Space Force! Necessity or Inanity

Jun 21, 2018

TAA 0025 – C. Travis Webb, Seph Rodney, and Steven Fullwood discuss Trump’s announcement of a space force. While many pundits spent the week laughing, the show considers the rough and tumble arena of international politics, and asks whether it’s crazy to consider the possibility “politics by other means” will continue unabated in space.

C.T. WEBB 00:18 Good afternoon, good morning, or good evening, and welcome to the American Age podcast. We have a full house today. Steven and Seph are both with me. How you guys doing?
S. FULLWOOD 00:25 Pretty good, how are you?
S. RODNEY 00:27 Yeah, I can’t complain.
C.T. WEBB 00:29 So, Seph was just telling me that it’s very hot in New York, humid, of course, because it’s the summer there, so– And here in Southern California, it’s not too bad. Actually, for June, it’s fantastic. It’s mid 70s. It’s usually getting hotter by now. So I feel for you guys.
S. RODNEY 00:48 I’m getting used to it.
C.T. WEBB 00:49 Are you?
S. RODNEY 00:50 Yeah, because I don’t want air conditioning in my house this summer. I know that might be suicide, but I don’t like air conditioning. I can’t sleep well. So I’m just going to try it and see how it works out. Yeah, just fans.
S. FULLWOOD 01:03 Okay, you have a fan. Okay, good. Alright [crosstalk].
C.T. WEBB 01:05 So what about–
S. FULLWOOD 01:05 Mm-hmm?
C.T. WEBB 01:06 What about the air conditioning do you not like? Is it the luxury and comfort of air conditioned air?
S. FULLWOOD 01:15 Hilarious. What is it that you don’t like about good things? That’s what you just said.
C.T. WEBB 01:20 That’s right. That’s right.
S. FULLWOOD 01:22 So, I think it connects me to my youth when, you know, in our bedroom, we had a fan. And it just felt like it was enough. Even though it was hot and I was a kid, so I was trying to figure out why I like it so much. And I didn’t get very far, but I just don’t mind heat. I don’t mind heat.
C.T. WEBB 01:39 Yeah, my German relatives– Seph and I were kind of gabbing about this a little bit before– but my German relatives straight up make fun of me, because most people in Germany do not have air conditioning. Even if you’re like middle class, you don’t have air conditioning. You just live– and it gets humid there. I mean, similar probably to New York.
S. RODNEY 01:56 But they live with the windows open. They just– Everything’s open.
C.T. WEBB 02:01 Yeah, yeah. That’s definitely true.
S. RODNEY 02:02 Yeah, sure.
C.T. WEBB 02:04 So, today’s topic was spurred by Donald Trump’s announcement that he was ordering the creation of a space force. And the topic of conversation is not going to be about Trump and his space force, or at least I hope not. It’s going to be about the idea of militarizing space exploration or space sort of productivity, right, sort of moving out into the cosmos, the idea that the military should have some piece of that. So, Seph or Steven, do one of you want to lead us into–
S. FULLWOOD 02:46 Seph, please. Seph, go right ahead.
C.T. WEBB 02:46 –what you think about that idea, or–?
S. FULLWOOD 02:48 Seph, go right ahead.
S. RODNEY 02:50 Oh man. I actually have to say, listen, since I just– I plead skepticism/ignorance. I don’t think that I know enough about the topic from the position of logistics of actual how this would be done, and what then would be the sort of purview of such a force. And what would be its responsibilities, and in what ways would that force be an extension of or in addition to existing agreements, protocols, vis a vis nation states sharing or compartmentalizing natural resources? I just don’t get it. I don’t understand how that would work.
C.T. WEBB 03:53 Okay, I’ll let Steven jump in and I don’t have an answer to, I don’t think, to 90% of that. But I’m happy to talk about it.
S. FULLWOOD 04:04 So I think the first thing is is that it sort of makes me think of how I love space exploration, but that there was a– I think it was Kristen Wiig was on Jimmy Kimmel, and he was asking her about Star Wars. And she goes, “I’m just against any war out in space.” And I remember– And years ago, I remember people asking me, “Why don’t you like Star Wars?” And I was like, “Because I’m against any war in space.” I just felt like, oh it feels so silly to me. And at the same time it has consequences, and it’s very weighty, and what Seph said about agreements, and– hacking– people hacking different kinds of things. Like what kind of control would they have? I was reading an article today that said the military would have– This part of the military would obviously focus 100% on space. But I was just like, well what does that mean? I mean, are they look– I’m really anxious to hear what you have to say, Travis, because I feel like it’s a distraction in terms of Trump himself. And I know that you didn’t want to talk about Trump. I just want to say it feels like a distraction.
