true methods used in plant grafting and animal husbandry, we give nature a chance to tell us whether the two organisms are compatible. If they’re not, the offspring or produce will wither and die. With modern GMO techniques, nature is forced to accept two species that are not even close to one another. Nature doesn’t have a choice.
There have been many studies showing that there are health problems with GMOs. Perhaps the most famous is that of Seralini, et al. Critics say that Seralini did not use the right kind of mice, the right quantity and the right methods. Supporters say that he and his team used similar methods and mice to the tests performed by Monsanto. The manufacturer’s test was for only 3 months and started to show problems, but those were deemed inconsequential without further comment; Seralini’s went on for 2 years. The journal which approved and published Seralini’s study soon hired a former Monsanto exec as editor. Shortly after Richard Goodman was hired, two articles critical of Monsanto were withdrawn. The Seralini study was one of them.
It’s more than a little suspicious that the peer review process needed an industry insider to set them straight. Does anyone think this reeks of conflict of interest?
Monsanto promotes their GMO products as necessary to feed a hungry world. But right now we produce enough food to feed 11.3 billion people. That means we could store enough food to feed 4.3 billion people against some future drought or other disaster for each year of production.
Soil degradation with GMO crops is making farming more expensive. Crops are becoming more susceptible to diseases, they contain fewer nutrients and farmers are having to use stronger and stronger pesticides and herbicides to manage their fields. Americans may end up dying of malnutrition, despite eating all their veggies.
Anti-Science with Climate Change and Global Warming
When Al Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth” video came out, I was an instant fan and fanatic. I debated with others pushing the notion that we are either responsible for what’s happening to the planet or irresponsible.
But then I found out that I was wrong.
One of the logical fallacies used in this debate involves the term “denier.” Deny what? All of the calm scientists agree that the climate changes. It can’t help but change. In fact, it has changed for the last 4.5 billion years—as long as Earth has had an atmosphere.
They don’t deny that Earth has warmed many times in the past and also cooled. They don’t deny that man has some impact on the climate. The point of disagreement is on the degree of impact.
The 600,000 year chart used by Gore in his film shows a correlation between CO2 and temperature. What he forgets to mention is that temperature increases lead CO2 increases by 800 years. Rising temperatures cause CO2 to increase. Why would this be? The oceans contain vast reservoirs of carbon dioxide. The increases in warmth take hundreds of years to change the energy level of the ocean. Warmer ocean emits carbon dioxide.
On the shorter scale of time (years and decades), carbon dioxide doesn’t come close to matching global average temperatures. From 1940 to 1975, CO2 levels skyrocketed with the war buildup and the post-war boom. Yet temperatures fell steadily. In fact, magazine covers in the mid-70s proclaimed the coming Ice Age.
This is ironic, because we’ve been in an Ice Age for 2.6 million years. The current Holocene warm period is overdue to end. Anyone who thinks global warming is bad needs to understand that they’re seriously wrong. Try growing crops in the snow when the Holocene suddenly ends.
Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. Reducing our carbon footprint is like saying “reduce your oxygen footprint.” Stop breathing!
Carbon dioxide is a natural gas in the life cycle of Earth. Modern increases in CO2 have resulted in a greening of the Earth. Plants love the stuff. In fact, many scientists have found that crop yields jump when carbon dioxide is increased.
But warmer is good, too. Not only are we in an Ice Age, but extreme temperature differences between the poles and the equator are what drive violent weather. Melt all the ice and violent storms lose their main energy source.
And warmer produces more rain, too. During the warmer Holocene Optimum (~6,000 BC), rain increases gave us a green Sahara. In fact, today’s wimpy Lake Chad was back then a robust inland sea both far larger and far deeper.
Climate Gate showed us that scientists can become corrupted. Numerous emails were stolen from the UN IPCC’s climate research unit at East Anglia. (IPCC means Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; i.e. political, not scientific.) In those emails were notes between scientists conspiring to fudge the numbers. That’s scientific fraud. In fact, one of the scientists had notified other scientists that he was not going to release his numbers and techniques for fear of having them ridiculed. What happened to peer review?
The hysterics over climate are politically motivated and have little to do with science. One of the IPCC’s lead scientists for the 2001 report later stated that fellow scientists were discussing how to bend the numbers to make them more dramatic. More fraud. A number of IPCC scientists quit in protest over the fraud. In fact, one scientist had to sue the UN to get his name removed from their so-called “consensus.”
Another irony involves the claim by fans of Al Gore that the “deniers” are paid by Big Oil. A little research showed that Biggest Oil—the Rockefellers—are behind the climate change hysterics, not against it. One merely needs to go to the Rockefeller Foundation website to see for themselves.
Anti-Science with Vaccines
Emotions run high with all of these controversies, but perhaps none higher than with vaccines. The term “anti-science” is particularly prevalent on this topic. Sadly, many of those in the camp labeled as “anti-science” are scientists. Oops!
When PBS television’s Frontline program interviewed scientists who were critical of vaccines, they did not include any of those interviews in the vaccine program they ultimately aired. Instead, they showed only hysterical mothers. Biased reporting? When you follow the money, you find the Rockefellers firmly established behind public television.
What is particularly troubling is the fact that vaccines contain many toxins—mercury (thimerosal), formaldehyde (embalming fluid), aluminum, MSG and others. No tests have been done on the safety of these toxins. That alone is troubling. And it’s anti-science to blindly recommend vaccines while these toxins remain in them.
