Space Settlement, American Exceptionalism and the Fear Behind the ITAR

This is another essay I wrote during University Writing, enjoy!

Space Colonization is an attempt to solve the problems humanity now faces. Garard K. O'Neill, space settlement expert and founder of the Space Studies Institute based his book, which now stands as the flagship argument for space habitation, in the previous idea. While considering the past violations and plunders by highly developed countries, O'Neill claimed that “[i]t is unlikely...that a large segment of the population in the advanced countries is going to reduce its standard of living by a substantial amount, voluntarily, in order to share the wealth of Earth with emerging nations. [But, there is] a way in which inexpensive, inexhaustible energy sources can be made available to the developing nations without [requiring] self-denial” (O'Neill, 16). O'Neill was troubled at thought that there where “areas of our world where the problems are most severe, almost no one can spare the effort to think beyond the next meal” (O'Neill, 24). He worried that “most people lived out their lives in heavy labor, many as slaves” (O'Neill, 15). He realized, after reading the work of Professor Robert Heilbroner who “studied the consequences...for human political and social development” when resources are dwindling, that on a draining Earth “even in the decades immediately ahead we will be forced to turn to increasingly authoritarian governments” (O'Neill,20-21). The static state that humanity would need to continue with Earth as it only home would be “forced[,] in self-defense[,] to suppress new ideas” and would eliminate “the freedom to order one's life as one pleases” (O'Neill, 22). At its heart, that's what space settlement, as with any scientific challenge, is, an attempt to further and protect the four freedoms. If we stay on Earth, our resources will dwindle. The chaos generated by lack of water will be orders of magnitude greater then the struggle over oil. We will increasingly live in fear as nations seek to invade each other for the necessities of life, not even what is required for human comfort, we will go to war over survival. The freedom to speech and religion will be threatened as dictators rise in a draining Earth.

However, we can't blast off into space, not as a united species. Very few countries have space programs or even the technical expertise to begin one. Still more nations do not have the resources to feed their people. As O'Neill pointed out, the United States has an obligation to ensure that 3^rd world countries can enjoy the freedom granted by becoming a space faring nation. However, since the poorer nations do not have the capacity to utilize space, the age of space colonization will bring with it the same challenges and dilemmas, in regards to foreign policy, that faced the United States before it's involvement with World War Two.

When president Franklin D. Roosevelt gave his pre-Pearl Harbor address The Four Freedoms, he was seeking support for the Lend-Lease Act. He wanted the Unites States congress to aid other democratic nations in the protection of the Four Freedoms, which Roosevelt proclaimed were freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom from want and freedom from fear. The US congress needed to be convinced because they were still holding onto the ideas of isolationism. Because of this ideology, the US would not participate or give arms to nations struggling to deal with the Nazi threat. However, just like how nations were not prepared to deal with the Nazi threat, many nations of today are not prepared to compete in a space faring economy.

It would seem the US would aid in the technological advancement of these nations since the address by Roosevelt has been incorporated into our myths; his speech informs our decisions and should inform our actions as a nation active in space. It would seem that Roosevelt, whose word's are now incorporated in the culture of the United States, would ask us to remember “that the safety of our country and of democracy are overwhelmingly involved in events far beyond our borders” (Roosevelt, 2). It was these freedoms which O'Neill and his supporters sought to protect and secure for ourselves and other nations through the multinational settlement of space. However, this idea is not fully reflected in this nation's laws, especially those regarding space.

The International Trade Arms Regulations or ITAR is a Cold War era export control law which limits the sharing of technical information to foreign countries. The major effect of this law in the space community is that no one, even our allies, can discuss technical specifications with US space technology producers. Imagine buying a car without knowing whether or not it had power steering, just knowing that the car turned. It is designed to ensure that our technology is the best by making sure our technological advancements remain in the country. From this nation's perspective, the law is great, but a more global perspective gives a different idea.