C.T. WEBB 05:12 I think it’s a fair point.
S. FULLWOOD 05:12 Because legal was and from– Even though I didn’t mention earlier– He did mention earlier, he mentioned, I think, back in October, about it. But go right ahead, I just can’t wait to hear what you have to say, because it’ll help me get my mind going on it.
C.T. WEBB 05:24 Alright, so I don’t– What I have to say doesn’t refute that I think it’s probably a distraction from the various scandals in this presidency or diplomatic problems. So, I think it probably is a distraction. I think a couple of things. One—so you talked about Star Wars—so even in the most idealistic version of our future, which is Star Trek over Star Wars—so, right, you’re trekking instead of warring or whatever– Even then the enterprise had photon torpedoes and phasers and shields and the inseparability of aggression and predatory tendencies amongst humans and, in Star Trek, interspecies aggression, I think, cannot—And I’m not talking about aliens, alright, I’m talking completely about human beings.
S. FULLWOOD 06:31 Plain old humans.
C.T. WEBB 06:31 I think the thought that other nation states in other perhaps eventually private corporations would not aggressively– and, by aggressively, I mean with armaments and with aggressive physical postures– move into that medium, I think is naive. I think the entire history of the human race has been about this sort of– the sharpening of– It’s the sharpening of the stick, right? You date cultures, you date prehistoric cultures by their sophistication of their tools which are around skinning and murder. And so I’m not saying that I’m in favor of murdering people. I am saying that there is a kind of attenuation and clarity that comes from that type of crisis, of violence, and that sort of– Oh, Seph wants to jump in. Go.
S. RODNEY 07:36 Well, I’m going to take issue with the picture you’ve painted of our path, the fundamental idea of which is that, essentially what makes us sophisticated beings and what makes us survive is that we form tools of essentially of violence, of war. And I want to say that’s only part of the picture, because I bet a lot of those tools that we found are tools for making homes, for making spaces for ourselves to inhabit.
C.T. WEBB 08:18 That seems fair.
S. RODNEY 08:19 Right?
C.T. WEBB 08:20 Yeah. That’s fair.
S. RODNEY 08:21 So, you’re right. There’s definitely tools for murder and human to human aggression, but also– And I’m not an animal rights activist, so I actually would not use this term to describe animal killing, but to kill animals, to feed ourselves. I would venture to guess, and I’m not an archaeologist, so– stipulation, caveat– but I imagine a lot of what we’ve found has a lot to do too with developing ways to till the soil, to make spaces that we can inhabit,
C.T. WEBB 09:05 Lately.
S. RODNEY 09:06 and– Yes, I know, the tilling of the soil came later. I know that. We were nomadic first and we like figure– That’s a fact. That’s how we began the stage of our sort of evolution that we call “civilization” is when we actually stopped moving around, started working the land, and started creating hamlets, towns, and cities, la la la la la. Okay, I’m with you on that.
S. FULLWOOD 09:30 So you’re talking about survival.
S. RODNEY 09:32 Right. And this actually comes back to the point of this whole Star Wars– What’s a charitable word for this?
C.T. WEBB 09:41 Are we [crosstalk] the space force?
S. RODNEY 09:44 No, boondoggle? Fantasy? Is that we are emphasizing the aspect of us, of humankind, that is about aggression, that is about parsling out the land, the territory we inhabit, and saying this is mine, this is yours, this is not yours. And I find that entire line of thinking really blinkered, and ever so slightly stupid.
C.T. WEBB 10:19 So, okay, so I– I want to ask a question for Steven and for you, Seph. So I’m with you on a lot of certainly the nuance. The stupid part I think is not fair, because– And I would go back to the earlier question that I had posited. Do you think that other nation states and other organizations, as our social evolution progresses, do you think that they are also going to be self-conscious about taking weapons of war or taking aggressive measures in space? Do you think if we play the good federation peacenik approach to space, do you think that others who have competing wants and competing desires will do the same thing?
S. RODNEY 11:16 Right, and I want to pose this to both of you– I’m going to turn it around on you. I’m going to say, what– or rather, are you comfortable with making decisions about how to behave based on your projections of how other people will behave?
