Dear Space Community, Welcome to the Dip

Last updated: July 8th, 2009

I was wandering about my local library when I stumbled across Seth Godin's The Dip. I love Seth Godin's blog, so I had to read this book. There is only one word to describe The Dip : enlightening. As I was reading it, questions started to flood my mind. Is the space program mediocre? Can anything on the cutting edge be mediocre? Should we give up on a mediocre space program? What would you define as a mediocre space program? What would you define as a exceptional space program? Was Apollo only beginner's luck; something bound to happen because is was humanity's first trip to the moon? Is this the worst period of the space age? Is the space movement suffering from a temporary setback that we will overcome if we keep pushing?

This post is my attempt to answer these question. Also, my head will roll because of this post. I want to create a discussion and the space community needs to hear this.

Apollo was beginner's luck. The public was stunned by entering the space age, it was new, it was fresh and it generated support because of this. Fear accelerated and fueled Apollo. During the time of Apollo, you where nearly a traitor if you didn't support NASA.The public fully supported space because of those reasons.

Apollo existed in a time where the motivations for space where different. Times have changed.

CNN has a segment called The Cafferty File where views give their comments on questions Jack Cafferty asks. The best comments are then read on air. On July 6, 2009, Mr. Cafferty asked "In light of the ballooning National Debt, what priority should the U.S. space program have?". The pro-space comments where very good and concise, all far better then my comment. But, the anti-space comments where interesting. Check them out here. Those comments can be summed up with the following statement: "the space program is a waste of money". The space program seems to be the scapegoat for the recession. What once inspired is now hated. That's not the end to the public opinion hole we have dug ourselves into. The National Space Society says, in regards to barriers to space habitation,

The general public is rapidly losing interest in space development: (1) because the pace of space development is frustratingly slow, especially when compared to incredibly fast pace of the home computer revolution; (2) because NASA is forced by taxpayer watchdogs to portray human space activities in the most boring manner; (3) because the real and exaggerated perceived risks of outer space frightens them; and (4) because little activity, planning, and public discussion occurs regarding private trips into space. ~NSS

“The dip is the long stretch between beginner's luck and real accomplishment” (Godin 18). Welcome to the dip, the time will be between Apollo and the next moon landings will be painful. Apollo was humanity's beginner's luck in space, welcome to the real space experience, humanity. Welcome to a frontier the demands a sustainable reason to explore. We can't even go to the moon based on fear, nationalism and new experiences. Commercial space will be a real accomplishment. An international effort in space will be a real accomplishment.

Trenches of Public Opinion

We might be breaking a few laws of physics because of how deep this hole is. But, I think Seth Godin's book gives us the reason behind this. “It's called Zipf's law, and it applies to resumes and college application rates and best-selling records and everything in between. Winners win big because the marketplace loves a winner” (Godin 7). Space habitation is in second place in terms of public support for a vision of the future. First place goes to human extinction. I need to do a study to prove this claim, but, from what I over heard in the halls of my classroom, more students are worrying about, thinking about and imagining the world ending on December 12, 2012 then students considering a future where space is settled. The 2012 "movement" is taking what should be our supporters.

But, in a way, the 2012 "movement" is the best vision of the future. "The consumer get[s] to decide [the best vision of the future], not [us]" (Godin 11). This is a problem because "now there are a million micromarkets, but each micromarket still has a best" vision of the future (Godin 11). The space movement is a micromarket, a market that is well saturated. There are a ton of micromarkets that we haven't touched. For example, I need to run a another study to prove my point, but, I think people are more likely to support the 2012 "movement" then the space movement because the bible portrays human extinction; there is no mention of space habitation in the bible. This is regardless of religion. NASA can not give out press releases and hope convince the public. We, the grunts of the space movement, have to go into as many micromarkets as possible and convince each one. We must become the best vision of space for each group of people on this planet. NASA can not convince our friends, we must convince our friends because we can only craft a message the appeals to the values held by each micromarket.

Reinventing a Movement

So many in the space movement are telling the public that we can not quit on space. But, “the opposite of quitting isn't waiting around. No, the opposite of quitting is rededication. The opposite of quitting is an invigorated new strategy designed to break the problem apart” (Godin 51). What I'm suggesting is scraping most, if not all of our strategy, and reinventing it without the influence of Apollo because Apollo was a fluke. In other words, the mindset that brought us to the moon will not bring us to the moon again.

