The daily Nebraskan. ([Lincoln, Neb.) 1901-current, November 18, 1991, Page 4, Image 4

Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page. It is also available as plain text as well as XML.

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
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.
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
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
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
The Daily Nebraskan welcomes
brief letters to the editor from all
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
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.
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
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
All of this presumes that there will
be additional, currently untapped
supplies of these resources. There arc
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
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.
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
According to policy set by the re
gents, responsibility for the editorial
content of the newspaper lies solely
in the hands of its students.