How I Want College to Affect My Support for Space Habitation

I leave for college in 5 days, so I can't focus on anything but that. I'm worrying about my future and what I'm going to do with my life. All my friends are telling me about the great adventures they are having, making me lust more after the moment when I step on Columbia's campus. So here is a college flavored space habitation post. Maybe I'll be more sane tomorrow.

When I go to college, I want my support for and believe in space habitation to be challenged. I want to see the world in its current state, not the tinted view I have of it. I think I may have an unrealistic view of the world, I might be too optimistic, if I am, I need that flawed view to be revealed because it makes my arguments for space habitation weak. I want to become more of a skeptic, I want to see reality, I want to see how far the rabbit hole goes(I had to quote Matrix, I just had to). I guess I'm trying to say that I want college to find any fallacies in my support for space habitation. I want to spend a whole night in the library researching because someone stumped me with a question about space habitation.

I want to have to lay out all my assumptions and explain why they are reasonable. I what to have to explain to someone who has had nothing in their life why they should support space habitation and pay the cost, I what that type of challenge so my perspective on the world is not rose colored. I've lived a fairly good life, I've never gone hungry. I want to talk to someone who has gone hungry and understand their perspective on life. I've been convinced that space activity will help the world, but I need to be forced to justify everything about space habitation. I want there to be one night where I feel absolutely hopeless about the dream of space habitation because my argument was ran over by someone; I want to be at the point where I'm considering giving up on space habitation. In that moment is when I can learn the most about space habitation.

I live in an echo chamber, when ever I talk to my friends, they agree, but they are all space cadets. I've only lived around space cadets. I want to argue with someone who thinks NASA should be shut down because it is a waste of money. In short, I want college to make me stop drinking the kool-aid and make my dream realistic. I also want to see all sides of the argument for space habitation. 

Reactions

-How else can space supporters challenge their views on space?

-How else can challenge my view on space habitation in college?

Axioms of Space Habitation

In traditional logic, an axiom or postulate is a proposition that is not proved or demonstrated but considered to be either self-evident, or subject to necessary decision. Therefore, its truth is taken for granted, and serves as a starting point for deducing and inferring other (theory dependent) truths. ~ Wikipedia

I think space habitation has the following axioms:

• Humanity's existence is threatened
• If this isn't true, space habitation losses a lot of steam.
• Humans should be allowed to reproduce freely
• If Humanity's reproduction is controlled, we could remain on Earth and live happily. 
• Humans should have the ability to be prosperous; they should have more then they need to survive
• If every human was only given what they need to survive, we would have less of an impact on the planet and it could support more people. Thus, we could stay here. 
• Humanity owes the universe; the Earth is not the only place given to us to live on
• This idea come up while I was debating space habitation with a Christian. People who believe in space habitation assume the universe is ours along with it's resources. We have always assumed we have this planet, why assume more? 
• Humanity should fight it's extinction
• Individual people have to accept their death's, why shouldn't the group accept it's death?
• Humans should push themselves and their machines
• We could easily stay within our comfort zone, why leave it?  
• Humans should risk their lives for a dream or an idea
• Why should you risk your life if you are or someone you care about is not in danger?

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. 2

Last Updated: June 12, 2009

In my last post, I explored some philosophies on fear and applied them to space habitation. Now, I will look at the logic behind my argument. Argumentum ad metum: by using fear of human extinction that is the logical fallacy I commit. The general form of a fear based argument is this:

Either P or Q is true.

Q is frightening.

Therefore, P is true. ~ Wikipedia

I add the line P is a security blanket to make this argument make sense in terms of space habitation. Applying this argument form to times when I use human extinction to support space habitation...

