TED Friday: Global Ethic Vs. National Interest

Every Friday I will watch a Technology Entertainment and Design Conference (TED) talk and apply the ideas in that talk to space habitation.

There is a dilemma every country has to face. What should a nation do when there is a choose between helping themselves and helping the world? Should national interest take priority over global responsibilities?

This was the subject of the TED talk Global Ethic Vs. National Interest an interview with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown hosted by TED Curator Chris Anderson.

The Prime Minister brought up a good point, “I think one of the problems of a recession is that people become more protectionist, they look in on themselves, they try to protect their own nation, perhaps at the expense of other nations”. So, lets assume every nation was spacefaring at the beginning of the recession. It is probable that we would have stopped sharing technology and began a land grab on the moon. Especially as each nation’s space program’s funding was threatened.

However, the Prime Minister brings up another good point, “And any nation that would become protectionist over the next few years would deprive itself of the chance of getting the benefits  of growth in the world economy”. So, in my scenario, when every nation competes with each other, they all loss the accelerated development due to sharing information. They all loss each other’s aid in the event of a disaster. They all loss the power of pooling their resources into one big mission.

See, when we prove that our long term interests are the same, we will work with each other. National interest almost always wins in the short term. Especially when it comes to spending money, but is global responsibility is viewed as an investment, then it’s easy to sacrifice national resources for humanity. Hopefully, this logic will lead into people funding space habitation.

We also lack a international organization for space. Space emergences must be reported to the Secretary General of the UN and the nation whose ship is in distress. But that is the limit to a real international partnerships. Yes, I know there are joint missions, but these feel like temporary mission rather then a consistent motion towards international space access.

Reactions

-Do you think the Outer Space treaty going against national interest?

Resources

Brown, Gordon. "Global Ethic Vs. National Interest" December 2009. Online video clip. TED. Accessed on January 10, 2010. <http://www.ted.com/talks/gordon_brown_on_global_ethic_vs_national_interest.html>

 

Meta-Democracy

I was considering what Earth government would be best for Space Habitation. I think Democracy is needed in order to protect the passion that space provides a person and this is why I choose it over other systems. Plus, democracies give to power to a leader for a short time and this is brilliant, but there is a draw back. I feel the American constitution can not deal with ultra-long term goals (500 years long term). I feel the US government works for plans up to 50 years in the future. With the rotation of power and the ever evolving American culture, ultra-long term may get lost.

 

For example, say a president get elected who is very passionate about space habitation ( *cough* Aron Sora 2028 *cough*) and gears the country to colonize Alpha Centaur in 300 years. 50 years later, the public starts to loss interest in the program and it gets cut. This is the only major roadblock I see in the US government and it's not really that big of a deal.

 

I suggest a meta-power over our government that controls less then 1% of all tax money and can only make multi-generational plans. It would consist of the top 100 intellectuals in each age group (20-29, 30-39, 40-49 and so on) determined by vote. Every ten years, there will be an election to fill the 20-30 age group and replace anyone who has died or has moved into a new age group. This power would be divided among so many people, it would be hard to abuse, plus they do not have the power to make laws, they can only make agencies to complete their long term goals. They would debate over what should be done and whether or not it is a good idea to keep the course. To change or cancel a long term goal, 75% of this meta-power has to vote against it.

 

For example, if they wanted all students to be competent in STEM in 100 years, they would make a new agency or give more funds to current agencies. This meta-power will be immune to the sway of public opinion and should stay focused on long term project that will bring this nation to greatness. I imagine these people to be the nation's biggest dreamers, not worrying about there seat or playing politics because their actions take so long to play out.

 

Now, this is me posting another one of my crazy ideas. Please, point out any flaws you see. Do you think our current government can stay focused on a goal for 500 years?