According with my little knowledge of it, NASA's development was fueled by the space race during Cold War, as a political tool. Also: the entire american support for immigrant scientist running away from nazism (like german/austrian jewish intellectuals, which included the heads to be of the Manhattan Project) was just as well an strategical move rather than a philanthropic one. Anyway, something I have for certain is that no one is free from biased ideology (not even me; not even Carl Sagan with his Pale Blue Dot and his bewitching but totally false epistemological image of science), and that the official tale of so called "universal history" is always conveniently written by the winners of each conflict.
I do not advocate for violence. I do not like it at all. But, rather than heading for conclusions that soothe me and put my own powerless self at ease, what I'd like to grasp is the actual structure of it and to know if the phenomenon can be truly avoidable at all according with our current condition, or if it's really just a case sensitive matter of conventional and "politically correct" cases during the rise and fall of civilizations and their respective moral codes. What I'm trying to do, with my very limited resources, is to pragmatically ponder war in relation with peace time practices (which I can find to be just as cruel or more), and also without all those common but meaningless/outdated figures of speech like "humanity" or convenient pamphleteer terms like "compassion" or (universal) human rights. Such romantic views of men/agencies and societies/systems are untenable at this point, and I certainly do not long at to cling to them. I may be many shameful things but I'm not a humanist; I'd be ashamed of, at this point, being so stubbornly ignorant or naive.
Post edited on 10th May 2013, 5:23am