Letter: Science vs. nature

Science vs. nature

I’m not into science myself, but I do believe it can have a good effect on nature as well as a negative; which one outweighs the other? Medicine made with ingredients in nature can be a plus, yet would they be needed if other ingredients from nature were not mixed to make a product that poisons nature the water we drink, the soil we grow food in, the animals we feed bad things, the fuels we burn that pollute the air. Nuclear energy is very inexpensive to produce, but the waste from the process is buried — safely they say, but for how long? Nuclear plants have a shelf life, and some have had meltdowns and damage by the weather. Fish have been contaminated and the ocean polluted from Japan’s accident.

There are brilliant people creating things and making things happen. There are also some educated idiots — but aren’t we all when it comes down to it? No one knows what tomorrow will bring or how all of our actions will affect nature. What cost will we pay?

One thing I believe is that it is a total waste of money for a moon rock, or sending a camera on wheels to Mars, or the study of gas on Saturn. What makes that more important that anything on Earth? What we are spending would have our country out of debt and trillions in our reserves. People would have a better life — free health care, seniors would be taken care of. People should know more about the space station and its purpose; too many decisions are made out of the public view.

Carlos Cody,