Scientist and advisor to the French space program, Jacques Blamont, commenting on the ITAR in his paper International Space Exploration: Cooperative or Competitive said “it is difficult to believe that a large-scale endeavor, which would require technical exchanges on many subjects where American superiority is overwhelming, could be successfully carried out on a day-to-day basis” in the current political environment (Blamont, 91). In effect, our isolation has frozen any possibilities for a large scale space project, such as space habitation. This freeze of international cooperation is demonstrated when we read about Blamont's horror to hear NASA employees exclaim “[i]t is unthinkable that equipment developed in a Federal Center might be used by a foreign agency” (Blamont, 91). Because of experiences like this, he felt that, because of the ITAR and the culture it promotes, there was a “suspicious atmosphere in the USA towards foreign relations” (Blamont, 91). Thus, ITAR is isolationism in space and this isolation has a negative effect.

This self serving isolation is not conductive to a peaceful future nor is it realistic in the vastness of space. Blamont pointed out that “[m]any in Europe believe that it is not a wise choice for [Europeans] to place any long-term strategic trust in the USA” (Blamont, 91).The US has, in the perspective of Blamont and many other Europeans, “shown...a disregard for anyone's interests but its own” , alienating all other nations (Blamont, 91). We are attempting to go forth into infinite nothing by ourselves and we are making enemies in the process.

Is this the correct direction for the United States? Maybe in the past, but the president of the American Historical Association and champion of the idea that American freedom was changed through its interactions with different types of freedoms, oppression and slavery, Eric Foner, would disagree. Foner claimed that the idea of freedom was challenged and modified because “the world we inhabit is getting smaller and more integrated and that formally autonomous nations are bound ever more by a complex web of economic and cultural connections” (Foner, 51). Our international activities have “helped to establish how freedom is understood within the United States” (Foner, 58). We are an international culture already, we have been effected already and we have modified our self image based on observations of other countries. We are, in effect, a product of globalization; what informs our ideals now is not internal.

But this web does not only challenge freedom, it creates a highway where every event or development interacts with other occurrences. Some would argue that a technical edge will ensure our rank on the world power ladder, but the truth is, our technological development is felt everywhere and we feel other countries technical development. We improve Japanese technology by having our developments, in the form of components, create a foundation for new developments. The United States bases our developments on foreign components too. Space activity is further complicated by the International Space Station. We bring up the equipment for Russian experiments and supplies, they bring up food and other parts. The question is are we willing to give up this peaceful cooperation with countries we dropped or threatened to drop nuclear bombs on for a technological edge? Are we willing subordinate other countries, like “Russia [who is not in fact] a cooperative partner, but a subcontractor” for the so called International Space Station (Blamont, 91).

Nussbaum is an American philosopher who wrote a paper exploring the ethical problems encountered when dealing with the problems of globalization. Her paper is of interest when studying the ITAR because of her discussion on American exceptionalism and the fear the drives us to isolate ourselves. She is frank when she points out that “compassion for our fellow Americans can all too easily slip over into a desire to make America out on top and to subordinate other nations” (Nussbaum, 13). In short, she struggles with how to control our compassion for international good.

The isolation imposed by the ITAR and the fear of technical disadvantage brings to mind the ideas discussed in Nussbaum's Compassion & Terror. The blind terror that made American spines tingle after hearing the radio transmission from the Sputnik spawned the ITAR. America was fearful because the Sputnik proved the USSR had the ability to drop a nuclear bomb anywhere when Americas did not have this ability. The USSR had a huge bargaining chip because the USSR managed to upset the balance that was the stalemate between the US and the USSR. The terror of being at a technical disadvantage and having one's military rendered obsolete with one development “could be a stimulus for blind rage and aggression against all the opposi[ng]” nations (Nussbaum, 26). In this environment of fear, the sharing of technical data becomes traitorous, on par with handing over a nation's fleet to its enemy. However, this is blind rage against all nations, an attempt to limit the scientific development of the targeted nation, just to eliminate all possibilities of technical disadvantage. It isolates nations from the scientific community whose insights who be enhanced with other perspectives.