C.T. WEBB 11:41 I, in fact, am. But I’m going to let Steven jump in.
S. FULLWOOD 11:47 Wow, oh, so– Okay, let the hippie jump in. There’s this–
C.T. WEBB 11:53 Come to my side on this. Come on. Hippies can be violent.
S. FULLWOOD 11:58 Hippies can be violent. I think, so there is a wonderful documentary by Manthia Diawara. I’m not sure if I’ve mentioned it on this program before, but the opera, the documentary is called An Opera for the World. And one of the talking heads, in that documentary– It’s a story about migration and you’re looking at Malian immigrants, but you’re also looking at immigrants coming to the U.S. in the 20s, 30s, and 40s, and all these different kinds of immigration, right. And one of the talking heads said that what we have here is people who transgress boundaries are the people of the future and the people who want to maintain these walls are of the past. And I thought that was really an amazing and hopeful way of considering that. And I’m kind of with you, in a way, Travis, but I’m also kind of like my imagination won’t allow me to stay with we have to protect ourselves, because I keep thinking that the world’s going to change, but it’s just going to be a hard change. But I do think that the border thing is so old and so terrible and has done nothing but privileged two or three people and really minimized what people can even imagine as a kind of freedom or a peace. So that’s where I’m at with this at the moment.
S. RODNEY 13:23 And I want to follow up on that. Thank you, Steven, for that, for stating it in such a pithy and profound way. It’s the idea that I’m sort of been nibbling at for the last five minutes, which is I’m not comfortable– I don’t think it puts me in a position to be an intelligent, moral actor to base my actions on what other people are potentially going to do. I just don’t think that’s a place– And I know what you’re going to say. It’s like yea, but that’s okay, you’ll be like an intelligent, moral, dead fucking actor, right? That’s what you’re gong to say, right?
S. FULLWOOD 14:08 Well, what kind of life are you living if you’re living that life, though?
C.T. WEBB 14:08 I was probably not going to go that far with it, but some version of that, yeah.
S. RODNEY 14:15 Right. So you’re saying I’m naive.
C.T. WEBB 14:18 No, I’m not. I would never use that to describe you, actually, because I don’t think you are naive. And the only thing that I would say is that what the– the criticism that you’re leveling against the position that I’m taking– I don’t think the full implications of that are being brought out in the argument, because there’s no other way for us to act but based on what we think other human beings are going to do.
S. FULLWOOD 14:55 But there is, though. But there is, though, Travis.
C.T. WEBB 14:57 No, but you can have faith in that other human beings are going to behave towards you in a kind and gentle, respectful way. But you are ascribing intentions to other people always, all the time. You can’t act in a world of strangers without that.
S. RODNEY 15:19 Well what about just going on what they’ve done before? Just going on the evidence?
C.T. WEBB 15:25 Well, okay, so what–
S. FULLWOOD 15:26 I’m kind of saying the same thing, though, right?
C.T. WEBB 15:28 I’m sorry, go ahead. No, Steven, go ahead, please.
S. FULLWOOD 15:29 No, briefly, I thought that you were saying, Seph, something similar to what Travis was saying in terms of– based on some kind of evidence. And where I thought you were going was it doesn’t matter how they respond to you or what you think they’re going to respond to you but that you– I push against faith, and I say that you just have a center. You just have a center, you have a moral center where you go, “I’m not going to do that. I’m going to do this.”
C.T. WEBB 15:55 So, that’s sort of a radical sort of agape Christian ethic, this idea of turning the other cheek, right?
S. FULLWOOD 16:04 No, no, no, no– I’m not saying that.
C.T. WEBB 16:07 Wait, wait, wait, wait. I’m using that as a short hand. So if you’re saying that you can move through the world in a generous way, regardless of the venality that is thrown at you, the aggression that is thrown at you. I’m saying that that is a kind of other-worldliness. I used Christian because that’s gong to be more accessible to the people that are listening to the podcast, but that it is a way to not actually be a body in the world in which you are contesting for resources. Right, so like the fact that you can move through the world in that high minded way is only possible because of the long history of war and forced cooperation of strangers. Like the fact that you don’t have to be out on the lamb, because you missed the gazelle