Reactions

So, I stuck my neck out by posting this. I'm struggling with those questions I posted at the beginning. Was Apollo really a fluke? Can we get past the decline in public opinion? Should we reinvent the movement? Feel free to flame me.

Sources

Godin, Seth. The Dip. New York, Penguin Group, 2007.

Photo by adamhenning

SPC #7: Maslow Windows

Welcome to the Sunday Paper Club. Every Sunday, this blog will offer analysis of a paper on space habitation and other related topics. These are my opinions on a weekly scientific paper. They are subject to my perspectives and believes. I am open to debate, so if any reader believes I have misinterpreted something in a paper, please point it out. I'm only a student and I'm still learning how to read these papers and interpret them. All quotes are from the paper unless otherwise noted. All papers I review are available for free online.

This week we are reviewing the paper 21st Century Waves: Forecasting Technology Booms and Human Expansion Into the Cosmos.

Photo by Grant MacDonald

One of my favorite rebuttals for economic arguments against space habitation is the Maslow Window theory. However, when I asked a question on the blog Ask Me Anything, I found myself unable to explain this theory in depth. If I am going to continue to use this theory to support the space habitation argument, I must at least read the paper.

Basically, Maslow Windows are economic time periods that are similar to the 1960s, the height of the space race. Every major event in human history tends to be clustered in 56 year bursts. This theory suggests that economic booms are the driving force behind history's biggest wars and finest engineering projects.

An optimistic society is a more productive one. During times of economic prosperity, the people of the world tend to be happier. If they are happier they are more productive, plus they have the time and resources to dream. I can tell you right now, no major progress in space will be made during this recession. In my opinion, humanity is focused on the negative; we are a pessimistic society. I see extreme movements with negative opinions of the future, like the 2012 movement, forming and growing. If we think humanity is on a downward slide to it's doom, if we think that we will never return to the good old days, then we will not have the will to better ourselves.

I feel, right now, only the most passionate people are in the space field. You can only find people who where born to work in this field, supporting and funding this field. The general public simply doesn't care about space anymore. Dreams of space cities are crazy when your in a world stocking up emergency supplies for a end of the world date which was born out of fear for the future.

It is possible that this recession, a time where the space field is in danger, was born out of the lack of hope in the future. If you thought everything was going downhill, you would roll up into a ball and pull all your money into gold. Look at the news, just looking at this small sample of human event, it is very reasonable to conclude that we are all doomed. But, if you where to look at each industry, each area of human life in depth, there is reason for hope. "The critical factor is our belief about what's going to happen to us".

"Rene Dubos [said] [t]he most distressing thing about the modern world is not the gravity of its problems...it is the dampening of the human spirit...[o]ut very survival as a species depends on hope". I agree with and have first hand experience with this statement. I'm graduating from high school on Monday, yet the morale of my high school's class of 2009 is at an all-time low. My class has a sense of impeding doom; the child-free movement is strong in my class, 2012 is a favorite topic. My class does not have the ambition and passion and all the other characteristics of youth that a fresh, 18 year old, high school graduate should have. Let me give you an example, this is a discussion thread on Facebook. The names have been blacked out for legal reasons. My real name is Daniel Sims.

I see comments like this all the time. We are the youth and we are hopeless. Space dreams can not survive if they can't even seek refugee in our youth. The human spirit is crushed and with it, dreams of space. The Internet might be a factor in triggering the mindset change needed for space habitation. With the Internet, bigger audiences then ever are reachable. One person can try and comfort someone with a dark mind. The great events that happened today are easier to find.

Something I found interesting was the description of a Macro-engineering project: "although sometimes practical in purpose, they are often aimed at satisfying intangible needs of a spiritual or psychological nature and are highly inspiring". A mass space habitation project would be enough to push my classmates out of the dark frame of mind. Since it is a need, maybe, as we get darker, the support for any inspiration will grow. Just like how people start wanting to eat anything as they get hungry.

Maslow windows also call attention to the need for humanity to stop fighting each other. Maslow windows are often shattered by war. The reason we are not in an infinite time of abundance is because of the destruction war brings. "To a visitor from Mars, it must have appeared that the Western world in 1914 was on the brink of Utopia". WW1 brought us away from that joyous brink. Something that is stopping NASA from getting more funding is the Iraq war; if we weren't in Iraq, we might have more money for dreams.

