People like Carl Sagan highlight the need for science evangelists who are good at communicating scientific ideas to the public in terms which are easy to understand. All too often other more dubious kinds of evangelists are far more effective at spreading their propaganda.
I respect Sagan enormously. His works have had a huge impact on who I am as a person. Nevertheless, there's no need to deify him, I think that's the last thing he would have wanted. That being said, I think he would probably not have made a good president.
Even so, his contribution to humanity was tremendous, we are very much diminished by his absence.
I'm interested in what aspects of Sagan you perceive as not being suitable for political leadership?
Not that I want to imply that I think he was suitable (I've never really considered that particular option) - but I do view with dismay what is typically seen as being required to be an effective politician and it is perhaps interesting to consider the alternatives.
I watched it on (black-and-white) over-the-air TV growing up in Argentina at the tail end of the military dictatorship. I'm not exaggerating when I say it changed my life -- and many of my friends' too.
I've had my current Netflix disks far too long. Thanks for the nudge; I haven't been able to finish them because I'm finding I need something genuinely inspiring (and interesting).
If you have a media center, you can also watch Cosmos from Netflix Instant.
ooh, and I also recommend Jacob Bronowski's "The Ascent of Man", which is a little older, but it's a similar concept, with a similarly eloquent presenter, focusing on the history of mankind.
