Formerly, the point of NASA was to explore outer space. But it has been so grotesquely deranged by moonbattery that it now embraces the opposite mission — preventing space exploration:

NASA’s Equity Diversity and Inclusion Working Group (EDIWG) publishes an anti-capitalist, anti-colonialist manifesto which, if followed, would effectively ban the USA from exploration of Mars, our Moon and other planetary bodies.

The manifesto is entitled, “Ethical Exploration and the Role of Planetary Protection in Disrupting Colonial Practices.” National Review has details:

[T]he EDIWG authors say that human space exploration must be stopped because it represents a continuation of the West’s tradition of resource development through free enterprise. “All of humanity is a stakeholder in how we, the planetary science and astrobiology community, engage with other worlds,” they say. “Violent colonial practices and structures — genocide, land appropriation, resource extraction, environmental devastation, and more — have governed exploration on Earth, and if not actively dismantled, will define the methodologies and mindsets we carry forward into space exploration. . . . It is critical that ethics and anticolonial practices are a central consideration of planetary protection. We must actively work to prevent capitalist extraction on other worlds, respect and preserve their environmental systems, and acknowledge the sovereignty and interconnectivity of all life.”

So far as we know, there is no life on other worlds. But just in case there is, we better not go out there, lest we infect it with free enterprise.

Look what happened when our ancestors discovered America. Stone Age savagery was displaced by a civilization that placed men on the moon. You wouldn’t want more of that, would you?

Even if there are only microbes on other planets, humans must be kept from disturbing them, because according to cutting edge progressive ideology, microbes are people too.

“There must be further discussion of what moral consideration microbial life on other worlds should have, beyond their scientific significance,” they say. “Consideration of ‘intelligence’ or ‘non-intelligence’ should not be used as a framework in this discussion. Not only do biological distinctions of intelligence have a racist history, they do not hold scientific merit. It is clear that microbiology is foundational to Earth as we know it, and microbes are deserving of moral consideration.”

Maybe it is just as well if we are kept from exploring outer space. If we do find microbes out there, liberals will want to given them voting rights and sign them up for welfare.

There is probably no life on Mars anyway. Humans still must be kept away:

“Even if there is no extant microbial life on Mars or beyond, we must consider the impacts of our actions on geological timescales,” they say. “A human presence on an astrobiologically significant world could disrupt evolutionary processes already in place. What moral obligation do we have towards potential future life that our presence on Mars could impact, or to hybrid forms of life that our presence could potentially create? These questions must be addressed by planetary protection policy.”

We have to stay away from the moon as well, because we might spoil the scenic beauty of a wasteland even more remote and uninhabited than the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and also because the moon might be sacred to indigenous peoples, and indigenous peoples are sacred to moonbats.

“Aesthetics should also be considered. If Moon mining is to be an extensive enterprise as planned, these changes will be visible from Earth,” they claim, “fundamentally changing one of the few communal human experiences of gazing at the Moon. In addition, the Moon and other planetary bodies are sacred to some cultures. Is it possible for those beliefs to be respected if we engage in resource utilization on those worlds?”

The EDIWG authors assert that the moon has a right to remain unchanged. Human rights for microbes were not the final extreme of absurdity. Now rocks floating through outer space have rights.

If NASA can’t explore space because it would be unethical to inflict colonial oppression on microbes and rocks, how about private industry? No dice:

[H]elping to meet the needs of humanity by entrepreneurial development of resources from space would be a bad thing, because “enabling those with the wealth to privately engage in space exploration efforts could exacerbate already extreme wealth inequality in the immediate future.”

Mankind cannot explore space or strive upward in any other meaningful way until it has first rid itself of moonbattery.

On a tip from Steve T.

Comments are closed.