Late Astronauts Fly In Space Without Medical Certificate

[Larry Dighera]

What is behind the bizarre practice of launching capsules containing
the burnt human remains of celebrities into space? Isn't this
ghoulish practice just a bit beneath the dignity of science?




http://www.spacetoday.org/SolSys/Moons/LunarProspector.html
Ashes of a "Great Founder" On Board

NASA placed an ounce of the cremated remains of a man NASA scientists
called a "great founder" of planetary science aboard Lunar Prospector.
The ashes are the remains of Eugene Shoemaker who was a co-discoverer
of Shoemaker-Levy 9, a comet that crashed into Jupiter in 1995.


http://66.218.69.11/search/cache?p=pluto+probe+%2Bashes+%2Bnasa&prssweb=Search&ei=UTF-8&n=10&fl=0&u=www.space.com/astronotes/astronotes.html&w=pluto+probe+ashes+nasa&d=PIiSog0DMJSH&icp=1&.intl=us
December 2

Late Mercury Astronaut to Make Third, Final Flight

Susan Cooper, the widow of Mercury astronaut Gordon "Gordo" Cooper who
died in October 2004, said Thursday that her husband's ashes will be
included in the memorial payload to be launched on-board a commercial
expendable rocket scheduled for no earlier than March 2006, Alan Boyle
with MSNBC.com reported.

"In life, Gordon would have taken another trip into space... so I
figured, why not now?" Cooper told Boyle.

The launch was arranged by Space Services, a company co-founded by
Cooper's fellow Mercury astronaut Donald "Deke" Slayton specializing
in "post-cremation memorial spaceflights."

Cooper's remains will be carried spaceward on the Falcon 1, a yet-to-
be space tested launch vehicle built by Space Exploration Technologies
(SpaceX), along with a Pentagon satellite and the ashes of more than
170 people including actor James "Scotty" Doohan of Star Trek fame.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10283728
Susan Cooper said her husband never mentioned having his ashes flown
into space "per se," but he was good friends with Mercury colleague
Deke Slayton, who was one of the founders of Space Services Inc. She
said she decided having Space Services send some of Cooper's ashes
into space would be an appropriate tribute.

Space Services spokeswoman Susan Schonfeld said Gordon Cooper would be
the first astronaut to have his remains launched into space. However,
he is by no means the first person with space connections to be
memorialized in this way: "Star Trek" creator Gene Roddenberry's ashes
went up on a previous flight, and Space Services also assisted with
the arrangements to have astronomer-geologist Gene Shoemaker's ashes
included on NASA's Lunar Prospector probe, which orbited the moon
until its lunar crash landing in 1999.



http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/11/15/entertainment/main1044692.shtml
Scotty Tributes To Blast Off Too

TORONTO, Nov. 15, 2005

(AP) When Scotty's ashes head for orbit next year, his fans can send
their best wishes along for the ride.

James Doohan, who played chief engineer Montgomery Scott of the
Starship Enterprise in the original "Star Trek" TV series and
subsequent movies, died at his Redmond, Wash., home in July at age 85.
The Vancouver, British Columbia-born actor had told relatives he
wanted his ashes blasted into outer space, as was done for "Star Trek"
creator Gene Roddenberry.

Some of Doohan's ashes will be launched some time in February or March
from California's Vandenberg Air Force Base, said Susan Schonfeld, a
spokeswoman for Houston-based Space Services Inc., which has been
arranging memorial space flights for several years.

Details will be posted online at www.spaceservicesinc.com — where
Scotty's ...


http://www.space.com/spacenews/archive04/falconarch_042104.html
SpaceX has also agreed to launch a much smaller payload for Chafer on
the Falcon’s debut launch — a small canister of cremated human
remains. The ashes are being flown as part of Chafer’s Celestis space
burial service which has been launching cremated remains into orbit
since 1998.



--
The true Axis Of Evil in America is our genius at marketing
coupled with the stupidity of our people. -- Bill Maher

[john smith]

> What is behind the bizarre practice of launching capsules containing
> the burnt human remains of celebrities into space? Isn't this
> ghoulish practice just a bit beneath the dignity of science?

Junk accumulating in space could pose risks
Friday, January 20, 2006
Randolph E . Schmid
ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON ‹ More than 9,000 pieces of space debris are orbiting Earth,
a hazard that can be expected to get only worse in the next few years.
And there¹s no workable and economic way to clean up the mess.

There is about 5,500 tons of space junk, according to a report by NASA
scientists J.C. Liou and N.L. Johnson in today¹s issue of the journal
Science.

Even if space launches were halted, the collection of debris would
continue to grow as items in orbit collide and break into more pieces,
Liou said.

"On the other hand, we are not claiming the sky is falling," he said,
"We just need to understand what the risks are."

The most debris-crowded area is between 550 and 625 miles above the
Earth, Liou said, meaning the risk is less for manned spaceflight. The
International Space Station operates at about 250 miles altitude, and
space shuttle flights tend to range between 250 and 375 miles, he said.

But the junk can pose a risk to commercial and research flights and
other space activities.

Much of the debris results from exploding satellites, especially those
left in orbit with leftover fuel and high-pressure fluids.

A 2004 NASA report identified Russia as the source of the most debris,
closely followed by the United States.

Even without new launches, the creation of debris from the collisions
will exceed the amount of material removed as orbits decay and items
fall back to Earth, the researchers said.

Only recovering large objects "can prevent future problems for research
in and commercialization of space," they wrote.

"As of now there is no viable solution, technically and economically, to
remove objects from space," Liou said.

[AJ]

> More than 9,000 pieces of space debris are orbiting Earth,
> a hazard that can be expected to get only worse in the next few years.
> And there¹s no workable and economic way to clean up the mess.

this sounds like a job for Merry Maids in Space!

AJ

[Peter Duniho]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> What is behind the bizarre practice of launching capsules containing
> the burnt human remains of celebrities into space? Isn't this
> ghoulish practice just a bit beneath the dignity of science?

Why should science and ceremony be mutually exclusive? Especially when the
ceremony is directed related to the science?

And what is so "ghoulish" about a burial? It's not like people are
sprinkling the ashes on their morning toast or something.