hunt– that was driven by war. Because here’s my argument: I hate war. We hate war. We’re pro-social primates. I don’t want to stab or hurt any other person ever. You know sometimes I get really angry or whatever, but I don’t have that. I’m not constituted that way. And in fact, it’s the threat or possibility of violence that forces men and women of good character and good nature to cooperate to push that as far away from us as we can. And so I go back to– again, my question to try and keep it focused, because Seph often critiques us for being too abstract, do either one of you honestly believe– and you may honestly believe this, and it’s possible, like if you’re fully ensconced in a post-colonial ethic, that’s a defensible position– you may honestly believe that if we don’t make an aggressive gesture into the new frontier, as goofy as that sounds, that no other nation state and no other group will do that.
S. RODNEY 18:30 No, I don’t believe that. I think you’re right.
C.T. WEBB 18:32 I don’t either.
S. RODNEY 18:35 Right, but I just feel that– Okay, so I’m going to be hokey for a moment. Part of why I’m talking the way I’m talking is that I actually just saw the film The Arrival.
C.T. WEBB 18:48 Oh yeah it was good.
S. FULLWOOD 18:51 Good film.
S. RODNEY 18:52 Right, and so what that film gave me was a sense that, one, Travis, you’re kind of right in that the sort of violent demarcation of available resources is a constant for us. This is what we do. And even when we’re faced with a civilization, and we have contact with them, and they are clearly way more technologically sophisticated than we are, like they can suspend gravity–
C.T. WEBB 19:25 We’re still going to try and blow them up.
S. RODNEY 19:26 Right.
C.T. WEBB 19:28 But–
S. RODNEY 19:28 And then you have to go back in time to convince the Chinese to help you not screw up the entire human race.
C.T. WEBB 19:35 Right, right.
S. FULLWOOD 19:38 So they’re trying to do both things here. They’re trying to give Amy Adam’s character the opportunity to try to figure out what they want and what they’re trying to do. Right. But then they get that tick, that nervous tick. You know, we need to do something, we need to do something, and communication breaks down. When I watched the film, I said, “This is really a great film. It was marketed totally awful, because it really didnt– it couldn’t get people around this idea of language being circular and timeless, and– It was actually quite beautiful. I want to watch it again.
S. RODNEY 20:13 Right. Me too.
S. FULLWOOD 20:14 But I think it’s the imagination. I go back to imagination a lot. Can we conceive of a place where aggression is not our first go to. Can we conceive of that? And I think– I’m aware of what Travis and what Seph, both of you, you know history, people just– this is mine, this is our space, this is what we’re doing. We’re going to protect ourselves. Those good people that you talk about, Travis, who are willing to push it as far or to agree with aggressive action preemptively, I think it’s because they are– it’s more than just having a lack of imagination. It’s just that they totally bought into that there’s no other way to live in this world.
S. RODNEY 20:56 Precisely. Precisely.
C.T. WEBB 20:58 Yeah, I mean one area in which I definitely am soft on as far as my position goes– If I’m holding to the idea that there is some kind of social evolution and increased cooperation amongst strangers, which reduced violence– This is Steven Pinker’s argument, which actually I think is problematic, and some people have seriously pushed back, Scott Atran among them, who is a pretty well-known anthropologist, which we can talk about some other time. But I am very sympathetic to what you’re suggesting and what Seph’s suggesting also– that past doesn’t have to be– Past can be prologue but the prologue can sort of– can exist in this other part of the book that’s a prelude to a new way of human beings cooperating. This is the dream after World War II, right? This is Eleanor Roosevelt, this is the Declaration of Human Rights. And, man, do I want that to be right. And I don’t mean I want that to be right, I think you guys are wrong. I really do want that to be right. I am very happy to act in the world in which I believe that is right, but I really do fear that it’s naive on my part even– right, I’m not saying that you guys are naive. I’m saying that really we are looking at the last 70 years of relative peace in advanced industrial nations– definitely no peace in Africa, no peace– There’s lots of areas that colonialism tore apart.
S. FULLWOOD 22:47 Have we ever had a moment where there wasn’t war, though?
C.T. WEBB 22:50 No, no, definitely not.
S. FULLWOOD 22:51 Globally? Yeah.