Maslow windows are triggered by great technological developments. If someone where to develop a very cheap rocket, then humanity would less economic reasons not to go, and more reasons to go to space. Which we need to have because if we do not establish space habitations by 2025, according the the theory, we will have to wait till 2081.

Brothers of Fear?

I hope the 2012 "movement" and the space habitation movement are not brothers of fear.

Illustration by Bearman2007

 

The two movements are oddly similar. The 2012 movement's mind, heart and spirit are formed from human extinction and fear. While our movement has it's kidney, esophagus, and leg bones made from human extinction and fear. The difference is we would only be crippled if human extinction wasn't a problem. The 2012 movement would not exist if there where no threats to our survival. We still have other reasons to have a space colony. But, there is something else that makes us different. I wrote this for one of my English essays...

Logic is not the answer to the question that plagues the mind of every generation who hold the fate of the next solely in their hands: "how do we make this world better for the next wave of life". No, logic cannot come close to answering that, only passion and faith can, for logic is based entirely on the status quo. When logic looks out it's window it observes and draws conclusions off what exists today; when passion looks out, it dreams and schemes and fights with it's eye focused on a better tomorrow, a tomorrow where nothing today would suggest such a happy fate. No, looking at today can only lead to a conclusion of misery.

~ Passion Cubed Times Logic Equals Motivation by Daniel Sims

We answer that question which is on the mind of every generation, the 2012 movement does not. Which might make the 2012 movement more "logical", but we are more human. Consider today, everything you saw and read, very little indicates we will have a space habitation, what does support space habitation is overwhelmed by all the counter evidence that was produced today. But, we scheme, we dream and we fight. We are focused on a better tomorrow. We do not make the conclusion that humanity is lost, we fight. Sure, we are slightly illogical since we are scheming and making assumptions, but I can not conclude that humanity is lost and doomed. I can't explain how I feel, but even with all these indicators that humans are evil, I still feel humanity is pure and good. Yes, if I where to look at today's news events I would have to conclude humanity will die, I can not. I am not a computer and that is what the 2012 movement is for, computers and mind controlled humans. I am human and I fight for a better tomorrow even when it's impossible.

Yes, the two movements are brothers of fear but we do not have the same goal in life. The 2012 movement will leave the world in ruin and create suffering, this movement will at least give people hope. But still, I struggle with this human extinction part of the space habitation argument. I need help to solve this problem and find where it fits.

Fear in Space Habitation Pt. 4

Fear will cause this movement to burn out.

Photo by hiromy

I love blogging, after writing a post I feel inspired. Like I really changed the world and effect someone. I feel my passion and love for space habitation in every click on my keyboard. But there have been exceptions. Posts that take the following form are exhausting: "ZOMG! We're all going to die, build a space colony. bsbifbuigrbusbuogsevYgvbuiop" After writing a post like this I feel bad, I have self doubt afterwards and feel anxious. I don't have that glorious feeling that I usually get after writing a normal, sane post. After writing a "ZOMG" post I feel like flopping on the bed and sleeping. After writing a really thought out, scientific and thoughtful post I feel like running a marathon. I hate writing posts based I fear but I have done them because it's easy. I can stand on my soapbox here and rant about human extinction without doing any research or checking my logic, even poor grammar and spelling helps a ranty argument. But those post or not my best work, those types of post get the least attention and none of them have comments.

 

My Stat teacher will hate me for generalizing a sample of one person to the world's population, but I feel my experience with delivering posts of fear can be applied the everyone. People sharing the idea of space habitation and explaining why we should have a space habitat will get sick of the draining activity of arguing without the glorious feeling that a logical argument gives the presenter. This will cause a fear based movement, no matter how much support it starts with, to die. I even see this in the 2012 "movement", I haven't seen or heard much of it. I use to get spam e-mails on this, the 2nd best blog on this idea hasn't updated since March 6th, I really think the whole 2012 thing is dying and so will the space habitation movement if we use fear. 

Fear in Space Habitation Pt. 1

I've noticed I've been posting alot on human extinction and I'm using that argument as my flag ship argument. That worries me. Fear has been studied and is generally considered a bad motivator. But, we can use fear in a moral and appropriate matter

"Collective fear stimulates herd instinct, and tends to produce ferocity toward those who are not regarded as members of the herd." ~ Bertrand Russell

I worry about those opposed to space habitation. When I use human extinction as an argument, I tap into people's fears and their fears about their children. The emotional response will be huge. People who I have convinced with the human extinction argument will target those opposed to space habitation as treats to themselves as their children. I don't want to cause someone's life to be ruined because of an idea.