But now, they hysteria is reaching a fever pitch. People are being irrationally divided with buzz words and labels. Those who recommend caution are called “baby killers.” Legislators are increasingly calling for mandatory vaccinations. Parents are threatened with jail time if they do not have their children vaccinated before sending them to school.
There have been numerous studies which show a relationship between vaccines, autism and other neurological problems. Yet, the mainstream media persists in ignoring these studies in favor of those which find vaccines perfectly safe.
Those who support the use of vaccines seem almost violent in their condemnation of those who hesitate. In recent news, California legislators threaten to make vaccines mandatory for everyone, to the cheers of vaccine supporters. “It’s about time!”
But what supporters of vaccines seem to forget is their own argument that vaccines are effective. If they are indeed so effective, then those who opt out will have no effect on those who are vaccinated. Those who choose to avoid the toxins will have what they want, and the vaccinated with have their peace of mind. So, why is it necessary to force other people to get vaccinated? For their own safety? What if vaccines are a health risk to them?
Every body is genetically different. But no human body can thrive on mercury poisoning. Or formaldehyde.
Yet, the anti-science mentality that thinks they have science all figured out, makes it seem that you’re a criminal if you don’t take your regular shot of toxins. Lunacy!
Anti-Science with 9/11
America went to war over 9/11. It invaded Afghanistan to get Osama Bin Laden. And it invaded Iraq because it had weapons of mass destruction and ties to Al Qaeda. I went along with this scenario for a decade before questioning it. When I found information that proved the official conspiracy theory was wrong, I was angry.
Defenders of the official conspiracy theory call the skeptics “truthers” or “twoofers.” They accuse the skeptics of being conspiracy theorists, which only sometimes is true. Facts and questions do not make one a conspiracy theorist.
One of the key facts that turned me around was the perfect free fall collapse of World Trade Center 7. For the first 8 floors, this building collapsed at perfect free fall. This means that the steel, I-beam structure of the building offered zero resistance. Solid steel never offers zero resistance. Yet, the scientists at NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) tried to sell the world on the notion that solid steel did just that because of office fires.
Not only that, NIST scientists initially tried to hide the perfect free fall by starting their timer artificially early and counting the average acceleration of the entire period. That’s scientific fraud. That’s anti-science.
The government scientists, bureaucrats and political appointees have been shown increasingly to be corrupted—9/11, vaccines, global warming and GMOs.
Logical Fallacies at the Heart of Anti-Science
Quite often, the corporate fan compares those who disagree with a viewpoint that is more radical. Climate realists are called deniers—similar to Holocaust deniers. But this is a logical fallacy, because the Holocaust has nothing to do with climate. Belief in one has nothing to do with belief in the other. Buzz phrases like “climate change deniers” are extremely misleading, because no one denies climate change. Climate can’t help but change.
Such tactics seem to work in the realm of public opinion where critical thinking seems to be waning in strength. Multitudes of people who pride themselves on their skepticism seem to fall all over their ego on the way to more logical fallacies.
Space Exploration in an Anti-Science Climate
America sent its last batch of astronauts to the Moon in the early 1970s. For one thing, the Vietnam War was too expensive. In fact, NASA had planned on sending men to Mars by 1983, but that mission was scrubbed because of the horrible expense of war. Now, we know that the Vietnam war was escalated based on a lie. The Gulf of Tonkin incident never happened. The government lied to get more money for their buddies in the corporate war machine. War was made to seem more palatable by calling it a “peacekeeping action.”
The educational system of America has become increasingly corrupted with anti-science ideas. While the news media talks about Texas school board books being slanted by religious fundamentalists, a more subtle and insidious corruption of education is taking place elsewhere. Students are shown Al Gore’s video without critical thinking. Activists in Great Britain were able to have a list of errors included with each showing of the Gore flick, but I know of no such caveat included in American showings.
Students in America are ranked pretty low in the world for reading, mathematics and science (Weisenthal, 2013). The United States comes in at #35 on mathematics. They fare slightly better on reading, coming it at #24. On science, America pulls in at lousy #27.
Nations far ahead of America include Liechtenstein, Switzerland, Belgium, Netherlands, Germany, Poland, Canada, Finland, New Zealand, Australia, Estonia, Austria, Slovenia, Viet Nam, France, Czech Republic, UK, Luxembourg, Iceland, Slovak Republic, Ireland, Portugal, Denmark, Italy, Norway, Israel and Hungary. Yes, several Asian countries are ahead of America, too, but that seems to be a given. It seems that the stereotype is true—Asians are typically more knowledgeable in math and science. At the top of the list are China, Singapore, Taipei, Korea and Japan.
The Corporate media frequently seems to blame the increasingly anti-science attitude of Americans on the religious right. Such generalities rarely hold under even casual scrutiny. Many of the so-called right are top scientists. But labels alone are a lousy way to analyze a situation. I have some views that are liberal, some conservative, some libertarian and some that are in flux. If a label could be applicable to me, it might be “searcher of Truth.” Change is natural when you know that you have not yet arrived at a perfect answer.
Could America ever send men back to the Moon or to Mars? I don’t doubt there are still plenty of scientists to accomplish such a feat, but their numbers are dwindling and the quality may also be dwindling. In today’s political climate, scientists are increasingly asked to accept bribes or to fudge numbers.
America seems to be resting on its laurels, coasting into the future, blithely oblivious to its own sloth and gluttony. As an American, I’m both proud of what we’ve done and ashamed. But change is natural. Can we change in the right direction?