And why characterize the effort as being about "celebrities"? There's one
semi-famous guy, and almost a couple hundred people you never heard of.
Shoemaker is probably the next-most-famous guy on board this particular
flight (flights that have been going on for nearly eight years now), and
I'll bet less than 1% of a group of randomly selected people off the street
could tell you who he is.

And finally, just what about this story invokes "science" anyway? It
specifically says the remains will be launched "on-board a commercial
expendable rocket". As near as I can tell, the sole purpose is to get some
stuff into space (ashes of "more than 170 people", plus a spy satellite).

Not that I think it would be bad for a research mission to carry some ashes
along with it, but it doesn't appear that in this case "science" is relevant
except inasmuch as science allowed it to happen in the first place (which is
true of just about every Western burial practice today, to one extent or
another).

The best part is that the stuff in orbit doesn't remain there indefinitely.
Eventually, the orbit decays, and the dead guy becomes a meteorite. A quick
shooting star, and then they are truly "gone". There won't be any people
hundreds of years later getting upset that their burial plot has been
disturbed to make way for a shopping mall, highway, or apartment building.

It's a little more complicated than spreading a person's ashes from an
airplane, but at least you don't have to worry about them all blowing back
in the window!

Oh, I'm sorry...was I being "argumentative" again? Dang.

Pete

[Blanche]

AJ > wrote:
>> More than 9,000 pieces of space debris are orbiting Earth,
>> a hazard that can be expected to get only worse in the next few years.
>> And there¹s no workable and economic way to clean up the mess.
>
>this sounds like a job for Merry Maids in Space!

Reminiscent of Spaceballs!

[George Patterson]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> What is behind the bizarre practice of launching capsules containing
> the burnt human remains of celebrities into space? Isn't this
> ghoulish practice just a bit beneath the dignity of science?

Well, I don't think it's ghoulish. Are they forcing you to eat them?

George Patterson
Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights belong to
your slightly older self.

[Morgans]

"john smith" > wrote

> "As of now there is no viable solution, technically and economically, to
> remove objects from space," Liou said.

Send up a bored teenager with a B-B-gun? That is how the local grain
elevator operator used to get rid of "surplus" mice and rats! <g>
--
Jim (dead shot with a Crossman 760) in NC

[Bob Fry]

>>>>> "LD" == Larry Dighera > writes:

LD> What is behind the bizarre practice of launching capsules
LD> containing the burnt human remains of celebrities into space?
LD> Isn't this ghoulish practice just a bit beneath the dignity of
LD> science?

Ever read Michael Crichton's book (not the movie) "Jurassic Park"? In
the book, the rich guy funding the park knows that entertainment is
how bucks are made, and progress in science needs money. Therefore
apparently undignified activities (like entertainment) can be
harnessed to support progress (like in genetics).

Likewise this issue. It's not ghoulish, it simply is, like rich guys
paying Russia $20M a shot to be in orbit a few days and supporting
Russia's space program.

[Big John]

AJ

If they keep on improving lasers, I can envision a number of ground
stations (or aircraft or satellite mounted) that will burn up the junk
in orbit.