Either having a space habitation and not having a space habitation could be good ideas

Having a space habitation can serve as protection against human extinction

Therefore, not having a space habitation means to absence of this protection

Thus, not having a space habitation is frightening

So, having a space habitation is the good idea

This argument, in addition to Argumentum ad metum, has another logical fallacy - false dilemma. Not having a space habitation does not mean we do not have protection against human extinction. Even if we had a space habitation, we still would not be protected from extinction. Using fear to support space habitation will only lead to this species to run from it's possible death forever. Eventually we will have to die, their will be a time where all the stars burn out in the universe and there is not enough light to support life. Even if we get past that point, it will be hard to escape the big crush (yes, we could jump into another universe... on paper).

 

Furthermore, there are alot of things we can do to prevent human extinction. Here a list...

• Build up our planetary defenses against asteroids
• Increase our ability to observe space (10 years warning would give us tons of time, even 5 years would work)
• Invent better radiation shielding/energy shields to protect against a gamma-ray burst
• Develop our armor systems to protect ensure we have armor to defeat every weapon in the universe (this would include alien weaponry)
• Ensure we are the most technologically advanced race in the universe
• Get rid of all nuclear, chemical and biological weapons
• Increase our research and improve our response to pandemics
• Conserve our nonrenewable resources
• Prevent and reverse global warming
• Store large amounts of O2 incase of an anoxic event
• Somehow, find a way to prevent a supervolcano
• Protect our current ozone layer or find a replacement

and many, many more things. So, using human extinction to support space habitation may be a logical mistake. Next time, I will look more at fear, then I will find where the human extinction support fits in the space habitation argument.

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

Constructive Debating for the Space Community

It is important the the space community be as constructive as possible. If we want to see the development of a space based world economy, then we must not waste resources attacking each other. Yet, the space community is at war. A common complaint on The Space Show, hosted by Dr. Livingston, is that many members of the space community are vicious and nonconstructive.

I do not believe this is intentional, we all want this common dream to come true, none of us would do anything to prevent this common dream from coming true. I believe the cause is current education system failure to teach logic and critical thinking, preventing those who go through the educational system from presenting arguments in a clear, precise manner.


I am writing this piece to true to end this silly war with in the pro-space community. We need every resource, every passionate person and every thought. We can not discourage the people we need to complete this goal because of vicious attacks. We all must avoid the following logical fallacies at all costs, not only do they make our arguments weak, they destroy our community.


Ad Hominem Arguments: Ad Hominem Arguments are defined as “disputing a position or argument by criticizing its source” (1). This type of attack robs the space community of the precious human resources we need to move forward. For example, let's say a person, without an engineering, science, or math degree, designs a rocket. According to this hypothetical person's calculations, this rocket will reduce launch costs. It would be destructive to argue against the rocket design by attacking the person's education level and competence. This sort of attack will demotivate a highly interested amateur rocket designer. These attacks could even force this hypothetical, highly motivated person out of the space field forever. A more constructive response would be to attack the design itself, pointing out flaws and explaining those flaws. This will allow that highly motivated person to grow and learn, increasing that person's value to the space community.


Straw Man: Straw Man is defied as “disputing a position by exaggerating it, misrepresenting it, or otherwise distorting it. Putting negative spin on an opponent's ideas” (2). A common counter argument seen in the space community is claiming an idea is “anti-space”. As an example, just because someone disagrees about space solar power does not mean that a person is even against space development; that person could be pro-space but anti space solar power.


Furthermore, attacking those who disagree with space development and exploration will only strengthen their positions, so it shouldn't matter whether or not someone believe are disbelieve in this field. We must be kind to both our side and the opponent's side to move forward, because in the end, our opponents are our watch dogs, they will catch errors we miss. That, is essential to this dream.


“Argument” from Outrage and Scare Tactics: These fallacies create a negative environment within the space community. A hostile environment is not conducive creativity, which we need lots of.


Group Think: “When loyalty to group values affects one's own judgment”. It leads to the acceptance of ideas formed and believed by the group without critical thought. Agreeing with ideas without critical thought could allow for flaws to be accepted as truth.


Source(s):

All quotes: Brooke Noel Moore and Richard Parker. Critical Thinking. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2007