To avoid permanent tension and stress, instead of joy, at every technical advance “we [need to do what Nussbaum suggests and] cultivate a culture of critical compassion...awaken a larger sense of the humanity of suffering, a patriotism constrained by respect for human dignity and by a vivid sense of the real losses and needs of other people” (Nussbaum, 26). Space is a common dream for not only this nation, but for all nations in the world. Everyday we are not space faring is a tragedy for all humans because it is a day we are not utilizing the resources of space. It is one more day we fail to find a permanent and reasonable solution to our energy needs. Not to mention the delaying of cancer treatments, the cure for AIDS, the solution to world hunger and other problems that could be tackled by a united, global scientific community even without the use of space.

Simply worded by President Roosevelt, there are “basic things expected by our people of their political and economic systems”. The lack of these basic needs, jobs, food, opportunity, increasing standards of living and freedom is “the root cause of... social revolution” good or bad. In a world where people are dying of lack, there will be, as predicted by Roosevelt in his speech, “[t]hose who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety”. Thus, the long term goal of the acquisition and use of the resources in space is an attempt to protect freedom because it is an attempt to ensure these basic needs are met. Anything that slows down progress towards the goal of becoming a space faring species is a threat to freedom. American selfishness is one of those roadblocks.

However, international, globalized efforts bring their own problems which we must deal with before moving as species into space. Currently, we are dealing with the death of cultures, sweatshops, increased economic disparity and other social ills brought on by globalization. But why does this matter? Are we not heading into an age of infinite resources, a rebirth of humanity where all our problems will melt with each rocket launch?

The paper The Ethical Commercialization of Outer Space by Dr. David M. Livingston explains why the current state of the world will indicate the how the first stages, and all subsequent stages, of space habitation will look. The paper continues to show the rhetoric and ethic-less thought surrounding the colonial period that is mirrored in the space community with quotes from leaders in the space field. After reviewing the troubling state of the space community, Livingston considers the following quote from “Paul L. Csonka['s]... 'Space Colonization—Yes, But Not Now':

'If space colonization were to be undertaken today at the maximum rate permitted by technology, it is likely that instead of increasing the chances of human survival, it would drastically reduce it. Preliminary studies ought to be undertaken, but large scale colonization should be postponed until such a time when (and if) social and political conditions reach the prerequisite state of sophistication'”(Livingston, 3).

This paints the obstacles to space settlement not as engineering problems, but as social and ethical problems. The social and ethic problems are of increased concern when we release that “initially our voyage to space and the first phases of our expanded space commerce will resemble the business and management models that are exported from Earth”(Livingston, 2). That statement should strike fear in the hearts of humans because it means we will end up fighting over the nearly infinite energy produced by the sun, we will kill despite the plenty that exists in space. The fight will start because we will ignore the plenty and quibble over our share, always ensuring that we have some type of edge, just like we do now as demonstrated by the ITAR.

Csonka's idea is also highlighted by our history as presented in Foner's work, American Freedom in A Global Age. To Americans, as Foner explains when exploring the myths around freedom, “territorial growth meant 'extending the area of freedom...' [.] Those who stood in the way...were by definition obstacles to the progress of liberty. In the outlook of most white Americans, the West was not a battleground of peoples and governments but an 'empty' space ready to be occupied as part of the divine mission of the United States” (Foner, 61). This idea is now part of our myths. When, not if, we look at these myths to inform our choices on how to go forth into this vast nothingness, these stories will be with us. There are also other nations with their own stores of the glory of planting a flag or stories of how it is useless to plant a flag. Their myths of conquering other lands or the founding of their nation will inform their decisions on the use of space. These myths could easily lead to war.