Big John
`````````````````````````````````````````````````` ```

On 20 Jan 2006 09:51:50 -0800, "AJ" > wrote:

>> More than 9,000 pieces of space debris are orbiting Earth,
>> a hazard that can be expected to get only worse in the next few years.
>> And there¹s no workable and economic way to clean up the mess.
>
>this sounds like a job for Merry Maids in Space!
>
>AJ

[AES]

In article >,
Big John > wrote:

>
> If they keep on improving lasers, I can envision a number of ground
> stations (or aircraft or satellite mounted) that will burn up the junk
> in orbit.
>

Uh -- "burn up", in space, without any oxygen around?

Melt and then vaporize, maybe -- though the vaporized mass might just
reclump into a small moonlet.

And, burned or vaporized, the same amount of mass is still orbiting
around, in a somewhat larger cloud maybe, but at the same speed. Not
sure whether that would be better or worse . . .

Interesting technical problem.

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 11:28:52 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote in
>::

>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>> What is behind the bizarre practice of launching capsules containing
>> the burnt human remains of celebrities into space? Isn't this
>> ghoulish practice just a bit beneath the dignity of science?
>
>Why should science and ceremony be mutually exclusive? Especially when the
>ceremony is directed related to the science?

It seems to unenlightened, medieval and superstitious.

>And finally, just what about this story invokes "science" anyway?

Although I couldn't find the reference, I heard on the News Hour
(PBS), that there will be ashes also flying on NASA's Pluto probe.

Who thinks of this stuff? Who approves it?

[Jose]

> It seems to unenlightened, medieval and superstitious.

....as is any respect for the dead. No?

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 22:15:48 GMT, Jose >
wrote in >::

>> It seems to unenlightened, medieval and superstitious.
>
>...as is any respect for the dead. No?

I would characterize the service held when someone dies as an attempt
to bring closure to the trauma and sorrow felt by the deceased's
family and other survivors.

But launching someone's ashes into space on a government funded
mission seems inappropriate.

[Jose]

> I would characterize the service held when someone dies as an attempt
> to bring closure to the trauma and sorrow felt by the deceased's
> family and other survivors.
>
> But launching someone's ashes into space on a government funded
> mission seems inappropriate.

There are different ways to bring closure, and different ways to honor
the dead. That =you= don't think one way is appropriate doesn't make
it, as you said earlier, "unenlightened, medieval and superstitious".

And honoring Gene Shoemaker (whom I happened to know personally and
professionally) in this way is most certainly =not= "unenlightened,
medieval and superstitious". He was a pioneer in the field of asteroid
studies, especially earth crossing asteroids, as well as a fine
planetary scientist and geologist. I would say that sending him to
Jupiter is appropriate, enlightened, and the highest honor".

Would that any of us would merit even close to the same.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[JohnH]

> I would say that sending him
> to Jupiter is appropriate, enlightened, and the highest honor".

I would think a true scientist would have considered it a rather useless
payload which may have displaced a useful experiment (unless of course the
experiment was to examine the effects of interplanetary space travel on
ashes) ;)

[Peter Duniho]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>Why should science and ceremony be mutually exclusive? Especially when
>>the
>>ceremony is directed related to the science?
>
> It seems to unenlightened, medieval and superstitious.

Seems to you. However, rest assured there are plenty of scientists who
still hold to certain "unenlightened, medieval, and superstitious" ways. In
any case, without knowing the underlying motivation for launching a person's
ashes into space, you have no idea whether the behavior is actually
"unenlightened, medieval, and superstitious".

It could just be that the person likes the idea of having their loved one in
space, or it may be that the person is simply respecting the wishes of their
loved one (who themselves may or may not be acting in an "unenlightened,
medieval, and superstitious" way).

Sometimes ceremony is simply for the sake of ceremony. A ritual that helps
comfort an individual, through the act of the ritual itself, rather than
some greater significance.

Seems to me you're being awfully judgmental about the whole thing. Are you
against burials generally as well? How about the practice of scattering
ashes from airplanes? Or boats? Or from cliffs? Do you think that
scientists should be banned from going to church? From having any religious
beliefs whatsoever? Keep in mind that even an athiest holds a religious
conviction: that there is no supreme being, God, whatever you want to call
it.

Just where do YOU draw the line?

>>And finally, just what about this story invokes "science" anyway?
>
> Although I couldn't find the reference, I heard on the News Hour
> (PBS), that there will be ashes also flying on NASA's Pluto probe.

Well, when you have a reference, perhaps that would be a good time to take
up the conversation again. Until then, it seems you're putting the cart
before the horse.

> Who thinks of this stuff? Who approves it?

I don't know. Don't care, either.

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"Jose" > wrote in message
t...
> [...]
> And honoring Gene Shoemaker (whom I happened to know personally and
> professionally)

Really? Cool!

[Peter Duniho]

"JohnH" > wrote in message
. ..
> I would think a true scientist would have considered it a rather useless
> payload which may have displaced a useful experiment

Why should a "true scientist" have absolutely no concept of subjective
pleasure? Should all "true scientists" refrain from ANY act that might be
construed as unproductive?

[Morgans]

>> I would say that sending him
>> to Jupiter is appropriate, enlightened, and the highest honor".
>
> I would think a true scientist would have considered it a rather useless
> payload which may have displaced a useful experiment (unless of course the
> experiment was to examine the effects of interplanetary space travel on
> ashes) ;)

My bet is someone sitting around said, we have a payload capability of 156
pounds, 3 ounces. The payload came in at 156 pounds and 2 ounces. They
then said (with family's permission) Let's put an ounce of Gene aboard.

There you have it. ;-}
--
Jim in NC

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 18:31:52 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote in
>::

>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
....
>> Although I couldn't find the reference, I heard on the News Hour
>> (PBS), that there will be ashes also flying on NASA's Pluto probe.
>
>Well, when you have a reference, perhaps that would be a good time to take
>up the conversation again.

http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/060119_pluto_nh_launch.html
Riding aboard the NASA spacecraft are ashes of the late astronomer
Clyde Tombaugh, who discovered the planet in 1930 at the Lowell
Observatory in Flagstaff, Arizona.

I must confess, I don't understand the reasoning behind sending the
ashes of the discoverer of Pluto aboard a spacecraft. What possible
rational function does that serve?

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 18:35:42 -0500, "JohnH" >
wrote in >::

>
>> I would say that sending him
>> to Jupiter is appropriate, enlightened, and the highest honor".
>
>I would think a true scientist would have considered it a rather useless
>payload which may have displaced a useful experiment (unless of course the
>experiment was to examine the effects of interplanetary space travel on
