Image provided by: University of Nebraska-Lincoln Libraries, Lincoln, NE
About The daily Nebraskan. ([Lincoln, Neb.) 1901-current | View Entire Issue (Nov. 18, 1991)
Opinion H ' Space swap NU should trade capsule for artifacts Just when the University of Nebraska-Lincoln was ready to say bon voyage to the Apollo 009 space capsule, the swap hit another snag. The NU Board of Regents voted Friday to delay send ing the Apollo to the Kansas Cosmosphere and Space Center in Hutchinson, Kan., for at least a month. In so doing, regents expressed hope that the University of Nebraska could raise enough funds to restore the dete riorating capsule. In the midst of a budget crisis, finding the necessary $200,000 to $400,000 to repair the capsule and additional money to house it properly seems impossible. While raising private donations on Apollo’s behalf is a more acceptable scheme, the likelihood of raising that much money is slim. The controversy surrounding Apollo’s deterioration has failed to spark widespread interest. Even if the money could be raised through private do nations, it simply is too late. NU had its chance to manage the Apollo properly years ago, but it failed to do so. Any attempt to make up for past wrongs would just emphasize those mistakes. The proposed swap would bring $1.5 million worth of space artifacts to NU in exchange for the Apollo. Granted, a variety of space doodads is not the same as an actual space capsule. But the trade seems reasonable for a capsule in as shabby condition as the Apollo 009 is. And the longer the regents delay action on Apollo 009, the more shabby it becomes. Max Ary, director of the cosmosphere, said that if NU continues to delay restoration of the capsule, it could become damaged beyond repair. “Whoever ends up with the responsibility to restore the craft must do it within weeks,” he said. Further delays also test the patience of cosmosphere officials, who have waited more than a year for the trade to be finalized. The debate over what to do with Apollo 009 has lasted long enough. Let it blast off in peace. —j.p. Sexuality, feminism compatible This is in response to Dionne Sear ccy’s article (“Playboy interview reveals naked truth on sex-toy role,” DN, Nov. 15). Kudos to Scarccy for her startling journalistic acumen. She’s truly blown the lid off the Playboy publication. I’m sure I’m not the only DN reader to be bowled over by her discovery that women pose naked in these pages — here all this lime I thought everyone was buying it for the articles. Scarccy’s account took us through the phases of this revelation from the sighting of the naked breasts to her realization that breasts like these will be “ogled by men for weeks.” I would argue that the majority of University of Ncbraska-Lincoln women were hip to this fact before they ever walked through the door, myself included. I didn’t do it because I’m a narcissist; I didn’t do it to get back at my parents for sending me to a parochial high school; I did it because I thought it would be interesting, and I was not wrong. I posed for four pictures, two of which were bathing-suit shots. I didn’t think it out of place when photogra pher David Chan looked at my bikini clad breasts because they were on level with his eyes and that’s his job. Unlike Searcey, I entered the inter view fully prepared to have my exte rior attributes evaluated for publica tion potential at some point. That is, after all, why these people were in town. As far as your feminism is con cerned, knock yourself out being one — go for it. But why do you feel that feminism must be mutually exclusive from expressions of sexuality? Maybe the breasts Searccy saw in suite 1504 were naked because their owner had burned her bra. You arc only a sex toy ifyou allow yoursclfto be one. Maybe the owner of the breasts, and many of the other applicants like me, saw this as a chance to demonstrate our belief that intelligence and sex appeal are not incongruous states, as much as our culture would like us lo believe. The bottom line is, if you’re not comfortable with it, don’t do it; but don’t pigeon-hole those of us who were able to walk away from the experience without Searcey’s appar ent moral turbulence into a category of “non-feminists.” No, I’m sure Chan cares nothing for my intelligence, and neither will the men who buy the issue. Ttie important thing is, I care. Jennifer Barber senior biology -LETTER POLICY The Daily Nebraskan welcomes brief letters to the editor from all readers. Letters will be selected for publi cation on the basis of clarity, origi nality, timeliness and space avail able. The Daily Nebraskan retains the right to edit all material submit ted. Anonymous submissions will not be considered for publication. Let ters should include the author’s name, year in school, major and group affiliation, if any. Requests tc withhold names will not be granted. Submit material to the Daily Ne braskan, 34 Nebraska Union, 1400 R St., Lincoln, Neb. 68588-0448. >ME. ^BUCK^VSTOWTW WKE FECiK. _<r—« JAMES ZANK Shortages threaten planet The cornucopia is often used as a symbol of Thanksgiving. The horn of plenty symbolizes the abundance of food and prosperity, as was recognized by the early Euro pean immigrants to the New World. It is a symbol that is out of date. At the very least, it doesn’t reflect the current situation anywhere on Earth. When the cornucopia was adopted as a symbol of the pilgrims’ prosperity, the world’s population was fewer than 1 billion people. Now, a few centuries later, the world population is about 5.5 