moonbattery.gif


« Justice Stevens Weeps for Architect of Pearl Harbor | Main | Dorothy Parvaz Discusses the Pros and Cons of Burning Down Churches »


October 31, 2007

Moonbats Fret About Environmental Spoilage of the Moon

There is nothing noble the human race could accomplish that moonbats wouldn't denounce. Even having reached the moon — so stirringly symbolic of human aspiration — is portrayed as exploitation by the kooks at The Guardian.

China, Japan, India, and the USA have all been interested in sending probes and/or people back to the moon. We're warned that the motives may be nefarious. Though the moon appears to be a barren, crater-pocked wasteland, helium-3 (He-3) deposited by solar winds could theoretically be used to generate clean energy.

A novice to the study of moonbattery might expect liberals to approve of clean energy. But no: they don't want us to use clean energy, they want us to use no energy. Any human activity is bound to be harmful to Mother Earth and now even Mother Moon. Shockingly, "mining He-3 would involve ripping up the lunar surface to a depth of one metre."

I won't even try to make fun of these weenies; they do too good a job of making fun of themselves:

Whether it turns out to be He-3, solar energy, or some as yet unknown technology that draws humanity back to the moon, there's an irony here. In 1968, Apollo 8 brought back the first shimmering image of an "Earthrise" as seen from the moon. Four years later, Apollo 17 came home with the famous whole Earth picture. These new views of our fragile, heartbreakingly isolated planet are often credited with having helped to kickstart the environmental movement — even with having changed the way we see ourselves as a species.

When moonbats demand that we sacrifice humanity to preserve the Earth in a certain condition, they can at least argue that some animals would benefit. Who benefits if this idiocy is extended to the lifeless moon?

The moonbats themselves, of course — because standing in the way of human progress makes them feel self-righteous. That's why — with their knack for inversion — they call themselves progressives.

Moon_Landing.JPG
Capitalist exploiters despoiling the moon.

On a tip from V the K.

Posted by Van Helsing at October 31, 2007 11:27 AM

Comments

The moon has no atmosphere so meteors slam into it all the time, gouging out craters of all sizes. Is that bad?

If we set up an energy station and do the same damage as a meteor, is that bad?

Is it only bad if we do it? Or is it bad if it's done at all?

Posted by: NudeGayWhalesForJesus at October 31, 2007 11:50 AM

The late Gerard K O'Neill advocated the use of resourses in space, particularly asteroidal metals and solar energy, as remedies to Earthly pollution. Subsequent authors, such as Harrison SChmitt, who has first hand knowledge of Lunar conditios, have advocating harvesting He3 for fusion reactors.
In almost every case, where there is a clear road to both preserving the terrestrial environment and making life better for humans, the Moonbats are always sitting in the way.

Posted by: James F McEnanly at October 31, 2007 12:09 PM

Whether it turns out to be He-3, solar energy, or some as yet unknown technology that draws humanity back to the moon, there's an irony here. In 1968, Apollo 8 brought back the first shimmering image of an "Earthrise" as seen from the moon. Four years later, Apollo 17 came home with the famous whole Earth picture. These new views of our fragile, heartbreakingly isolated planet are often credited with having helped to kickstart the environmental movement — even with having changed the way we see ourselves as a species.

Too funny; the writer seems to be making a connection between the ecosystem of the earth with the ecosystem of the Moon while conveniently forgetting the Moon has none.

Posted by: Arthur at October 31, 2007 2:52 PM

As a bit of a space fan, I've tried to point this out to other space fans with, I have to admit, little success. I.e. space fans love to talk about terraforming this and mining that, but if the environmentalists get their way, there won't be any of that (or this) because all of space will be declared a "wilderness".

Many space fans are desperately keen to find life on Mars, Europa, Enceladus et al, but if that happens, it'll be goodbye space programme, because the enviroweenies will now have an endangered species/ecosystem to protect.

Posted by: Ian from the EUSSR at October 31, 2007 3:11 PM

Kind of along the same subject line...

Any of you ever seen pictures of the summit of Everest? I was watching a show on Discovery last night - the place looks like a land fill.

Posted by: Jimbo at October 31, 2007 6:03 PM

Wait, aren't these the same moonbats who claim the moon landings were a staged photo-op hoax?

Posted by: Scott at October 31, 2007 10:06 PM

As a bit of a space fan, I've tried to point this out to other space fans with, I have to admit, little success. I.e. space fans love to talk about terraforming this and mining that, but if the environmentalists get their way, there won't be any of that (or this) because all of space will be declared a "wilderness".

Many space fans are desperately keen to find life on Mars, Europa, Enceladus et al, but if that happens, it'll be goodbye space programme, because the enviroweenies will now have an endangered species/ecosystem to protect.

Posted by: Ian from the EUSSR at October 31, 2007 3:11 PM

I wonder if a sci-fi writer has dealt with this topic before. It would certainly make for good reading.

Posted by: Arthur at November 1, 2007 4:50 AM