>ashes) ;)
>

Ah! The voice of reason rises above the clamor of the superstitious
multitudes.

Don't forget, it is our tax dollars which enable this dubious assault
on rational behavior.

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 23:09:47 GMT, Jose >
wrote in >::

>> I would characterize the service held when someone dies as an attempt
>> to bring closure to the trauma and sorrow felt by the deceased's
>> family and other survivors.
>>
>> But launching someone's ashes into space on a government funded
>> mission seems inappropriate.
>
>There are different ways to bring closure, and different ways to honor
>the dead. That =you= don't think one way is appropriate doesn't make
>it, as you said earlier, "unenlightened, medieval and superstitious".

So, do you consider the practice of launching the ashes of the
incinerated bodies of humans into space aboard spacecraft funded by
our tax dollars reasonable, enlightened and rational?

>And honoring Gene Shoemaker (whom I happened to know personally and
>professionally)

(I hope you're not seizing on the death or misfortune of someone else
as an opportunity for your own tasteless self-aggrandizement.)

>in this way is most certainly =not= "unenlightened,

Main Entry:enlighten
Pronunciation:in-*l*-t*n, en-
Function:transitive verb
Inflected Form:enlightened ; enlightening \-*l*t-ni*, -t*n-i*\
Date:1587

1 archaic : ILLUMINATE
2 a : to furnish knowledge to : INSTRUCT b : to give spiritual
insight to

>medieval

Main Entry:1medieval
Variant:or mediaeval \m*-*d*-v*l, mi-, me-, -d*-**-v*l\
Function:adjective
Etymology:New Latin medium aevum Middle Ages
Date:1827

1 : of, relating to, or characteristic of the Middle Ages
2 : extremely outmoded or antiquated
–medievally adverb

>and superstitious".

Main Entry:superstition
Pronunciation:*s*-p*r-*sti-sh*n
Function:noun
Etymology:Middle English supersticion, from Middle French, from
Latin superstition-, superstitio, from superstit-, superstes
standing over (as witness or survivor), from super- + stare to
stand more at STAND
Date:13th century

1 a : a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the
unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of
causation b : an irrational abject attitude of mind toward the
supernatural, nature, or God resulting from superstition
2 : a notion maintained despite evidence to the contrary

Given the definations of the words above, please support your
contention, that it is not appropriate to characterize the practice of
launching the ashes of the incennerated bodies of humans into space
aboard spacecraft funded by our tax dollars as unenlightened, medieval
and superstitious.

>He was a pioneer in the field of asteroid
>studies, especially earth crossing asteroids, as well as a fine
>planetary scientist and geologist. I would say that sending him to
>Jupiter is appropriate, enlightened, and the highest honor".

I don't mean to denegrate the accomplishments of Mr. Shoemaker, but I
fail to see how the launching the ashes of the incennerated bodies of
humans into space aboard spacecraft funded by our tax dollars is
appropriate, enlightened, or any sort of honor. Rather, I see the
practice as intentionally contaminating an antiseptically setral
machine and possibly jepardizing its functioning and possibly
contaminating an environment about which we know presious little as
unacceptably ill conceived.

>Would that any of us would merit even close to the same.

Any of us can pay a fee to cleaver eutrapaners who will gladly take
our money and claim they have sent our ashes into space:

Launch Cremated Ashes into Space
www.spaceservicesinc.com Space Services, Inc. Provides a unique
memorial service by launching a small portion of cremated remains
into space for $995.

And while you're at it, you can take advantage of this limited time
offer:

http://www.nameastarspacelaunch.com/
Name A Star for your loved one!
For as little as $19.95



--

The true Axis Of Evil in America is our genius at marketing
coupled with the stupidity of our people. -- Bill Maher

[JohnH]

> So, do you consider the practice of launching the ashes of the
> incinerated bodies of humans into space aboard spacecraft funded by
> our tax dollars reasonable, enlightened and rational?

Give it up Larry. People are so used to things like maudlin death rituals
(while the death companies make massive profits) that they are beyond
rational thought.

What's worse it the arrogance of people to demand real estate to be
permanently allocated to their "memory". I say if they can continue to work
and pay taxes for it, fine. ;)

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 12:03:02 -0500, "JohnH" >
wrote in >::

>> So, do you consider the practice of launching the ashes of the
>> incinerated bodies of humans into space aboard spacecraft funded by
>> our tax dollars reasonable, enlightened and rational?
>
>Give it up Larry. People are so used to things like maudlin death rituals
>(while the death companies make massive profits) that they are beyond
>rational thought.

It's enough to cause one to lose faith in the rational judgment of his
fellow men, upon which one of the tenets of due process rests: jury
trials.

>What's worse it the arrogance of people to demand real estate to be
>permanently allocated to their "memory".

It's worse than that. Upon what legal precept does the right of those
selling the right to name a star rest?

>I say if they can continue to work and pay taxes for it, fine. ;)

I suppose it stands as proof of David Hannum's theorem*. :-)


* http://www.sniggle.net/barnum.php

[Mike Weller]

On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 21:26:41 GMT, Larry Dighera >
wrote:

>On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 11:28:52 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote in
>::
>
>>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>> What is behind the bizarre practice of launching capsules containing
>>> the burnt human remains of celebrities into space? Isn't this
>>> ghoulish practice just a bit beneath the dignity of science?
>>
>>Why should science and ceremony be mutually exclusive? Especially when the
>>ceremony is directed related to the science?
>
>It seems to unenlightened, medieval and superstitious.
>

Not really. I've been trying to get rid of my dearly departed
mother's ashes. None of the other kids want any part of her.

Mike Weller

Oh, except for her money.

[Peter Duniho]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> Ah! The voice of reason rises above the clamor of the superstitious
> multitudes.

And yet, you have still failed to describe what is "superstitious" about the
whole thing. Odd. Frankly, calling something a name does not make it so,
any more than claiming Iraq has WMD makes it so. Surprising to see you
engage in the very tactics you railed against in the not-so-distant past.

> Don't forget, it is our tax dollars which enable this dubious assault
> on rational behavior.

So far, all you've posted information about is a commercial enterprise. Tax
dollars are no more used for that than they are for any number of other
components of our transportation infrastructure, including aviation.

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/060119_pluto_nh_launch.html
> Riding aboard the NASA spacecraft are ashes of the late astronomer
> Clyde Tombaugh, who discovered the planet in 1930 at the Lowell
> Observatory in Flagstaff, Arizona.
>
> I must confess, I don't understand the reasoning behind sending the
> ashes of the discoverer of Pluto aboard a spacecraft.

Um...I guess you missed the text that reads "who discovered the planet".

I see absolutely no reason that science needs to be completely devoid of all
human influence. Sentimentalism is just as valid a reason for doing
something as anything else, IMHO. This newsgroup is *littered* with
sentimental tributes and comments about aviation, and yet you never saw a