C.T. WEBB 22:52 No, no. Absolutely not. But I mean on the terrifying scale that’s now possible because of our technological sophistication.
S. FULLWOOD 23:00 No, you’re completely correct about that– the terrifying scale. But it’s terrifying period to be pillaged and all that.
C.T. WEBB 23:05 Of course, of course it is. You’re absolu–
S. FULLWOOD 23:06 Yeah, I know you know that. I just want to say that.
C.T. WEBB 23:07 Yeah, you’re right. No, it’s a fair reminder, though, because the way we live is not the way that many people live in the world.
S. FULLWOOD 23:14 Oh freakin absolutely.
C.T. WEBB 23:15 In fact, even maybe the majority. So anyway, so I just want to say I’m very open to the argument that you’re making, but in international relations, I just don’t know that it operates in the way that we’re talking about here.
S. RODNEY 23:31 Okay, fair enough. But maybe we can go in a practical direction. So, practically speaking, who would possibly challenge essentially the dominance of the U.S. portioning of space? Russia? Maybe. China? Maybe. I mean, China’s the sleeping dragon, which is actually kind of starting to wake.
C.T. WEBB 24:00 China would be more likely than Russia, I would think.
S. RODNEY 24:02 Yeah, yeah. Becasue Russia still can’t quite get it’s freakin act together.
C.T. WEBB 24:06 Their GDP is smaller than Italy. I was just reading that. Their GDP is smaller than Italy. Italy.
S. RODNEY 24:10 Wow.
S. FULLWOOD 24:13 Really?
C.T. WEBB 24:14 Italy. Their GDP is smaller than Italy.
S. FULLWOOD 24:18 That doesn’t make any sense.
S. RODNEY 24:19 You know, I think what happened was that– well, I don’t know. I don’t want to even venture to say. But, I want to be confessional for a moment too.
C.T. WEBB 24:28 You were right with what you were– You were about to say collapse of oil, I’m sure, and the price of oil.
S. RODNEY 24:32 No, no, no. I wasn’t going to say any of that. I was just going to say that, practically speaking, who’s going to challenge the U.S. So I’m not even sure that– I mean, to go back to Steven’s point, I’m not even sure that it is anything else besides a distraction and a boondoggle. Because at the point at which that will be something to be concerned about, I’m sure that other geopolitical kerfuffles will have occurred in the interim. But I want to get confessional for a moment too. And I want to say that the– what you kind of hinted at, Travis, at me being willing to move through the world generously, and that privileging my position that we don’t actually have to start from a– We don’t have to imagine that every human interaction will begin and end with aggression– is actually not true. I am actually far more angry and I think devious than you are. And I actually don’t move through the world generously at all. And in fact I’ve seen myself become less and less generous over the past few years. It’s particularly to strangers, and I think part of the reason that I’m taking the position that I am is that I realize how dangerous that is. Because here’s the truth. The truth is that I actually think that in order for us to have a better planet, better social situation in the United States, we need to kill off several hundred people. I really do think so. We need to cut their heads off. Because they’re actually preventing us from having the kind of culture that could be meaningful, that could be generous, that could be thoughtful. I mean, they essentially have wanted to– and a lot of them are political actors–
C.T. WEBB 26:42 Stakeholders.
S. RODNEY 26:43 –yeah, who’ve essentially said we want– and this is my term for it is– we want a kind of dystopia in which the rich are holding the reigns for the social order, for the economic order. And the rest of us will basically have to just get the crumbs that fall from the table. And they’re happy with curtailing any sort of civic spaces for public, for engagement that imagines us outside of that paradigm. They want to curtail that, right. They want to cut it off at the knees. And I just think– It’s really hard for me imagine us getting to a place in this country where people are actually genuinely, for the most part– and I don’t even know if this is ever possible, but I look at Scandinavian countries and I think it might be– where people are more happy than they are angry, they’re more happy than they are despairing. And I think there are a particular class of people who have the will and the power to make sure that we don’t have that. So I’m kind of murderous in my intent. But at the same time, I realize that that’s just not a way to live. It’s not going to work out.
C.T. WEBB 28:22 Right. Steven, do you want to jump in with that?
S. FULLWOOD 28:24 I mean, because he’s confessing and all, I’ve had those thoughts a lot about a certain kind of person or certain kinds of social systems that just need to die
