Liberal Science

Some of my liberal political friends are made uneasy by huge expenditures on space exploration, particularly when there are so many unmet needs here on earth.  I understand their point: space science is expensive and has had its share of boondoggles.  Nevertheless, I don't agree with their conclusions.  In fact, I'd be behind putting more money into NASA.

Being a liberal is about more than being tolerant of differences and championing the poor and oppressed.  It is a fundamentally optimistic philosophy that believes in the evolution of human beings and human society toward a more benevolent and enlightened state.  It is a mindset that questions relentlessly and does not accept the status quo in the state of human society or human knowledge.  To be conservative is to be essentially satisfied with the status quo and to mistrust government projects large and small; the desire to find out about stuff is a liberal quest.  If conservatives had their way, we'd still believe that the earth was flat, that the sun revolved around it, and that the universe was only about six thousand years old.

Oh yeah, I forgot: some people still believe that kind of thing.  But the last decade's worth of frenzied efforts by the creationists and the young earthers and the geocentricists are evidence that enlightenment is advancing.  There is an inherent conflict in using 21st century technology to propagate a 13th century world view, a conflict that is bound to become more and more apparent as the state of our scientific and technical knowledge advances.

That's why the  Webb Telescope (shown here in an artist's conception looking like a ray gun mounted on a four-poster bed) should be supported by people of progressive politics.  Yes, it will cost $4 billion, and yes  that money could do a lot of other good on our home planet.  However, even that amount of money is less than 1% of what we have spent on the war in Iraq thus far.  Here's what we get for our dough:

The telescope will capture images of what the universe looked like just 400 million years after the Big Bang.

"We're trying to see, what were the conditions like back then," Stockman says. "How was it that it chose to form into the stars and galaxies and planets that we have today? It's a curiosity and a fascination, and our lives, in a large sense, were affected by what went on then."

Conservatives don't share that restless curiosity and fascination.  The things we might learn as a result scare them.   They look at the Webb telescope (a full-scale model of which is pictured here with incongruous palm trees in the foreground) and see something that really IS a ray gun, a weapon pointed at their belief systems.  And so some of them develop a sudden and patently insincere urge to spend public moneys on social welfare projects instead of science and space exploration.  This line is superficially appealing to some of my progressive buddies, who wonder why we can find money for the Webb but not money for feeding the hungry.  Note the word "superficially": a deeper understanding of liberalism mandates support for projects like this.

Comments

[Stacie]

Uh, I am a conservative. And I don't believe in anything that you seem to think ALL conservatives believe in. Being a conservative is not the same as being a bible thumping Christian. I am not Christian. I prefer Quantum Physics and the study of Mind. I champion all people of our world that are interested in living whatever life they deem fit. I don't presume to insist that they live the way I choose to live. I have been very poor. I grew up very poor. I regularly contribute money to a place called the Sheriff's Ranch in Arkansas, that offers kids from abusive homes a place to live until they get out of school. These kids learn that by your own steam you can make for yourself any kind of life you have the imagination to strive for. I am not satisfied with the status quo. I have been living in New Orleans for over 6 months now. Status quo, which by the way, was what caused much of the misery and heartache here post Katrina, is an exclusive mode of thinking that the local Democrats and Liberals have embraced down here. And they still don't want to relinquish this mode of thinking as evident by a lot of local, don't make it on CNN newscasts, types of problems New Orleans is having getting back on its feet. Either/Or thinking is very dangerous. So is lumping Conservatives and Liberals into 2 camps. You seem to be a pretty good thinker. Don't take the labels that you hear about on tv for the gospel, so to speak. Differentiate your thinking and your views. I imagine you know some Conservatives that don't fit the mold you are talking about here. There are many of us that are good people. I travel around the world. I have come to realize that to marginalize or generalize about a group of people is what led to the Rwandan massacres...very dangerous thinking.

[James F. Trumm]

Point taken, Stacie; generalizing and labeling are perhaps too easy to do. Still, the root of "conservative" is "conserve," meaning to prevent decay or loss, to use or manage wisely, to preserve, to save. Yes, it may be a generalization to say that conservatives generally favor preserving the status quo, but I don't think it's an unreasonable or unfair one.

I don't pretend to know much about the byzantine politics of New Orleans, but obviously since the Democrats have been in charge of the city for, like, ever, it follows that a substantial portion of the blame for the Katrina-related disasters must be laid at their feet. Democrats they may well be, but liberals they were not, any more than the old Daley machine in Chicago was a liberal enterprise.

[Stacie]

Yep, point taken there, too. I think I am just tired of the sport of politics...I see more folks spending energy in bringing the other party down, instead of improving and calling to task the assholes in their own camp.
:)