Even attempting to discuss our international efforts in space will bring chaos since each participant's self view will conflict. This is best understood by Devdutt Pattanaik, the Chief Belief Officer at Future Group in Mumbai, whose job is to help companies interact with customers in foreign environments. Through his work, he has concluded that most nations think that “[their] world [view] is always better than [the foreign view], because [their] world [view]...is[, in their minds,] rational and [foreign views are] superstition...”(Pattanaik, 1) . “This is the root of the clash of civilizations” (Pattanaik, 1). This will cause war once we are able to access space because each nation's myths are going to conflict.

At first glance it seems that war will always be it the cards for us, however, it is possible that space it self eliminates the problems of our modern world. People who travel to space experience something called the overview effect. Saudi-Arabian Prince Sultan Bin Salman al-Saud described this as “an opportunity to prove that there is no conflict...Looking at it from here, the troubles all over the world, and not just the Middle East, look very strange as you see the boundaries and border lines disappearing” (Livingston, 7). Once the borders are gone, our compassion for our homeland bleeds into compassion for a land on the other side of the globe. Without boarders, our narcissism becomes silly and we will no longer look for some form of an edge because of the overview effect.

Narcissism will dissolve because the overview effect may be the answer to the problem of death within life presented in Nussbaum's work. This particular problem came up in her paper when she attempted to solve the social issue of the sweatshop by asking “all [people] to care equally for all other [people]”. This doesn't work in the modern day because the only reason that makes people “care for something [is] the though that it is all theirs...and the thought that it is the only one they have”. This is why it is very hard to have people care for others jointly. However, the thought that we live on a fragile planet will instill the idea that the Earth and all life on it is all ours and it is the only place we have. Astronomer and science advocate Carl Segan explains...

The Earth is a very small stage in a vast cosmic arena. Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that, in glory and triumph, they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot....Our posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the Universe, are challenged by this point of pale light...[thus, t]here is perhaps no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our tiny world. ...[The pale blue dot] underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another...(Segan, 7-8)

This is furthered by Dr. Livingston's point “the heavens are already taken and they are not our home” (Livingston, 9). This is the only place where we can live without millions of dollars of delicate, sensitive equipment and we can only visit space with our current technology. Our astronauts, over time, lose muscle function and bone mass and must retreat to this rare paradise we live on. We have yet to master the problems of cosmic radiation, forcing us to stand behind the magnetic shield formed by the Earth. Yet, we are concerned about a technical edge on something so insignificant. Something whose light is made obscure by the light from the billions of stars in our galaxy which is indistinguishable from the billions of galaxy. Something that doesn't matter in the pure, infinity nothingness that separates each planet, each star and each galaxy. It seems we are willing to destroy this life giving pale blue dot in lust for the none substantive things such as financial, technological and social power.

Furthermore, space may interact with the American myths in the same way that Foner thought freedom interacted with outside events. “American's relationship to the outside world... help[ed] to establish how freedom is understood within the United States” (Foner, 58). Just as the “struggle against Nazi tyranny and its theory of a master race discredited ideas of inborn ethnic”, experiencing the limits of our technology and our bodies may humble this nation (Foner, 66-67). If we realize what Prince Sultan Bin Salman al-Saud realized, will we end up pledging allegiance not to the American flag, but to a flag of humanity. Will we change vastly when American exceptionalism, “the delusion that we have some privileged position in the Universe, [is] challenged by [a] point of pale light” (Segan, 8).

Works Cited

The Ethical Commercialization of Outer Space. David M. Livingston, ASCE Conf. Proc. 204, 16 (2000), DOI:10.1061/40479(204)16

Nussbaum, Martha C. “Compassion and Terror.” Daedalus. 132 (Winter 2003): 10-26. (On UWP list: 06-07; 07-08)

Foner, Eric. “American Freedom in a Global Age.” Who Owns History? Rethinking the Past in a Changing World. New York: Hill and Want, 2002. 49-74

Roosevelt, Franklin Delano. "The Four Freedoms." American Rhetoric. N.p., n.d.. Web. 9 Apr 2010. <http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/fdrthefourfreedoms.htm>.

Segan, Carl. Pale Blue Dot. New York: Random House, 1997. Print.

