NEIL ARMSTRONG: FIRST MAN ON THE MOON

On 20th July 1969, the human race reached the pinnacle of its development to date when Neil Armstrong and 'Buzz' Aldrin landed on the Moon, the first time in human history that a man had walked on another world.

 

The enormity of this achievement has probably faded over time but what the 'Apollo' programme achieved was truly astonishing. With technology that today would probably only ever be seen in museums, the astronauts put their lives on the line; some, most memorably the crew of Apollo 1, lost their lives in pursuit of the goal of landing a man on the Moon before the end of the 1960s. Virgil 'Gus' Grissom, Ed White and Roger Chaffee never even made it off of the launch pad as their capsule caught fire during a practice run. Nonetheless, after a lengthy pause, the programme continued and 12 men eventually did walk on the Moon; Armstrong was the first and, inevitably, the most famous. His death yesterday reminds us just how little we have moved on in the intervening 43 years since that amazing day in 1969.

 

Those who knew Neil Armstrong say without hesitation or dissent that he was a fine man, modest and humble in all his dealings. That a man who was so iconic, and will remain so for centuries to come, could attract such universal admiration says more about him than I possibly could.

IS REVOLUTION ON THE HORIZON ?

Talking to a chap in my local pub today, I found myself drawn into a conversation about the deteriorating state of our nation. This was an ordianry chat in an ordinary pub that may well have been replicated in many places across the country.

My drinking companion commented on the way in which an assortment of foreigners have 'invaded' this country in recent years, expecting the indigenous population to accept them and their ways. He referred to Poles as well as to the influx of Asians and was clearly unhappy at the way in which these immigrants had not only taken local jobs but had also imposed their culture on us.

In many, if not most, countries immigrants are expected to accommodate themselves to their new surroundings but not, it seems, in England. In England we almost fall over ourselves to allow these newcomers to take over large parts of our major cities, build their temples and behave as if they were still in Delhi, Rawalpindi, Mogadishu or wherever else they are from.

My companion was of the view, from which I did not demur, that the ultimate consequence of this situation, in the absence of any action from our government that supports the rights and position of the established population, is revolution.

The only question that remains is 'When ?'

JESSICA ENNIS : £3 MILLION A YEAR ?

Listening to some marketing man on the radio this morning set me thinking about the value we place on different talents.

This marketing expert said, in answer to the usual third rate interviewing conducted on the 'Today' programme, that the likes of Jessica Ennis will now be able to earn as much as £3,000,000 a year for the next few years on the back of her Olympic success. Others such as Mo Farah, Chris Hoy and Bradley Wiggins will also profit greatly from their admittedly major achievements. What was not mentioned is that most of our high profile successes were delivered by people who have received substantial financial support from the state, sometimes over a period of many years.

If a teenager demonstrates great ability in science or engineering and gains a place at university, they have to borrow money from the state to support them through their period of study and development; once graduated, they are required to repay the money that was borrowed, with interest, from their subsequent earnings. However, for those who show ability in sport, it appears that no such arrangements are in place; in fact, they are simply given large amounts of money, either directly or through the payment of their coaches and other aides. When members of this latter group achieve success and become high earners, they keep their money; there is no requirement to pay anything back to the state.

Why is this ? Top-earning sports' stars can earn many times more than even the best paid scientists and engineers although their true contribution to the country is far less. Sports' stars do not contribute to the long term future of the country in any way, while scientists and engineers, even those who choose to teach rather than to 'do it' themselves, are the bedrock for future growth and development.

This blatant favouring of transitory success over long term gain is a stark indicator of the disease that infects this country today. Politicians and the media are interested only in the 'quick fix', the sound bite', and whatever will make news today; tomorrow can 'go hang'. Our priorities are wrong.

As our government spirals increasingly out of control and our economic woes worsen still further, we can no doubt expect a raft of honours for our successful Olympians. A knighthood, perhaps, for Mo Farah, damehood for Jessica Ennis and honours from MBEs to peerages for others; the lunacy of such awards is almost palpable. For 5 minutes, the nation will be reminded of the great achievements of our state funded competitors, and then all will melt away. The horrendous reality of the world we are really in will return.

ARE SCIENTISTS AND DOCTORS REALLY SO INFALLIBLE ?

Today's news carries an item about a website called 'Babyjabs' which has been ordered to remove certain advice as it is considered to be misleading.

The website claims that the MMR vaccine may be causing "up to 10%" of autism in children in the UK. Someone has complained to the Advertising Standards Authority and they've determiined that the website has breached its rules.

It is the case that controversy about the MMR vaccine has rumbled on for years with most so-called experts claiming that it hs no detrimental side effects; note that I say 'most'. In the past, we have been told many things by eminent scientists and what they've claimed to be incontrovertible 'facts' have been proven to be nothing of the sort on more than one occasion.

We were told to replace sugar with saccharine, only to subsequently been told to ditch saccharine because it was a potential carcinogen. Antibiotics and then steroids were heralded as new 'wonder drugs' only for both to harbour hidden dangers that were discovered only decades later. We've been told that AIDS would kill us all, then it was BSE follwed by SARS, and we have the annual influenza panic.

Today some scientists tell us that global warming is man-made while others vehemently take an opposing view; some even deny it is happening at all. Genetic engineering of our food is a 'must' according to some and is a potential nightmare according to others; some would like to have genetically engineered people. The artificial extension of human life through such means is seen as a potential boon by some, a terrifying vision by others. People are told that they 'must' take the drugs known as statins in order to reduce their cholesterol levels, but does anyone really know what the long term effects of these drugs are ?

Scientific advance is probably inevitable as long as humans exist but what really matters is how that advance is managed. Many scientists seem to believe that if they can do something then they must be allowed to do it. As a consequence, we have women becoming mothers in their 60s, well beyond any natural span of childbearing, and we have vast sums of money being spent in many other ways that may well be to the ultimate detriment of humanity.

I don't know if the MMR vaccine, or any other vaccines or medication, are truly safe or not. I do know that scientists, of which I used to be one, and doctors, of whom I have known many, are far from infallible. We should all be very circumspect about the banning of controversial claims and points of view of which we disapprove.

FRIVOLOUS OLYMPICS OR REAL WORTH ?

It occurs to me that while the London Olympic Games will cost us a reported £11,000,000,000, NASA have landed their rover on Mars for around one seventh of this at £1,500,000,000.

The benefits and rewards from the Olympics is a debatable issue but are unlikely to be long lasting; the eventual consequences of NASA's project for the human race could be utterly incalculable. For the price of the Olympics, we could have sent 7 'Curiosities' to Mars.

Why are governments so willing to spend money on frivolous trivia and so reluctant to spend it on truly important projects ?

NASA'S 'CURIOSITY' TO WIN GOLD ?

In the middle of the frivolity of the Olympics comes the news that NASA has successfully landed a car-sized 'rover' on the surface of Mars.

While we may all be marvelling at the Earth-based achievements of some of our greatest athletes, such as the almost unbelievable Usain Bolt, NASA's success overnight will undoubtedly have much longer lasting consequences for manhkind. The rover, nicknamed 'Curiosity', has already sent back a few pictures and will soon start its real mission, wandering around the surface of the 'Red Planet' collecting and analysing rock and dust samples, probing the ground and generally searching for any signs that there was once life on this now barren world.

The technical achievement in successfully landing 'curiosity' is, itself, a marvel. The consequences for humanity if the rover does find any conclusive evidence that Mars once played host to living organisms will be inconceivable. In contrast, the Olympic Games, fun as they are, will rapidly fade into history and be no more than a minor footnote. Strange, then, that it's stll the Olympics which dominate the news.