In My Opinion, No. 3: Space Exploration

What value is there in exploring the vacuum of space?

Though I detest the Metro Express newspaper, I occasionally read it when I forget to bring a book with me. This week one poll asked a very similar question to the one above, eliciting this response from a reader named "Steve":

No. Sending humans into space to explore Mars or any more of the solar system or beyond is an incredible waste of time and money. We should continue only with unmanned space exploration until such time as we find some new technology to send humans very cheaply[...].

This argument is problematic for two reasons: First, "Steve" does not understand economics very well. We do not improve a technology, if not through its constant use. The technology to send a human farther than the moon will never become inexpensive except through experimentation, trial, and refinement. We do not build a better bicycle by thinking about bikes. We test what is available, make possible improvements, test the new prototype, correct for errors, ad infinitum. If there was one good thing to come out of the Cold War, it was the money poured into NASA and the technology that developed as a result. And I'm not talking about the technology that only rocket scientists use. Next time "Steve" uses his cell phone to make a long-distance call, he should think about whether this technology would even exist today had Russia not been innovative enough to launch Sputnik.

The second reason Steve's comment bothers me is because it dismisses space exploration, calling it an incredible waste. The attitude strikes me as very utilitarian. What's in it for me? he asks. Moon rocks are worthless; therefore, exploring the moon is worthless. This sentiment is uninspired, to say the least.

I contest that exploration has intrinsic worth, and its value, then, is immeasurable. While I am well aware that Columbus' expedition was at least partly fueled by commercial interests and certainly led to cross-cultural complications, I admire his guts and attitude. Sure, he could have stayed in Europe. And Latter-day Saints could have stayed in the Salt Lake Valley. And Hagoth could have stayed in Bountiful. Lehi could have stayed in the Arabian peninsula. The Israelites could have stayed in Egypt. Adam and Eve could have stayed in Eden. And we could have stayed with God in heaven and never come here. And really, that's all we would ever do without exploration, sit in the bottom of a valley and believe the sun revolves around us. The attitude to leave things be, lead a sedentary lifestyle or run in the same course we always have, is not only uninspiring, it's damning.

Earth is our home, and I hope we always feel that way, no matter where we go or what happens. But it is the tiniest of blips in the cosmos. Aren't any of us still the least bit curious? And don't we want our grandchildren to see a little more of it firsthand? Looking at postcards of France or actually traveling there: I choose the latter.

"Sorry" Just Doesn't Cut It

I love the English language for many reasons--it's versatile, with between 600,000 to 1 million words to choose from; it's literarily rich, the first language of many a great writer; it's global, the lingua franca of the modern era; and it's familiar, my first and primary language. But, despite its charms, English and I don't always get along, especially when it comes to the phrase "I'm sorry."

Don't get me wrong; I'm not unapologetic. But English's limitations are to blame for a lot of confusion in my life, because it simply fails me when I want to say "I'm sorry." The word itself can mean so many different things: regret, empathy, apology, compunction, even surprise. How can my addressee know which of these eclectic meanings I wish to express?

I think Portuguese does a much better job. There is no direct equivalent to the English phrase "I'm sorry" in Brazil. One must pick between three phrases: com licença, sinto muito, and desculpe. Each has its place and, if used appropriately, delineates exactly what the speaker means to say.

When you're on the metro escalator and someone is standing on the left side, instead of the right, you might say com licença to let them know you're there trying to pass. If you know you must brush up against someone to get by them in a jammed place, there's another place to use it. Com licença literally means "with license," a polite way of asking permission to slightly inconvenience. A polite Brazilian might say sim, i.e. yes, I give you permission.

Sinto muito is one of my favorites, and literally means, "I feel much." Its role is to express empathy and does so in a way that I cannot adequately replicate in English. Americans tend to compensate by saying "I'm so sorry" instead of simply "I'm sorry," but that just doesn't seem to be enough. I had a friend in college who was in a tremendous amount of pain after back surgery. She was sitting on a sofa in the study hall visibly crying because her meds were not giving her much, if any, relief. We were all concerned and each said "I'm sorry," to which she repeatedly responded, "It's not your fault." That exchange stands out to me now as the must wretched failure of the English phrase "I'm sorry." We knew it wasn't our fault, but lacked the words to really express how much we felt for her.

Finally, desculpe is for when you've hurt or offended someone and seek to make amends. Fights with family members, repentance, betrayed confidences, or wounded feelings all might warrant a heartfelt desculpe. The word literally means "un-guilt." If that is not enough, the words me perdoa, "pardon (or absolve) me" really express deep contrition, penance, repentance, and hope for a restoration of trust and good-feeling. It just seems to mean so much more than the lame, unspecific "I'm sorry."

So, com licença, I may start using these Portuguese terms around you instead, especially if I know you read my blog. Believe me, life will make a whole lot more sense once you learn them.