need to comment on *those* (when your comments would have actually been ON
TOPIC, as opposed to this thread which is decidedly NOT on topic).

And it's NOT "unenlightened", it's NOT "medieval", and it's NOT
"superstitious". It's just about making an acknowledgement to human needs
and desires.

Frankly, I find it fairly "unenlightened" for a person to go around
pretending that rituals in memory of the dead have no useful purpose for
humanity.

Pete

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 12:04:09 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote in
>::

>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>> Ah! The voice of reason rises above the clamor of the superstitious
>> multitudes.
>
>And yet, you have still failed to describe what is "superstitious" about the
>whole thing. Odd. Frankly, calling something a name does not make it so,
>any more than claiming Iraq has WMD makes it so. Surprising to see you
>engage in the very tactics you railed against in the not-so-distant past.

Okay. Perhaps irrational sentimentalism and maudlin emotionalism
(although I much prefer voodoo talisman) might better characterize the
practice of placing incinerated human remains aboard an otherwise
extremely clean (sterile?) spacecraft.

>> Don't forget, it is our tax dollars which enable this dubious assault
>> on rational behavior.
>
>So far, all you've posted information about is a commercial enterprise.

As I said previously, the human ashes are aboard NASA's Pluto mission.
One doesn't expect NASA to be as smarmy as those would bilk the
unwashed of their hard earned cash in the name of some sort of
other-worldly 'memorial'; how can it qualify as a memorial if it is
off planet? Who will be reminded?

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 12:12:22 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote in
>::

>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>> http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/060119_pluto_nh_launch.html
>> Riding aboard the NASA spacecraft are ashes of the late astronomer
>> Clyde Tombaugh, who discovered the planet in 1930 at the Lowell
>> Observatory in Flagstaff, Arizona.
>>
>> I must confess, I don't understand the reasoning behind sending the
>> ashes of the discoverer of Pluto aboard a spacecraft.
>
>Um...I guess you missed the text that reads "who discovered the planet".

No. I'm aware of that.

Why do you find that phrase significant justification for launching
incinerated human remains into space aboard a publicly funded
scientific mission?

>I see absolutely no reason that science needs to be completely devoid of all
>human influence. Sentimentalism is just as valid a reason for doing
>something as anything else, IMHO.

Really? I much prefer to separate objective and subjective rationale.
Imagine the impact of permitting emotionalism guide your operation of
an automobile. It's inappropriate if the intent is to arrive safely
at your destination.

As a fellow pilot, you are not afforded the luxury of indulging
emotional and sentimental feelings while performing the requirements
of your flight missions. Imagine the outcome if you were to say, I
really love the sight of cumulonimbus clouds; let's get a closer look.
>This newsgroup is *littered* with
>sentimental tributes and comments about aviation, and yet you never saw a
>need to comment on *those* (when your comments would have actually been ON
>TOPIC, as opposed to this thread which is decidedly NOT on topic).

I'm not paying for the comments you mention, but we are all paying for
NASA's decision to include incinerated human remains aboard this
mission to Pluto. What will NASA do if the discoverer of the next
planet to which they decide to send a spacecraft has chosen not to be
cremated? Will they send rotten human flesh into space at our
expense? Where will this dubious practice lead?

This whole concept of flying ashes sets a bad precedent, IMO.

I suppose you're right about the subject being off-topic, as the
remains are clearly flying as a passenger, not piloting. :-)

>And it's NOT "unenlightened", it's NOT "medieval", and it's NOT
>"superstitious". It's just about making an acknowledgement to human needs
>and desires.

If I have no such need nor desire, does that make me less human? Isn't
it just a little presumptuous on the part of the NASA decision maker?

If pilots routinely made such concessions to such emotional desires,
they'd be poorer pilots, IMO.

>Frankly, I find it fairly "unenlightened" for a person to go around
>pretending that rituals in memory of the dead have no useful purpose for
>humanity.

If you had read my previous article in this thread <Message-ID:
>>, you'd know I made no
such pretence. I guess you missed that.... :-)

[JohnH]

> Frankly, I find it fairly "unenlightened" for a person to go around
> pretending that rituals in memory of the dead have no useful purpose
> for humanity.

Maybe we can all hold hands around the spacecraft and have a sun dance to
keep the rain gods away to assure good weather for the launch.
OOGIDABOOGIDA!

Really, firing ashes into the sky isn't going to do a thing for humanity.
Using the space for a time capsule might though.

[Peter Duniho]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> Why do you find that phrase significant justification for launching
> incinerated human remains into space aboard a publicly funded
> scientific mission?

There is a very clear connection between the space mission, and the person
traveling along with it. I don't understand why you aren't comprehending
that, but whatever.

>>I see absolutely no reason that science needs to be completely devoid of
>>all
>>human influence. Sentimentalism is just as valid a reason for doing
>>something as anything else, IMHO.
>
> Really? I much prefer to separate objective and subjective rationale.

The two cannot co-exist in your life? Pity.

> Imagine the impact of permitting emotionalism guide your operation of
> an automobile. It's inappropriate if the intent is to arrive safely
> at your destination.

No one is talking about "emotionalism" guiding the operation. Straw man,
red herring, your pick.

> As a fellow pilot, you are not afforded the luxury of indulging
> emotional and sentimental feelings while performing the requirements
> of your flight missions.

I most certainly am. Practically every flight I make includes the
indulgence of emotional and sentimental feelings while performing the
requirements of my flight missions.

Again, perhaps yours do not. I pity you.

> Imagine the outcome if you were to say, I
> really love the sight of cumulonimbus clouds; let's get a closer look.

And?

> I'm not paying for the comments you mention, but we are all paying for
> NASA's decision to include incinerated human remains aboard this
> mission to Pluto.

I doubt that the inclusion of one person's ashes on the Pluto mission
represent ANY significant additional expenditure on your part.

> What will NASA do if the discoverer of the next
> planet to which they decide to send a spacecraft has chosen not to be
> cremated? Will they send rotten human flesh into space at our
> expense? Where will this dubious practice lead?

IMHO, your above scenario is a clear example of why your outrage is
misplaced. The reason ashes are included is that they are an
inconsequential payload. It's absurd to think that NASA is going to start
carrying complete human bodies just for the sake of being sentimental.

> This whole concept of flying ashes sets a bad precedent, IMO.

You are welcome to your opinion, however misplaced it may be.

> [...]
> If I have no such need nor desire, does that make me less human? Isn't
> it just a little presumptuous on the part of the NASA decision maker?

The NASA decision maker is not making decisions for your satisfaction alone.
As far as your humanity goes, it does seem that's in question at this point.
:) However, each human individual is different. You are welcome to ignore