S. RODNEY 28:38 Right. And they need to die out.
S. FULLWOOD 28:40 Die out because they are distracting. Because if I’m too busy worried about my weight or who’s going to love me or– There’s just certain kinds of things that just sort of squeeze and take all of your imaginative time up to think of something different.
C.T. WEBB 28:57 [inaudible] Seph calls them, yep.
S. FULLWOOD 29:00 Yeah, and so, I definitely– I think I’m a little uncomfortable with admitting it, but I’m definitely in that space where I’m like I just don’t see certain kinds of people living for other people or thinking about other people’s meaning. I think right now we’re taught from early age to get what we want, be an individual, la la la. And all this nonsense. And we’ve been taught that forever and we continue to be taught that. And so, with all that air time, I’m going, well, can you undo it? That’s the first thing. I use to think that– could you undo certain kinds of thought patterns and belief systems? And I’m not so sure anymore. And back then I just didn’t know as much as I know now, and I still don’t know a lot, but I used to wonder if there’s a way to do it, there’s got to be a way to undo it. And that un-way might have to be murderous.
C.T. WEBB 29:55 So–
S. FULLWOOD 29:55 And I don’t feel comfortable with that at all.
C.T. WEBB 29:57 I guess sort of the young Buddhist in me would come out in the response to that in that I think the problem isn’t necessarily those handful of hundreds of people. The problem is the way that wealth and security and comfort abjures the reality of our bodies.
S. RODNEY 30:26 Absolutely. Well put.
C.T. WEBB 30:27 And so this is the four noble truths, right, in Buddhism. I mean, I think, the fact that anyone, any group of people that achieve a certain level of comfort and status are going to be invested in guaranteeing and securing that wealth and status and will believe that wealth and status is what provides them with meaning and security, even though in reality there is no security if you have a body. It just– it doesn’t exist. So I would– in your formulations, which of course I understand, like how does Oprah not end up on that list of murdered people? How do Jay-Z and Beyonce not end up on that list of murdered people?
S. RODNEY 31:16 Because they’re billionaires, man.
S. FULLWOOD 31:16 [crosstalk] questions.
C.T. WEBB 31:17 I just– Kanye West? People will slither into those spaces again. And the challenge is always as individuals, as human beings to realize our own individual humanity and the individual humanity in the people that surround us.
S. FULLWOOD 31:39 So you’re talking about a paradigm shift, obviously.
C.T. WEBB 31:42 Of course, obviously.
S. FULLWOOD 31:42 A wave over the country. I mean I hate to say that after that’s been used thousands and gillions of times. A paradigm shift, how about that. A little more humor. Give me some paradigms, some shifting. And so yeah, you’re right. I think that’s one of the main issues is that people will defend a system that’s tearing them apart.
S. RODNEY 32:03 Yeah, yeah, yeah. Absolutely.
S. FULLWOOD 32:04 You know, to the last breath, and that’s really– I mean, I have nothing else to say about it.
S. RODNEY 32:12 Yeah. So, I figure at the end of the day if we decide to move off into space and create a sort of military command that has a responsibility of apportioning space and defending it, it’s just an extension of who we are already. That’s not news. It’s just, okay yeah, we’ve been here, this is– blah, blah, blah. You know, we went into Vietnam, look what we did there. Hey, went into Cambodia, look what we did there. Hey, look at Iraq, look at Iran, didn’t that work out great. Honestly, the U.S. exhausts me. It exhausts me. So, you know.
S. FULLWOOD 32:56 As it should.
C.T. WEBB 32:57 Alright, so that will be the last word. U.S., you have exhausted us. So thank you very much Seph and Steven, for joining me today.
S. RODNEY 33:06 Yes.
S. FULLWOOD 33:07 Thank you.
S. RODNEY 33:07 Thanks, Travis.


First referenced at 11:58

An Opera of the World – A Film by Manthia Diawara

First referenced at 20:58

The Native Mind and the Cultural Construction of Nature 

An analysis of the cognitive consequences of diminished contact with nature examines the relationship between how people think about the natural world and how they act on it, and how these are affected by cultural differences.

First referenced at 20:58

Enlightenment Now

If you think the world is coming to an end, think again: people are living longer, healthier, freer, and happier lives, and while our problems are formidable, the solutions lie in the Enlightenment ideal of using reason and science.


Share This