Pattanaik, Devdutt. "East vs. West -- the myths that mystify" November 2009. Online video clip. TED. Accessed on 12 March 2010.

Jacques Blamont, International space exploration: Cooperative or competitive?, Space Policy, Volume 21, Issue 2, May 2005, Pages 89-92, ISSN 0265-9646, DOI: 10.1016/j.spacepol.2005.03.003

ITAR photo by http://www.pennwellblogs.com/

The Spirit of the ISS: International Cooperation in Space

The following is an essay I wrote in the class University Writing . I'm posting it here to get more feedback. Another essay I wrote in the same class will follow tomorrow:

On a clear night, look up at the night sky. You will see countless numbers of stars and celestial objects. But, if one waits long enough, they will see a new, bright star suddenly streak across the pre-dawn sky. That object, shining brightly in the sky is the International Space Station (ISS), a cooperative venture between the American, Japanese, European, Canadian, Russian and many other space programs. It has been visited and used by 15 different countries including South Africa and Brazil. Costing over 157 billion dollars, it is the most expensive object constructed, ever. It weights over 750,000 pounds, making it bigger then any other space station ever made. This amazing structure was built through the use of combined resources; if the participating counties decided to continue their pre-ISS plans for their own space stations, the results would have been less impressive. We would have had several, very un-notable stations in orbit if the ISS was never developed. Unfortunately, the global financial crisis has threatened the existence of the ISS. Prompting plans of deorbiting the station in 2016, well short of its intended lifespan. The United States has extended funding, but its a highly political move. Still the ISS must be deorbited at some point because of safety, but the plans for space stations after it are troubling, most will be run independently.

This temporary nature of the ISS and the cooperation around the ISS is reminiscent of the temporary nature of compassion towards other countries as described in Bruce Robbins' The Sweatshop Sublime. This so called sublime is defined as "comparison with which everything else is small...a feeling of the inadequacy of [the] imagination for presenting the ideas of a whole, wherein the imagination reaches its maximum, and, instriving to surpass it, sinks back into itself" (Robbins 85). The sublime created by each country makes them seem small because they are being compared to an international effort to further human presence in space, one so massive, that no one country seems to be able to afford it. The ISS stands defient of the course of human history, superpowers are suppose to have arms aimed at each other, not helping build telescopes pointed at space for each other. To change the momentum of history is a massive task. However, Robbins points that the feels from the hight of someone sublime moment "fail[s] to express [its self] in any potentially risky, disobedient action" (Robbins 85). We are working with nations who we have designed weapons and plans to attack each other. It would seem that it is very risky to "surrender" like this. It is very disobedient to go against the people who make money off the pointing of weapons at allies and whole cultures who pride themselves on having a standing army with missiles at the ready. But, in reality, the risk is placed solely in the status quo. Even today, Cold War style nuclear armageddon is still a possibility. That is what the ISS defies, the endless cycles of war that humanity has been in since the first time a rock was thrown in anger.

This is further supported by Nessbaum's work , Compassion & Terror. Her "concern is with our difficult keeping our minds fixed on the sufferings of people who live on the other side of the world" (Nussbaum 12). In the literature surrounding manned space flight, the idea of humans in harmony is fundamental. This ideology was realised when weapons in space have been banned. However, it could be that the idea of peace in space is merely philosophy inspired by the newness of this realm. It could be that once reality hits the space-faring nations, we will "take [our] repose or [our] diversion, with the same ease and tranquility, as if no such [peaceful time period] had happened" (Nussbaum 12). Assuming war is the primary diversion of nations from the peaceful use of space, the dream that weapons would be left on the ground is lost. The fundamental ideas surrounding the ISS are lost.

It also seems we are also using the belief systems present during tense times like World War Two or The Cold War. Politicians mentioned that funding the ISS placed America as the leader in space. It would seem funding the ISS is a compassionate act, other nations can utilize space who otherwise couldn't, but this language is subordinating the partners involved to a humorous level. The United States only has access to about 25% of crew time and space in the ISS, Russia has 50%. If anyone, Russia is the leader in space, yet we have named ourselves the leader for national ego.

