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.

Fear in Space Habitation Pt. 3

The space race has a very valuable lesson to teach us about fear in space programs.

The reason we still do not have a moon base is because the 1970's space programs where based on fear. I feel the only reason the nation cared about NASA during this time was to beat Russia. During the cold war, we wanted to wipe the communists all over the floor in every, single, possible area. I feel the nation didn't have a passion for space during that time, they had a fear of a communist controlled outerspace. I want to point something out to you, look at this, note the times the NASA budget was more then 1% of the federal budget, then come back.

 

1962 was the Cuban Missile Crisis, the height and beginning of the mass fear of the cold war. After this point, the arms build up and threat of a nuclear war only increased. 1977 was two years after the end of the Vietnam War, which, in my opinion, was the point where American citizens just got sick of the Cold War. After we we got sick of fear, the motivation for a space program was gone. Plus, we had already "defeated" Russia in the space race, so there was nothing to fear. We "owned" space. So, NASA got it's funding cut. Today, the thing America fears (terrorism) is not in space, yet. So there is even less reason to fund NASA if you used only fear to justify a space program.

 

Fear also has another problem. If you where to make a graph of public support of a program based on fear it will be similar to Y = (1/X), ignoring the negative X part. Basically, the program will start off with a ton of support, then it will wane off. This is an inefficient support system for a program with long term goals. This is why we can't use fear to support a space habitation program, it will have alot of support at first, but then it will wane off. I feel that a fear based space habitation program will only lead to a single space colony supporting just enough people to have genetic diversity in lower Earth orbit. That is enough to eliminate the fear of human extinction.

 

In order to move to other stars, the public support for space habitation should look like the graph of Y = 2^X. It should start with very little support, but then increase exponentially until the idea is engrained into the cultural of humanity. Fear does not do this, it only rides the wave of fear until it finds a new idea to power.

The Fire of a Launch

This is a comment for the Review of U.S. Human Space Flight Plans Committee. The question is: What do you find most compelling about NASA’s human space flight activities and why?
Last updated: July 6, 2009
Passion, a mission, a purpose, a focus: this is what NASA's work does has given me and why I believe this nation, more then ever, needs NASA. The last two great periods for the US were wars, the cold war brought us unimagined achievements and WW2 brought unsurpassed industrial production. Those two times in history placed American as a leader in the world. But, war can no longer be our focus, for it threatens, not the lives of a few soldiers or a city or a nation, the all the human life on this planet. Humans are truly experts in war and the thought that war could lead to a day where the sunrise is not viewed by a human eye leads many to not focus on war. War can no longer be a passion because it today it means self destruction.

This is why we need a macro-engineering project. But not just any macro-engineering project. Yes, we can build a better city, a longer bridge, a higher building or a bigger canal, but they all lack something. It is just what we have done before, but bigger and they do not tap into something deep within our instinct. I believe humans are driven to protect and better the world for the next generation. Imagine a day when nothing, absolutely nothing, can wipe out humanity. Imagine a day where every star supports life. THAT, that is a purpose. Thinking of that gives life and energy to a person. Looking up everyday and seeing that there is nearly infinite possibilities and wilderness builds a huge fire in the heart. When I wake up, I first think of this possibility and when I want to stop studying or blogging or working on all I have to do, I look up. The fire will never die in me because of this; this mission has complete control over me. Space flows through my veins.

NASA shows this is possible, it shows that anything one dreams can happen. IT shows not even the huge gravity of Earth can hold back passion; can hold back a dream! Yes, NASA would be the worst, most inefficient corporation in the world, but they are not a corporation. Even human who sees a launch is lit like a candle out of the burning cloud of a shuttle escaping the chains of gravity and that will never, ever go out. This fire, in even one person, is well worth the cost of one shuttle flight, but this fire is not given to just one person. A launch lights the world! Once humanity is given this passion NOTHING will stop us. We will be an unstoppable species.

The beginning of the song used Star Trek: Enterprise intro places this nicely; it explains what goes through the mind of someone touched by a launch...

It's been a long road,
To get from there to here.
It's been a long
time,
but my time is finally here.

And I can feel a change in the
wind right now.
Nothing's in my way.
And they're not gonna hold me down
no more.
No they're not gonna hold me down.

'Cause I've got faith of
the heart.
I'm going where my heart will take me.
I've got faith to
believe.
I can do anything.
I've got strength of the soul.
And no
one's going to bend or break me.
I can reach any star.
I've got
faith,
I've got faith,
Faith of the heart.
~ Rod Steward - Faith of the Heart

I choose this part because we are not there yet. Humanity has put hundreds of years into this. Please, the dream of a day where the second part this this song, the part used in the intro, describes the mind set of those touched by the fire of a launch. That day will be when we leave this solar system. This is what NASA gives to us and justifies it's cost. Passion given to a human is invaluable.

