It provides an indicator (though no more than that) of how messed up (some) people's priorities are.

I discount some of the issues in the poll. I discount the death of the pope because, although it is important for many catholics around the world, the death of an 85 year old man in poor health really does not come into the same category as the others.

The London and Bali bombings are symptoms of the same problem and whilst they were horrific I don't belive they were the most important thing in the world this year.

There is a case to be made for global warming being the biggest crisis we face but that is also in a different category. Avian Flu is in a "what might happen" rather than "what has happened" or "what is happening" category, so that is removed.

I want to have a look at the financial response to the three big natural disasters. I believe it shows just how out of step the world reaction is...

For the tsunami relief fund the worldwide total was around $12 billion. As well as the 200,000 to 250,000 deaths, around 1.5 million people were made homeless.

For the Pakistan earthquake total donations are around £5 billion so far (figures from Reuters). There are reportedly more than 73,000 dead but the worst is yet to come with up to 3 million made homeless and facing a brutal winter. This could get a lot worse. I have just noticed it is not in my opinion poll and I am ashamed at myself for leaving it out.

For New Orleans the total spend could be up to $200 billion. The people affected by the Hurricane will most likely not see much of this. A large corporate friendly redesign of New Orleans looks to be on the cards. Big companies will be getting big contracts and people will be getting the shitty end of the stick again. Whilst the hurricane disaster was horrible it comes nowhere near the scale of the other two. It also showed the either the ineptitude or sheer indifference of certain elements of the US government when it came to dealing with something like this.

Some groups claimed that the tsunami aid mainly went to the richest people.

Corporations grabbing for money anywhere they can get it is nothing new. The only people to come out of the Iraq war well are the major corporations and private security contractors (that we also saw running around in New Orleans).

The most major crisis right now is in Pakistan. This is where people will DEFINITELY die soon if nothing more is done. Why has the response to the situation in Pakistan been so muted?

Is it racism? Possibly. There were some vile letters in the UK press and people on radio explaining that although they had given money to the tsunami they did not want to give money to Pakistan in case they were inadvertently funding terrorism. As sickening as this nonsense was it surely couldn't have accounted for more than a few people.

Is it lack of government money? Yes and no. The UK government has given more (as a percentage) of the aid raised for Pakistan than it did for the tsunami.

I can only think that it is because people are not as aware of what is going on there as they were with the tsunami and with Hurricane Katrina. It just doesn't get the press coverage it needs. If you want to give some money to the relief fund then my friend from the area tells me that these are the better organisations...

Islamic relief - www.islamic-relief.com, The Shaukat Khanum Memorial Trust - www.shaukatkhanum.org.pk/donate.htm and the Edhi Welfare Trust www.edhi.gwat.net/

The hurt caused by these disasters will not be cured by money, but some of the wounds, starvation and homelessness can.

The second point is an important point philosophically and spiritually but the question is...would we know we were looking at life even if it was right in front of us? Think how long it took us to work out gravity, or that light moves. Life elsewhere is likely to be so different that we wouldn't know it even if we were looking at it. It is also very hard to define exactly what is life and what isn't....

If you think about it, a collection that includes a fruit fly and Richard Dawkins and the Great Barrier Reef is an awkward set of objects to try and compare. When we try and figure out what the rules are that we are looking for, trying to find a rule that's self-evidently true, that turns out to be very, very hard. Is [life] something, to coin someone's earlier phrase, that'll go squish if you step on it? (Douglas Adams)

It is also likely to be so far away that it could never get here. Even if it could get here, if your house is in a disgraceful condition do you invite visitors?

The answer to the third point is that it is highly unlikely we would see an incoming asteroid (until it was too late) or be able to stop if it was (unless Bruce Willis was on form that day).

As to the fourth reason, it could be argued that people migrated (explored), and still do, with animal herds or to find good arable land - not from any inherent desire to do so.

On the fifth point it is unfortunately the case that technical gains tend to be used for military purposes first before they filter to the public - the military got Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles and spy satellites, the public got Velcro and Teflon. Is the trade off really worth it?

The exorbitant costs of the space program just aren't justifiable at the moment. Especially given that a lot of space missions don't work. $300 million dollars was wasted in one venture because the European made components were designed to work in kilometres and the American components were designed to work in miles. There are other things to be investing our resources in. I think everyone knows what they are.

That's the Humanistic part of it.

Now the militarisation part.

NASA administrator Sean O'Keefe- everything NASA does from now on will be "dual use" (meaning it will serve both military and civilian purposes) has said, "propulsion power generation advances that are so critical to the purposes of achieving our exploration and discovery objectives are the same technologies that national security seeks to utilize." It has long been claimed by the Pentagon that they will require nuclear reactors in space to power space-based weapons.[i]

A fleet of space planes will be designed to attack and destroy future satellites of enemies and rivals. A prototype is expected by 2005 with deployment envisioned around 2014.

In other words, with total domination of space instant annihilation of any state that gets out of line is possible. Stopping short of destruction, communications can be disrupted to ensure domination of the airwaves and then we can all watch reruns of Star Trek.

Lets not just call for an end to the militarisation of space. Let's try to stop anything that doesn't have a direct and immediate effect in pulling half of the world’s people out of poverty.

Once we have done that, then we can get round to "explor[ing] space, together, both inner and outer, forever, in peace."

Oh, we would finally be able to get rid of shitty satellite TV channels too.


[i] Iraq War Emboldens Bush Space plans - Bruce Gagnon, http://www.counterpunch.org/gagnon08082003.html