"There is nothing to fear except the persistent refusal to find out the truth, the persistent refusal to analyze the causes of happenings." ~ Dorothy Thompson

People who support space habitation out of fear will not critically look at what he supports. If space habitation is completely disprove, fear will not allow a person to give up. Maybe there are other ways to prevent human extinction and I believe all space habitation supporters must be open minded, but if I use fear I could close the mind of anyone who follows me.

"You gain strength, courage, and confidence by every experience in which you really stop to look fear in the face. You must do the thing which you think you cannot do." ~ Eleanor Roosevelt

But, humanity really looking into the face of it's own mortally may help us deal with other times when we do not have a threat. Thinking about humanity dying off is scary, we have trouble thinking about our own deaths, but the thought of no one experiencing life is horrifying. Really take a breath in and imagine that was the last breath that will every be drawn in this universe. But, if we pull of what ever macro-engineering project that will ensure our survival, we will come out of this scary time a stronger and more confident species. Maybe talking about human extinction will make us stronger.

Fear is an emotion indispensable for survival. ~ Hannah Arendt

This is human however, this is what made us live till today. Fear is what caused the creep of technological advancement. Everything we do has a taint of fear in it. Going to school can be supported with fear of poverty, partying may be done out of fear of loneness and having a relationship may be done out of fear of missing something in life. Everything we do has fear and space habitation, consuming a large amount of resources will also consume alot of human emotion.   

Tell your heart that the fear of suffering is worse than the suffering itself. And no heart has ever suffered when it goes in search of its dream.- Paulo Coelho

However, we are already worrying about it. The 2012 fear wave is already causing alot of suffering. Maybe, since we are all ready started to have fear about human extinction, we can focus on some project, some dream and decrease the suffering. Because people running around in circles screaming "the sky is falling" is worse then supporting a dream with some fear. I rather have a rush to build a space colony then riots.

I have to consider this more, please, if you think I use fear too much, tell me.

Using 2012... It's so Tempting

December 12, 2012, 11:11 GMT (+ 100^n google hits) is a day that has the general public shaking in it's boots. However, the scientific community has disproved this theory many times over. Unfortunately, as the blog, Astroengine, points out, fear sells and this trait of fear will defeat any reasoned scientific approach. We “got it wrong, debunking the doomsayers who are doing this for financial gain are not concerned whether their evidence adds up, they are using one tool that [we] cannot influence. Fear” (Astroengine 1).


The reason this idea has lived on for so long is because it “draws on the hysteria behind the possibility of mass death and destruction... No amount of science articles or reasoning or logic can fight off the air of fear that surrounds the question 'What if?'” and people make money off this (Astroengine 2). It seems to a losing battle and as the saying goes, when you can't beat them, join them. But, in this case, I'm not sure following that long held saying is the right idea.


In the face of such odds it is very tempting to join the dark side. I could write a blog post titled (*takes safety off caps lock key of death*)“ZOMG, THE WORLD IS GOING TO END, WE NEED TO MOVE TO MARS, NOW!!!!!!! 50*10^200 exclamation marks” and convince a lot of people just by mentioning 2012 and using the fear that is generated by the echo chamber of blogs and social media sites. I would have to cite one source, I would not have to check facts, I think I could even get away with not checking spelling and grammar which such a post. It is all too easy to sell something by using fear.


But, alas, it will not benefit the space community to use this argument. When this date pasts with no huge events, then the space community will be caught with it's pants down. Those who made many by selling books based on poor logic will seem like someone with a parking ticket when compared to a group that has betrayed the public trust and used tax dollars, all gained through fear. We can not use this tactic; Yes, using 2012 to promote space habitation is tempting and would be effective in the short term, in the long term we would lose the public support space endeavors enjoy today. We must do everything we can to remain on moral high ground; we can never use 2012 to prove the need for space ventures.


1 and 2: Ian O'Neill. Astroengine: No Doomsday in 2012: The Reason Why Science Will Not Win [Internet]. 22 June, 2008 – [cited 9 March, 2009]. Available from: http://www.astroengine.com/?p=305