Thus, I must agree with Robbins, "[e]verything is political" (Robbins 89). Even a compassionate act like funding the ISS or forming an antisweatshop movement is tuned into something that benefits the local priorities. Even when trying to end human suffering, we are political. We worry about "American workers...losing their jobs" and our "fear of foreign infection in the AIDS or Ebola style" (Robbins 90). This political language only "confirm[s] the strong hint of American nationalism" that is appear in the anti-sweatshop movements and the funding of the ISS. This is developed when Nessbaum claims "...compassion for our fellow Americans can all too easily slip over into a desire to make America come out on top and to subordinate other nations" (Nussbaum 12). We care about America's objective more then humanities objective. It seems we would rather be number one the be a good partner. In this light, I must conclude that the spirit of the ISS isn't dead, it was never born.

On the other hand, it is possible that we have found the solution to the ISS' biggest problem. It isn't a life support system or the cost of resupplying it, it is "the problem of watery motivation, though we might call it the problem of death within life" (Nussbaum 20). If the ISS was only presented as an international project, if flags and other insignia were banned on the ISS, not a soul would care about the ISS. The motivation for giving the ISS national money would be watery and, especially now, hard to justify. As Nessbaum proclaims, "there are two things above all the make people love and care for something, thought that it is all theirs, and the thought that it is the only one they have" (Nussbaum 20).The fact that our flag is on the ISS peaks our interest, the fact the we own 25% of the station and the crew's time motivates us to fund it. The fact that working with others enhances our parts of the station drives us to deal with the other nations who we might not have otherwise cared about. Thus, the political environment around the ISS, no matter how focused it is on the local, keeps the station alive.

However, Robbins would disagree with me and Nussbaum. He claims that "[m]any have suggested before...that global commitments can emerge more or less organically and continuously [only] from local, personal, familial commitments. [However,] agreeing [that the] continuity switches over into opposition...is much more challenging" (Robbins 91). However, disease and the ISS show that local commitments can come from global commitments. The ISS forces us to risk astronauts lives since every rocket launch could end badly. We increase the risk since our understanding of cosmic radiation is weak. This paper's claim could be false on missions where astronauts are bring their own nation's parts to the ISS, but it is often seen the one nation's astronauts will fly a craft carrying the cargo of a foreign nation. It is here that "compassion for our fellow Americans ...slip[s] over into a desire to" make other nations better (Nussbaum 12). Our astronauts could die helping others, but, despite having a strong attachment to and local investment in our men and women, we still risk them for a nation we nuked and a nation we called evil. Furthermore, a global commitment to health is causing us to allocate local resources to protein crystal (crystals of the disease that would be too weak to grow on earth, but in space, its easy) research on the ISS, research that won't benefit one nation, but the whole world. If the US wanted to come out on top, it would build and use its own space station so the patents and profit remain fulling in our control.

The moon landings were done in humanities name. They serve as a inspiration to humans every were even today. I remember watching a interview with a kid in Africa who was going to a newly built school. He said he was stunned that we (indicating that it was a accomplishment of humanity, not the US) went to the moon. A plaque on the side of the Apollo lander reads "We Came in Peace for All Mankind". Yet, there is an American flag firmly planted in the lunar soil, not the United Nations flag as planned. We went for humanity and ourselves. We went in peace but still had a warlike motion of planting a flag; this is not a paradox because to serve humanity, we had to serve ourselves. It will be the same for the ISS, its "motive must always remain complex and dialectical, a difficult conversation within ourselves as we ask how much of humanity requires of us, and how much we are entitled to give to our own" (Robbins 91).

Works Cited

Nussbaum, Martha C. “Compassion and Terror.” Daedalus. 132 (Winter 2003): 10-26.

Robbins, Bruce. “The Sweatshop Sublime.” PMLA. 117 (2002): 84-97.

