This time, you've gone too far, media. I'm having a nice day. I'm listening to Rachel Maddow and hear her ask a scientist from NASA "Isn't there some other way you can test soil samples on the moon instead of sending in a rocket?" Okay. Whatever. He kills the question quick, they move on. I'm trying to listen to the BBC, "Is it right for us to wreck the moon like we wrecked the earth?"
(Pause for dramatic effect)
WHAT??!
What the fuck are you talking about? Do I actually have to make this clear to you? Okay. Here goes. Do you know what makes the moon different from the rain forest? There's one really basic place where you can start. THERE'S NOTHING ALIVE ON THE MOON. We can ignore the fact that there are huge asteroids smashing into the moon that cause more damage than any rocket we could fire with no ill effects to the moon, we don't actually have to deal with that because THERE'S NOTHING ALIVE ON THE MOON. No life. You get that? Nothing to wreck. We're not going to crack the damn moon in half, we're going to kick up some dust.
Look, I like the moon as much as anyone. When I was a kid growing up in upstate New York, I always found full moons to be my favorite nights of the month. The whole landscape what be eerily illuminated, I was into it. Very cool. But you know something? The hold card truth? There's nothing special about the moon. If it didn't exist, life on this planet would be largely the same, outside of losing tidal effects. And we're not going to destroy the moon. That's not the plan here. We're going to shoot a rocket into it to try and see if we can find some water.
There is no life on the moon. There's nothing there to wreck. It is a barren and empty rock and your reporting on it is fucking retarded.
Sincerely yours,
Jake Dickerman