Although Ptolemy thought the Sun revolved around the Earth, he also concluded the Earth should be treated as a mathematical point in the Universe. Now, since a mathematical point is infinitely smaller than a "pale blue dot," do we conclude that Ptolemy must be humbler and wiser than modern astronomers? Well, maybe I'm being nasty and objective, when I should be misty-eyed and subjective. I might be a candidate for sensitivity training.

Unlike Pale-Blue-Dot astronomers, I don't try to feel the pain of the robbed (nor do I try to feel the pleasure of the robbers). To pretend to know other peoples' pain is to belittle the pain of others. The parent's clear pain for a helpless child in pain can not be belittled; but if the parent and child had the same pain, they would both be helpless. Indeed, the parent would be useless.

From a comfortable armchair or a speaker's podium, all human trails (pains, pleasures, joys, loves, etc.) can only be reduced to a "pale blue dot" by pride. This is not insightful. This is the worst form of pride: taking pride in humility. Trying to synthesize people with their planet is called pantheism - not astronomy.

Reality demands a separation between people and their planets: people should be cherished and planets should be used. People that cherish planets tend to use people. Once a planet has served its function as a playpen or cradle for a developing people - it's dumped. Those individuals that have cherished the planet rather than the people will remain attached to the dumped planet.

The Pale-Blue-Dot astronomers are wrong when they insist that there is "no hint" of help in the Universe. Some of them are now dead wrong.

Best Regards,

Frank Hatch
FrankHatchiii.com