I have to wonder whether or not "The Universe" would be better suited for the Discovery Channel as opposed to the History Channel. But it's there and we might as well make the most of it. There were two episodes aired last night. One concerned parallel universes which although it showed a lot of material that I've read/seen before, it did organize various types of various universes (types 1 through 4) in a manner I found very helpful for me.
But judging by the title of this blog, parallel universes are NOT the subject of interest here.
The subject of interest is the episode airing afterward: Sex in Space. As one could guess from the blurb provided by the History Channel, this was actually a serious discussion about various physiological challenges people will have to face if they really want to live in space or another planet with gravity significantly different from ours on Earth. Four things, prompted by things mentioned toward the end of the episode, came to my mind.
1. I've always been ambivalent at best about space exploration especially as regards to the expenditure of resources it requires just to figure out how NOT to go about it, never mind surviving while trying to do so. But I heard one pro-exploration guy give what to me seems to be the best argument for coming up with a way to get off the planet. In short, if you consider that currently the most reliable scientific evidence seems to hint that dinosaurs ruled the planet for millions of years before being instantly wiped out by a sudden catastrophe (likely a large meteorite crashing to Earth); you'd really like some kind of backup plan in case something similarly goes wrong with our biosphere. Now whether moving out into space or underground or undersea domes would be the best response remains to be seen, but I'm willing to concede the speaker has a point worth considering.
2. Michio Kaku gave his take on why NASA doesn't even want to talk about how astronauts would get busy in space. I.E. NASA is a taxpayer-funded organization. Certain more puritanical taxpayers would have conniption fits if they found out if their tax dollars were used to study how people would get it on in microgravity (though some of them seem to have no qualms about nonbelievers having their tax dollars yanked out of their paychecks to support "faith-based" initiatives). Therefore, no one in NASA wants to talk about it.
3. This leads into the very unrealistic taboo of discussing sex still prevalent in many sections of American society. And this point was very ably discussed by all the various scientists, psychologists, and other people on the show (in particular one woman whose name I've sadly forgotten). Their point to the puritans was this: "Look, folks: professional or not, astronauts are human beings. Human beings need interaction to function properly and 'interaction' here means intellectually, emotionally, and--yes--physically, from simply handshakes and occasional pats on the shoulders to hugs and...well, sex. A trip to Mars (as Bush mentioned once very early on in his Presidential term) takes somewhere around two to three years with current technology. And you, Mr and Mrs. Prude are going to insists that people residing in spaces no bigger than the average living room for this period keep their hormones in check BECAUSE THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO BE PROFESSIONALS? Hey, maybe Sarah Palin can recommend a good abstinence program for them." But look, all sarcasm and snickering aside, if the stiff-necks at NASA are in any way serious about people living in space or another planet; they're going to have to get over any personal discomfort about the subject matter (or that of certain politicians and pressure groups) and accept the fact that they are going to figure out how the hell there space colonists are going to produce the next generation. That includes applying their engineering-style logic to the question of sex.
4. If, however, NASA still fears the wrath of the Family Values crowd (it still amazes me how they--much like al Qaeda and the Taliban--can get all bent out of shape over the very thing that CREATES the family they claim to revere so much), then maybe they can just hand the matter over to the private sector such as Sir Richard Branson, Google Lunar X Prize, and other non-government organizations. Hell, right now, I wouldn't be too upset if the Federal Government just dropped subsidizing space exploration all together and let non-government resources handle it. That way, people who support space exploration can show their support with their own money and people who don't support it can no longer gripe about their tax dollars being taken from them and used for that purpose (Those same dollars can very well get snatched away and wasted for some other objectionable purpose, but that's beyond the purview of this essay).
© Copyright 2006-2010 Anthony Anderson
No comments:
Post a Comment