your emotional inclinations, or to discard them entirely, but when you start
trying to impose your attitudes and preferences on the rest of the human
race, you are set for trouble. The vast majority of humanity is quite
content in their irrational behaviors, and there are even those of us who
*recognize* certain irrationalities even as we acknowledge their value.

> If pilots routinely made such concessions to such emotional desires,
> they'd be poorer pilots, IMO.

Negative on that. Aviation is filled with concessions to emotional desires,
and most of the time it has absolutely no effect on safety or competence.

Pete

[Mike Weller]

> Aviation is filled with concessions to emotional desires,
>and most of the time it has absolutely no effect on safety or competence.
>
>Pete
>

I've got to thank you for that phrase. You've got a nice touch.

Mike Weller

I'm re-reading a book "I Could Never Be So Lucky Again"

[Skywise]

Larry Dighera > wrote in
:

<Snipola>
> I'm not paying for the comments you mention, but we are all paying for
> NASA's decision to include incinerated human remains aboard this
> mission to Pluto. What will NASA do if the discoverer of the next
> planet to which they decide to send a spacecraft has chosen not to be
> cremated? Will they send rotten human flesh into space at our
> expense? Where will this dubious practice lead?
<Snipola>

I have to ask, how much do you think it is costing *YOU* to add
those ashes on the mission?

Here's a suggestion. Why not email NASA and ask them for details
about the how much extra it costs placing those ashes on the craft
for each each tax payer.

How much does the craft weigh?

How much do the ashes weigh?

What is the total cost of the mission?

From that you should be able to figure out the cost of the ashes.

Then spread that out over all the taxpayers.

I'd be astonished if it cost more than a penny per person.

I bet somewhere in NASA there is already a document covering this.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[Skywise]

Skywise > wrote in
:

> Larry Dighera > wrote in
> :
>
> <Snipola>
>> I'm not paying for the comments you mention, but we are all paying for
>> NASA's decision to include incinerated human remains aboard this
>> mission to Pluto. What will NASA do if the discoverer of the next
>> planet to which they decide to send a spacecraft has chosen not to be
>> cremated? Will they send rotten human flesh into space at our
>> expense? Where will this dubious practice lead?
> <Snipola>
>
> I have to ask, how much do you think it is costing *YOU* to add
> those ashes on the mission?
>
> Here's a suggestion. Why not email NASA and ask them for details
> about the how much extra it costs placing those ashes on the craft
> for each each tax payer.
>
> How much does the craft weigh?
>
> How much do the ashes weigh?
>
> What is the total cost of the mission?
>
> From that you should be able to figure out the cost of the ashes.
>
> Then spread that out over all the taxpayers.
>
> I'd be astonished if it cost more than a penny per person.
>
> I bet somewhere in NASA there is already a document covering this.
>
> Brian

Following up on this...

From the Launch Press Kit at (top right corner):
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/newhorizons/news/index.html

Mission cost: $700 million
Space craft weight: 478 kg

From wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_of_the_United_States

Population of US, December 2005: 298 million (estimate)

Cost per person per gram of weight: .00049 cents

In my brief search I found no informaiton on exactly how
much of Clyde's remains were on board, but I doubt is was
even as much as a gram.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[Morgans]

"Skywise" > wrote
>
> Here's a suggestion. Why not email NASA and ask them for details
> about the how much extra it costs placing those ashes on the craft
> for each each tax payer.

I would suggest that there is no additional cost. The launch vehicle is
capable of launching x number of pounds. If the launch weight of the
vehicle is under that weight, you could fill up the rest of the vehicle with
tire weights and launch it, and it would not cost any more to launch.
--
Jim in NC

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 03:27:24 -0000, Skywise
> wrote in
>::

>Skywise > wrote in
:
>
>> Larry Dighera > wrote in
>> :
>>
>> <Snipola>
>>> I'm not paying for the comments you mention, but we are all paying for
>>> NASA's decision to include incinerated human remains aboard this
>>> mission to Pluto. What will NASA do if the discoverer of the next
>>> planet to which they decide to send a spacecraft has chosen not to be
>>> cremated? Will they send rotten human flesh into space at our
>>> expense? Where will this dubious practice lead?
>> <Snipola>
>>
>
>From the Launch Press Kit at (top right corner):
>http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/newhorizons/news/index.html
>
>Mission cost: $700 million
>Space craft weight: 478 kg
>
>From wikipedia:
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_of_the_United_States
>
>Population of US, December 2005: 298 million (estimate)
>
>Cost per person per gram of weight: .00049 cents
>
>In my brief search I found no informaiton on exactly how
>much of Clyde's remains were on board, but I doubt is was
>even as much as a gram.
>

So your thesis is, that as long as the per capita amount of tax money
misappropriated by NASA is small, that sort of malfeasance is
acceptable?

[Peter Duniho]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> So your thesis is, that as long as the per capita amount of tax money
> misappropriated by NASA is small, that sort of malfeasance is
> acceptable?

I doubt that's his thesis. My guess is that, as with mine, the question is
how much YOU are paying. YOU are the one complaining. Many taxpayers are
satisfied with how their money is being spent.

I don't know why "Skywise" thinks the ashes are less than a gram (about a
teaspoon, I'd guess?), but I agree they are not heavy. My grandfather's
ashes didn't weigh even a kilogram, if I recall correctly. They definitely
weren't as heavy as two kilograms. Using Skywise's numbers, that puts the
cost at still under a penny (just as he guessed).

Even if I were bothered by the concept of someone's ashes riding along to
Pluto, a half-cent misappropriation of my tax dollars by the US government
is a drop in the bucket compared to the other things they spend money on and
which I object to. When the stuff that's tens and hundreds of my dollars is
dealt with, then I would consider worrying about the half-cent problems.

IMHO, it's pretty irrational and not at all scientist-like to fixate on such
a teensy tiny issue when the huge elephant-sized ones are still unresolved.

Pete

[Mike Weller]

On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 23:50:56 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote:

>IMHO, it's pretty irrational and not at all scientist-like to fixate on such
>a teensy tiny issue when the huge elephant-sized ones are still unresolved.
>
>Pete
>

It costs around $100,000 per pound of any kind of matter to be put
into low earth orbit. A quarter of a pounder steak costs about
$25,000.

But, We "THINK", and for that reason, it is a good thing for us to go
there.

Mike Weller

[Skywise]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in
:

> "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
> ...
>> So your thesis is, that as long as the per capita amount of tax money
>> misappropriated by NASA is small, that sort of malfeasance is
>> acceptable?
>
> I doubt that's his thesis. My guess is that, as with mine, the question
> is how much YOU are paying. YOU are the one complaining. Many
> taxpayers are satisfied with how their money is being spent.

BINGO!!!


> I don't know why "Skywise" thinks the ashes are less than a gram (about
> a teaspoon, I'd guess?), but I agree they are not heavy. My