Watery Motivation: Patriotism in Space

Imagine a large park with a huge stage with a lone podium. The grass can not be seen because of the numbers of people crowding trying to hear to politician's words. News cameras from every network focus on the stage. As you approach the scene, the words become clear.

"Thus, I declare that the great nation of the United States of America with have its own Moon and Mars base in the next 20 years. They will be named Base Eagle and Base Freedom, respectively. Through these two bases we will harness the resources of other planets and gain a competitive edge for the future!"

The crowd then erupts into a chant of "USA!, USA!, USA!".

Luckily, this is fiction. The world is moving away from continuing colonialism in space and instead they are working with each other to further mankind. This is great progress for us, but it brings the special challenge of Watery Motivation.

The term was first introduced to me in a writing class were we read Martha C. Nussbaum's Compassion & Terror. Her work attempts to expose the difficulties of international action on the downsides of globalism and it attempts to prove why nations can work together to solve those problems. While reading this work, the idea of Watery Motivation struck me the most.

Watery Motivation comes up when Nussbaum reminds us of Aristotle's criticism of Plato's Republic which read "there are two things above all that make people love and care for something, the thought that is is all theirs, and the thought that it is the only one they have. Neither of these will be present in [The Republic]". Nor do they seem to be present in international space development.

It seems to get worse for international activity as Nussbuam disproves the idea that we can dissolve the attachments to the local world to allow for international cooperation. But, she goes on to claim that "a patriotism constrained by respect for human dignity and by a vivid sense of the real losses and needs of others" will allow for international response to the world's challenges. I believe this same reason will allow for peace during the land rush that we will see at the dawn of the next space age.

So yes, we will get Base Eagle and Base Freedom and we will get to chant "USA!" in the world of international space development. But, out of respect for the needs of others, we won't hog the Moon and Mars for ourselves. Our acknowledgment of human dignity will prevent us from causing suffering with our activities in space. Thus, no matter how political our activity in space is, we can still work with others. It all comes down to whether or not we constrain our patriotism.

~In Case You Skimmed

-Respect for others will allow for highly political national space programs to coexist with international space goals

~Reactions

-Is this dangerous, does allow for patriotism to exist in space bring us to close to shattering the dream of a peaceful space age.

~Resources

Nussbaum, Martha C. “Compassion and Terror.” Daedalus. 132 (Winter 2003): 10-26.

Obama’s Memo Helps Space Habitation

In order for space habitation to be initiated within a reasonable amount of time, nations will have to work together. “Based on past experience with the International Space Station (ISS) it is likely that current plans for human missions to the moon and Mars will evolve into international efforts” (1). From this I will assume space habitation will be an international effort. Thus, in order for space habitation to world, the nations must develop of spirit of cooperation.

“Obama has directed his administration to recommend by no later than Jan. 29 steps leading to an overhaul of the U.S. export control regime, according to a presidential directive signed Dec. 21” (2).  This overhaul of export controls effects space industry because technology is controlled; the freedom to share technical information is limited. I only have my first year engineering classes to base the follow claim on, but I feel engineers are trained to cooperate. To help each other to solve problems. But, if we stop cooperating and sharing information, not only do we lose the accelerated and insightful developments because of international discussion, but we lose people willing to discuss our problems with. We lose nations willing to work with us, out of fear they are losing a technical edge. Once those things are lost, international cooperation and discussion on basic problems will cease, let alone development on space habitation.

Summary

Export control reform will increase international cooperation in technical fields which aids to the development towards space habitation.

Reactions

-Do we really need international cooperation to do space habitation?

-Is the US suffering with less export control?

Resources

1: "Space Colonization Exploration Strategies" n.d. Online. NASA. Accessed on January 20, 2010. <http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20090037579_2009038392.pdf>

2: Klamper, Amy. "Obama Memo Puts Export Reform on Front Burner" January 15, 2010. Online. Space News. Accessed on  January 20, 2010. <http://www.spacenews.com/policy/100115-obama-memo-puts-export-reform-front-burner.html>

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>