billion, and it continues to increase. Where once there seemed to be abundance, there now seems to be shortage. Pros perity has become wanting in many parts of the world and in our own country. The plentiful resources found centuries ago still arc being used today. But these resources arc finite and will not support unlimited growth. There arc simply too many humans for this planet to support, and the number of humans is increasing. The truly frightening aspect is that no matter how much we recycle or develop alternative forms of energy production, we won’t have solved these problems until our population is at a sustainable level. World population didn’t make it to the I billion mark until about A.D. 1810, but the population doubled by 1927. In the last 64 years, a net total of about 3 billion people has been added to the Earth. Unfortunately, many arc living in impoverished conditions, as there arc too few re sources for far loo many people. As population increases, demands upon the planet’s ability to support life arc equally amplified. As more people arc brought into the world, more food is needed to feed them. More crops arc needed, which require more water, as do the new people and the cattle they will want to cal. More buildings to house the in creased number of people arc needed, as are more resources to clothe them. More energy is needed to transport . these people to their jobs, to light . their homes and to build the cars they drive and the televisions they watch. As the need for energy increases, The truly (tightening. aspect is that no matter how much we recycle or develop alternative (arms <d energy production, we won t have sated these problems until our population is at a sustainable leeeL so do the consequences of energy production. More nuclear power plants mean more nuclear waste. More coal burning plants translate into more air pollution. More cars provide more carbon dioxide to worsen the green house effect. More demands for energy mean more energy expended to mine the coal, lhcluranium to produce the energy. More energy is needed to pump the oil from the ground, to transport it, to refine it and to dispose of its waste products. All of this presumes that there will be additional, currently untapped supplies of these resources. There arc not. Although there arc a variety of predictions, there is growing concern that the earth’s oil supplies arc rap idly dwindling. Supplies of clean, fresh water arc reaching limits, even in the United Stales. California, Arizona and Florida already have water conserva tion programs. It is a popular misconception that the population explosion is confined to undeveloped countries. It’s true that finite resources and population growth hinder a country’s ability to sustain development. But this is true in undeveloped nations and the United States as well. The United States is quickly los ing ground in providing the resources it needs to survive. Oil is one resource on which we are heavily dependent. We divert many economic and politi-f cal resources to maintain our depend- ’ ency on this fossil fuel. We don’t invest very heavily in finding other energy sources, nor do we do anything to bring the demand for oil down. We do next to nothing to solve the basic problem of consumer demand. We allow unlimited growth in the numbers of consumers while remaining dependent on finite goods. Other nations spend far more on family planning than the United States. In the 1980s, Bangladesh spent 3.1 percent of its budget on family plan ning. Yet, with the exception of Ja pan, all industrialized nations have cut their expenditures for family plan ning services. That makes the United States look a little shabby. While we represent a small but growing fraction of the world’s population, we consume a majority of the world’s resources. Still we let our population grow uninhibi ted. Undeveloped counties must com pete with the United States on the world market. A few have seen that part of the key to their solution is to limit growth. They must survive with far fewer resources and limited amounts of technical expertise than what the United Slates squanders. This creates an unfair situation for the undeveloped nations of the world and a dangerous situation for all people. Countries such as Brazil are forced by economic constraints to clear-cut tropical rain forests to help pay debts to Western banks, yet the entire world risks a runaway greenhouse effect from Brazil’s action. The cornucopia is being emptied quickly. Unless humans recognize die limits to growth, the species will be in danger of making itself extinct. £ank is a Junior art and English major, and a Daily Nebraskan columnist. -EDITORIAL POLICY-— L signed stall editorials represent • the official policy of the Fail 1991 i Daily Nebraskan. Policy is set by the I Daily Nebraskan Editorial Board. Its > members are: Jana Pedersen, editor; . Eric Pfanner, editorial page editor; ■ Diane Brayton, managing editor; L Waller Gholson, columnist; Paul Domeier, copy desk chief; Brian bhcllito, cartoonist; Jeremy fitzpa trick, senior reporter. Editorials do not necessarily re flect the views of the university, its employees, the students or the NU Board of Regents. Editorial columns represent the opinion of the author. 1 he Daily Nebraskan spuonsnci* are the regents, who established the UNL Publications Board to super vise the daily production of the pa per. According to policy set by the re gents, responsibility for the editorial content of the newspaper lies solely in the hands of its students.