> grandfather's ashes didn't weigh even a kilogram, if I recall correctly.
> They definitely weren't as heavy as two kilograms. Using Skywise's
> numbers, that puts the cost at still under a penny (just as he guessed).
<Snipola>

I had done further research as I had no idea how much is left after
cremation. According the wikipedia article on the subject, about 5%
of the orignal mass is left, so given a 200lb person that worked out
to a few kilo's max.

I conjectured that less than a gram is on board because all the
confirming statements about the presence of said ashes state "a
portion of" his ashes are on board. That clearly indicates that not
all of his ashes are flying, but probably just a representative
small sample for the purpose of honoring the man who discovered
Pluto. There's no need to carry much. It's a symbol of honor.

So, shall we move on to the issue of the digital disc carried on
the Cassini spacecraft with the digitized signatures of hundreds
of thousands of people? (including myself) IIRC there's a similar
disc on New Horizons as well.

Yep, according to: http://www.space.com/astronotes/astronotes.html

...the New Horizons spacecraft bound for Pluto is toting a
number of items, including a U.S. flag, as well as a compact
disc containing more than 430,000 names.

And

...a piece of SpaceShipOne

No, Larry, I think you're missing the point of all these things
that are flown on these craft. These symbols are useful because
it gives the average joe blow (or jane) something to connect with.
99% of people don't understand the significance of exploring these
worlds and spending all this money. By giving people some way of
connecting themselves personally to these missions, they feel more
involved. Perhaps it's nothing more than PR BS, but if it means
getting more people aware of the importance of doing this kind of
science, I'm all for it.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 21:38:14 -0000, Skywise
> wrote in
>::

>"Peter Duniho" > wrote in
:
>
>> "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> So your thesis is, that as long as the per capita amount of tax money
>>> misappropriated by NASA is small, that sort of malfeasance is
>>> acceptable?
>>
>> I doubt that's his thesis. My guess is that, as with mine, the question
>> is how much YOU are paying. YOU are the one complaining. Many
>> taxpayers are satisfied with how their money is being spent.
>
>BINGO!!!
>

That point of view is like asserting the cost of a home is the value
of a single mortgage payment . The cost to taxpayers is clearly the
entire additional sum (if any) resulting from the inclusion
(preparation, testing, launch, ...) of the ashes aboard the New
Horizons mission to Pluto.

>
>> I don't know why "Skywise" thinks the ashes are less than a gram (about
>> a teaspoon, I'd guess?), but I agree they are not heavy. My
>> grandfather's ashes didn't weigh even a kilogram, if I recall correctly.
>> They definitely weren't as heavy as two kilograms. Using Skywise's
>> numbers, that puts the cost at still under a penny (just as he guessed).
><Snipola>
>
>I had done further research as I had no idea how much is left after
>cremation. According the wikipedia article on the subject, about 5%
>of the orignal mass is left, so given a 200lb person that worked out
>to a few kilo's max.

It works out to less than 5 kilograms, but sheds no light on the
weight of the ashes aboard.

>I conjectured that less than a gram is on board because all the
>confirming statements about the presence of said ashes state "a
>portion of" his ashes are on board. That clearly indicates that not
>all of his ashes are flying, but probably just a representative
>small sample for the purpose of honoring the man who discovered
>Pluto. There's no need to carry much. It's a symbol of honor.

While I agree, that the amount is probably small, I don't think the
data you cite supports that, as any amount less than the entire amount
of ashes would be considered a 'portion'.

>So, shall we move on to the issue of the digital disc carried on
>the Cassini spacecraft with the digitized signatures of hundreds
>of thousands of people? (including myself) IIRC there's a similar
>disc on New Horizons as well.
>
>Yep, according to: http://www.space.com/astronotes/astronotes.html
>
> ...the New Horizons spacecraft bound for Pluto is toting a
> number of items, including a U.S. flag, as well as a compact
> disc containing more than 430,000 names.
>
>And
>
> ...a piece of SpaceShipOne
>

I'm flabbergasted to learn this.

>No, Larry, I think you're missing the point of all these things
>that are flown on these craft. These symbols are useful because
>it gives the average joe blow (or jane) something to connect with.

Yeah. It finally began to dawn on me that that is the only plausible
explanation.

>99% of people don't understand the significance of exploring these
>worlds and spending all this money. By giving people some way of
>connecting themselves personally to these missions, they feel more
>involved. Perhaps it's nothing more than PR BS, but if it means
>getting more people aware of the importance of doing this kind of
>science, I'm all for it.
>

If it works in keeping the research funded, it's difficult argue
against the practice. But I still feel uneasy about it.

This may sound strange, but it has occurred to me, that the New
Horizons spacecraft will travel the cosmos for perhaps billions of
years. While the odds of an alien life form, with the intelligence to
at least understand what the probe is, are remote, what would you
think of a race of organisms that chose to include the charred remains
of a representative of their species aboard an otherwise completely
functional piece of mechanical equipment?

To me it just seems an anachronism, an act appropriate for stone age
beings, not those sufficiently advanced to achieve such a
technological feat. But given the longs odds and funding
requirements, I believe I've come accept it.

[Peter Duniho]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>> I doubt that's his thesis. My guess is that, as with mine, the question
>>> is how much YOU are paying. YOU are the one complaining. Many
>>> taxpayers are satisfied with how their money is being spent.
>>
>>BINGO!!!
>
> That point of view is like asserting the cost of a home is the value
> of a single mortgage payment . The cost to taxpayers is clearly the
> entire additional sum (if any) resulting from the inclusion
> (preparation, testing, launch, ...) of the ashes aboard the New
> Horizons mission to Pluto.

It is only "like" that assertion if you carry the assertion to its logical
conclusion: that is, that it's as if nearly the entire mortgage was deemed
acceptable by the payer, except for the very last payment (representing your
sole dissenting voice as a taxpayer).

And of course, when you do that, you see how silly it is for one person to
presume to voice a complaint on behalf of the hundreds of millions of
taxpayers who most likely don't mind an extra penny or so of their money
spent honoring a key figure in astronomy.

> [...] what would you
> think of a race of organisms that chose to include the charred remains
> of a representative of their species aboard an otherwise completely
> functional piece of mechanical equipment?

That would likely depend entirely on the nature of the organism finding the
remains. If they are anything like humans, they will comprehend that the
ashes are there as a way to honor a person. They may even correctly infer
that the person was somehow related to the spacecraft.

If they are nothing like humans, they might (for example) come to the
conclusion that the ashes are the remains of a human who was sent along with
the spacecraft as part of its normal operation, but who through some
untimely accident was incinerated. They may or may not stop to hope that
the incineration was quick and painless, but regardless, if they have no
customs similar to human approaches to dealing with the dead, they likely
