Man has always been a curious creature, eager to explore new areas. After all, this trait took him across the globe and to the moon. Yet, NASA's current plan to send astronauts to Mars has met with a good deal of controversy. Opponents say that the money would be better spent improving conditions on Earth or that, until our space travel technology is significantly more advanced, it is more efficient, less costly and much safer to explore the cosmos with robotic probes.
While I tend to agree with these latter arguments, I am more disturbed by the rationale for the project, expressed by various scientists. First, they say, we must go there to find out whether life exists beyond our planet. But whether or not there is or was life elsewhere in our solar system, there is a mathematical certainty that it exists in other star systems and galaxies. Secondly, some argue that the human race needs a planet to escape to when we exhaust or destroy the resources on Earth. This argument is both pessimistic and ridiculous, suggesting that we have the capability to colonize Mars but not the intelligence or technology to protect and preserve our home planet.
John Kennedy's challenge to put men on the moon, expressed in the heat of the Cold War, was more political than scientific. And Bush's exhortation to send man to Mars is an effort to restore his own image in the history books after he has wreaked havoc on Earth.
