Lileks comments on Patrick Stewarts's recent statements on space travel. On the one hand, I don't much care what Stewart thinks, and it really doesn't affect my view of his work in Trek or elsewhere. I find him to be a rather talented actor.
However, of all the criticisms to level at space-exploration, this has got to be the silliest I have heard:
I would like to see us get this place right first before we have the arrogance to put significantly flawed civilizations out onto other planets," Stewart said
So, because we are imperfect and arrogant, we should stay on the big blue marble? and who, precisely, are we going to corrupt with our arrgoance if establish a moon base, go to Mars, or mine the asteroids?
Hat tip: Stephen Green.
Posted by Steven Taylor at February 5, 2024 10:44 AM | TrackBackFor that matter, I wonder if Stewart things the Federation is 'significantly flawed' or not.
Posted by: Dave at February 5, 2024 12:30 PMIronically, Stewart himself--as Jean Luc Picard--beautifully refutes this argument to Q in the STTNG pilot, "Encounter at Farpoint."
Posted by: James Joyner at February 5, 2024 02:32 PMwhy does James always start his comments with 'ironic',
Steward is very very eccentric, picked up from years of Shakespear.
Posted by: Richard Tilley at February 5, 2024 03:10 PMPerhaps stewart thinks we will harm the little green men like we did the earlier americans.
Posted by: bryan at February 6, 2024 08:43 AMIt appears that you gentlemen have confused the "Why" questions with the "How" questions. This is common in the age of blurb news and quick-draw scholastic training. I think what the good Mr. Stewart was getting at was the matter of priority. Should human action be limited solely by human capability or should we in any way actually govern the carrying out of our agenda like responsible adults. I know it's hard to believe to many working slobs & non-participant consensus seekers but if you looked around a bit you'd notice that there are immensely solvable problems of human condition and the ecology of this planet. In the U.S. Military we call it "ATTENTION TO DETAIL", and the general premise behind that cliché is that you don't do a sloppy job in area A and then move on to area B as if everything is on the up & up. That kind of thing gets people killed. Let's solve some Earth problems, perfect our intraplanetary management skills and then move on to other challenges. The philosophy espoused by James Lileks & his moronic followers on this issue argues that we should in essence "do it because we can" esp. if it's never been done before. OK, now apply that to our Nuclear program. North Korea is just sitting there violating every human rights law known to mankind & they have a nuclear program. Shouldn't we strike them with our nukes now because we can? Of course not, and do you know why. Because that would mean multinational nuclear holocaust. That's why. Do you see how easy logic can be if exercised regularly.
So unless you've been to Iraq or Saudi Arabia or Korea or the Sudan or Mexico City or Thailand or Viet Nam or the slums of Eastern Europe and have a clue about the real world and it's issues of flesh and blood I suggest you lay off the criticism of a talented actor who also happens to be a talented and concerned citizen. Because people of low intellectual caliber such as yourselves have absolutely no business commenting on the national "To Do" list.
Good evening from an undisclosed location,
RWB (US Military at your service)