will only arrive at hypotheses explaining the ashes which seem rational to
them.

It seems absurd to me to presume that we can even begin to imagine what
another organism might thing of our behavior. Our activities are likely
unfathomable to most, if not all, the organisms right here on Earth. To
concern ourselves with what an extraterrestrial organism might think seems
futile.

> To me it just seems an anachronism, an act appropriate for stone age
> beings, not those sufficiently advanced to achieve such a
> technological feat. But given the longs odds and funding
> requirements, I believe I've come accept it.

Our current social customs are not very far removed from those that existed
thousands of years ago, all the way back to the beginning of written
history, and probably even before (as inferred through archeological studies
of cultural remains predating written history). To expect them to change,
never mind disappear entirely, even in the last millennia, never mind the
last generation, is to fail utterly to comprehend human society.

Granted, that's a common flaw among people who are highly experienced
computer users. But it's a flaw, nonetheless.

Pete

[Rolf Blom G (AS/EAB)]

On 2006-01-30 21:29, Peter Duniho wrote:
-snip-
> If they are nothing like humans, they might (for example) come to the
> conclusion that the ashes are the remains of a human who was sent along with
> the spacecraft as part of its normal operation, but who through some
> untimely accident was incinerated. They may or may not stop to hope that
> the incineration was quick and painless, but regardless, if they have no
> customs similar to human approaches to dealing with the dead, they likely
> will only arrive at hypotheses explaining the ashes which seem rational to
> them.
-snip-

A (possible) future reply from Pluto, dated Y-mas 2017AD:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Earthlings!

Thanks for the toys you sent, our kids are having a ball with the
manouvering jets. We gave them your spaceship model at our celebration
of our Yule, which is mostly a long & boring dark night out here on the rim.

Can't seem to fit the part marked 'spaceship one' anywhere on the
ship; could you send a more detailed drawing & some more glue with next
mission?

We are not quite sure if the grey stuff marked P.L. was glue, as it
didn't stick very well to the model?

som of our scientists/chefs though it could also be used as a
calcium-flavoured soda drink when hydrated, but in my opinion it's not a
winning recipe, and it tasted a bit past the 'best before date', really.

Keep up the good work, we need more toys here for next Y-mas, which
should occur in 250 of your years or so, unless you could pop over for a
visit at our new year already?

(We could send some meteorites your way if you like? That's what we use
for toys here otherwise.)

Cheers from Zzwyxbgl family & friends on Pluto!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Montblack]

("Rolf Blom G wrote)
> A (possible) future reply from Pluto, dated Y-mas 2017AD:
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Dear Earthlings!


"Send more Chuck Berry."


Montblackhole

[LWG]

Remember that spacecraft they sent out of our solar system a few years ago?
They had greetings in many languages, music and the like. I thought they
missed the opportunity to put on it the only Universal Truth, which surely
applies to whatever civilization finds it. I'm thinking of that line in the
"Last Detail." "You've gotta pay for all the p*ssy you get in this world,
one way or another." After that, did we really need to say any more?

"Rolf Blom G (AS/EAB)" > wrote in message
...
> On 2006-01-30 21:29, Peter Duniho wrote:
> -snip-
>> If they are nothing like humans, they might (for example) come to the
>> conclusion that the ashes are the remains of a human who was sent along
>> with the spacecraft as part of its normal operation, but who through some
>> untimely accident was incinerated. They may or may not stop to hope that
>> the incineration was quick and painless, but regardless, if they have no
>> customs similar to human approaches to dealing with the dead, they likely
>> will only arrive at hypotheses explaining the ashes which seem rational
>> to them.
> -snip-
>
> A (possible) future reply from Pluto, dated Y-mas 2017AD:
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Dear Earthlings!
>
> Thanks for the toys you sent, our kids are having a ball with the
> manouvering jets. We gave them your spaceship model at our celebration of
> our Yule, which is mostly a long & boring dark night out here on the rim.
>
> Can't seem to fit the part marked 'spaceship one' anywhere on the ship;
> could you send a more detailed drawing & some more glue with next mission?
>
> We are not quite sure if the grey stuff marked P.L. was glue, as it
> didn't stick very well to the model?
>
> som of our scientists/chefs though it could also be used as a
> calcium-flavoured soda drink when hydrated, but in my opinion it's not a
> winning recipe, and it tasted a bit past the 'best before date', really.
>
> Keep up the good work, we need more toys here for next Y-mas, which
> should occur in 250 of your years or so, unless you could pop over for a
> visit at our new year already?
>
> (We could send some meteorites your way if you like? That's what we use
> for toys here otherwise.)
>
> Cheers from Zzwyxbgl family & friends on Pluto!
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 12:29:28 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote in
>::

>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
[...]
>
>Our current social customs are not very far removed from those that existed
>thousands of years ago, all the way back to the beginning of written
>history, and probably even before (as inferred through archeological studies
>of cultural remains predating written history). To expect them to change,
>never mind disappear entirely, even in the last millennia, never mind the
>last generation, is to fail utterly to comprehend human society.

It seems that I always expect too much of my fellow inhabitants of our
planet Earth. However, lately it seems to me, that retrograde
evolution is in operation; disappointing.

>Granted, that's a common flaw among people who are highly experienced
>computer users.

It's not so much that I fail to comprehend human society, as it is my
feeble attempt at self-deception motivated by a reluctance to accept
society's glaring lack of enlightenment. Take Texas, for example:
ranked 50th scholastically, but number one in executions.

[Montblack]

("Larry Dighera" wrote)
[DNA snip]
> It seems that I always expect too much of my fellow inhabitants of our
> planet Earth. However, lately it seems to me, that retrograde evolution
> is in operation; disappointing.


Has anyone seen my opposable thumbs? Dang, I had them this morning! Well,
thank goodness for that prehensile tail. It will sure come in ...<wait for
it> ...handy.


Montblack -----I:o
Wow, mid-winter torpidity sucks.

[Peter Duniho]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> It seems that I always expect too much of my fellow inhabitants of our
> planet Earth. However, lately it seems to me, that retrograde
> evolution is in operation; disappointing.

I don't see the carriage of ashes on a spacecraft to be an example of
"retrograde evolution". However, even if I did, I personally think it makes
more sense to focus on irrational behaviors that are harmful, as opposed to
those that are not.

Flying ashes into space isn't worth any concern at all. Other issues such
as those you've mentioned elsewhere are.

If and when we've gotten rid of the death penalty, and many other backwards
habits of human beings, then maybe it would make sense to talk about that
half penny you're spending moving ashes from Point A to Point B. I would
probably still disagree with you, but at least then I could see the point in
wasting so much time on the issue.

Pete