Please, I, on my knees, beg you to not only keep the fire of the launch burning, but to expand it. Please, give what human space flight has awoken in me to everyone. Human space flight was the stepping stone, this allowed me to find the people to help me in my goals. Let NASA burn and pass it's fire across this demotivated nation. The thought of a human bathing in the light from another star will drive me, forever. Human space flight is NASA's passion and what it spreads.
Let humanity burn with passion!
Share your comment here.

The image that links to this article on the home page is by jurvetson.

Poll: Do you think humanity will move off earth in the near future?

TO ENTRECARD USERS: VOTE IN THE POLL AND YOU CAN ADVERTISE YOUR BLOG IN THE COMMENTS. Read more below...

I recently put up a poll asking "do you think humanity will move off earth in the near future?". I want to know what my readers think of this concept of space habitation. This space is meant for further discussion about the poll and for people who want to expand on and explain their reasons behind their vote. At the end of a week, I will be writing an analysis of the results. I will also credit to those who commented here when I quote them in my analysis by linking their blog. Even if I don't quote you, I will still give credit to all participants. So please, if you voted in the poll at least leave a link to your blog in the comments so I can give you credit. (*cough* free advertising *cough*) The poll is on the sidebar, to the left. Well, let the experiment begin and thank you for your help.

Creativity in Negative Times

Many space bloggers have been ranting about the reduction in science funds included in the stimulus package while it was in debate. While they do have a valid point and I agree that a reduction is a move in the wrong direction, I think the space community should be gracious. I believe there is enough public will to shut down NASA and other government funded science programs. Someone who has lost their job simply would want the government to focus on creating jobs, not going to mars. The space community must tread lightly when discussing issues involving funding at this time.

The title of this post comes from a Morningcoach podcast of the same name. JB Glossinger presents a very positive commentary on the nation's economic crisis. JB quotes a blog post by Seth Godin. From Seth's blog, "Grave new world". Both the podcast and the blog post have inspired me to write this.

Creativity loves a problem, but it hates a lousy audience.

If everyone around you is sure the economy is tanking, that the end is near, that time is up and the company is headed for the tubes, it's almost impossible to find a creative solution.

Creativity changes the game, whatever game is being played. "We're going to run out of cash by the end of the year," is accurate unless you count creativity into the equation. Then the accurate statement is, "Under the current rules and assumptions, we're going to run out of cash..." Big difference.

Creativity demands exposure to market needs, and insulation from market fears. Give it some time to work, some support, some breathing room. That's when creativity has a chance to change the game(1).

Creativity loves this economic problem. The US government is trying plans on unheard of 20 years ago. The economy is redefining American society and those who can find a way serve the new society will be ultra successful. The bad news is, America is doomed if one looks at our current social/political/economic structure. We can not compete in manufacturing like we once did. We are losing our edge in the global market place. But, let us look outside the box.

We are a nation of thinkers and of free thought, but we are also a nation of businessmen and businesswomen. It is my observations of the stock market and bank lending practices (or, lack there of) at this time that I base the following claim on: the investors of this nation are curled up in the fetal position, rocking back and forth, sucking their thumbs and screaming "The world is over, the world is over". That is a problem because those investors are the audience for game changing ideas. Creativity does not like this "lousy audience"(2).

So, here is my comment on the funding of science in the economic package. The US needs to change the game, that means we need people out their who will listen to our creative people. The President is striving for this, but we can do more. We need a place were ideas can flourish, we are all exposed to the market needs, but, because of media over saturation, we are also exposed to market fears. Under the current rules and assumptions ideas like a moon and mars colony or space solar power would be laughed at. With tons of people whining about the lack of money when it still exists, game changing ideas will be crushed. We need to support this nation's ideas. The only thing that can save us now is an idea.

The science agencies of this nation will always listen. For example, if someone claimed to have invited anti-gravity, NASA will at least look at the paper or the experiment. Universities might not as they tighten their belts. We need a professional audience, unaffected by market fears. Unmotivated by money, but by curiosity. So, the following numbers are great:

Science:

• $8.5 billion for programs at the National Institutes of Health, including biomedical research on Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, cancer and heart disease.

• $3 billion for basic research by the National Science Foundation.

• $1.6 billion for the Department of Energy’s Office of Science for areas such as climate, biofuels, high-energy physics, nuclear physics and fusion energy.

• $1.5 billion for NIH to renovate university research facilities.

• $1 billion for NASA, including $400 million for climate change research.(3)

But I ask you, is that enough to create a game changing audience and a sanctuary from the market.

Sources:

• 1 and 2: Seth G. Seth's Blog: A grave new world [Internet]. Feb. 3, 2009 - [Cited Feb. 14, 2009]. Available from: http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2009/02/grave-new-world.html
• 3: Gannett News Service. What’s in the stimulus package [Internet]. Deb 13, 2009 - [Cited Feb. 14, 2009] Available from: http://www.freep.com/article/20090213/NEWS15/90213102