TED Friday: The Last Mile

From my study of space habitation, most, if not all the problems, are solved. There are detailed plans for space settlements, business arguments proving that it will be profitable and engineering analysis of obstacles surrounding space habitation.

Even so, there is no moon base or mars base and Sendhil Mullinathan’s TED talk explains why. We have done most of the work and I will claim we are traveling the last mile of the journey towards space habitation. I claim that the same reason why insulin isn’t used as much as it should by patients is why space habitation hasn’t occurred. Space habitation will need a behavioral change in humanity to gain support. I don’t know much about human behavior, but my understanding is that humans hard wired to not leave a resource until it is depleted. This was a core survival technique that is the base of our society (major cities cluster around resources needed for survival, mainly water, were as dessert settlements are rarer). Space habitation supporters are telling humanity that we need to go acquire more resources before we run out of resources on Earth.

In Case You Skimmed

-Human behavior may prevent space habitation

Reactions

-Do you think we will be able to change this behavior, even though we are already suffering because of dwindling resources.

Resources

Mullinathan, Sendhil. "Solving Social Problems with a Nudge" February 2010. Online video clip. TED. Accessed on February 6 2010. <http://www.ted.com/talks/sendhil_mullainathan.html>

CAT: Political Cycles

Welcome to Counter Argument Thursday (CAT). This is where I write blog post the is opposite and critical of my position on space habitation and space habitation. I do not agree with the position in the blog post, but it is an argument I need to address.

Space habitation is a dream that cannot survival the vicious political cycles in modern government structures, just like every plan that takes multiple generations. space habitation will take at least two generations. Even a moon base takes 30 years to build, as claimed in the paper Lunar Industries and Their Value for the Human Environment on Earth. I can’t even claim there will be long term political stability in a totalitarian state, they too have political cycles.  In fact, unless a long term goal in woven into the social fabric of a nation, it won’t get done. Furthermore, to be blunt, space is far from being woven into the social fabric of, at least, the United States. I offer the Rasmussen Reports article 50% Favor Cutting Back on Space Exploration as proof. If a moon landing can’t make space into a social goal, nothing can. Thus, there will be progress toward space habitation while it is politically favorable and that progress will be halted when the tides turn.

In Case You Skimmed

-Space habitation is a long term goal the requires political stability.

-Political stability simply doesn’t exist

Reactions

-Could an international organization offer the political stability needed to space habitation?

-Could space habitation research hibernate in academia during politically rough times, only to reemerge better then ever when the public is ready?

-Will there be funding for space habitation in academia during politically rough times?

-Will there be a student interest in space habitation during politically rough times?

Resources

Krafft A. Ehricke, Lunar industries and their value for the human environment on Earth, Acta Astronautica, Volume 1, Issues 5-6, May-June 1974, Pages 585-622, ISSN 0094-5765, DOI: 10.1016/0094-5765(74)90023-X. (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6V1N-4805SJ8-5/2/4d9bdc1efb4a1a033b97f934b0fe09e8)

Rasmussen Reports, “50% Favor Cutting Back on Space Exploration” Weblog entry. Rasmussen Reports. January 15, 2010. January 18, 2010 <http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/lifestyle/general_lifestyle/

january_2010/50_favor_cutting_back_on_space_exploration>

TED Friday: Rebranding Space and Education

Often times developing new products and services is not an option. Sales people often have to increase sales when their engineers have only improved the product by a barely noticeable margin. But, these sales people are able to increase their sales despite the lack of improvements. As Rory Sutherland claims, “many problems of life can be solved actually by tinkering with perception, rather than that tedious, hardworking and messy business of actually trying to change reality”.

But, the public will place more value on the expensive option, even in these economic times, because it seems cost effect. It seems that the billion of dollars going to space agencies are being used effectively if there are frequent launches. This point does assume that the public only pays attention to rocket launches, not the research and spin offs don by space agencies. If the public cares about the research, then it is better to go with the cheaper option.

We can also create more symbolic value in college degrees. Yes, in some ways, society approves having an education with monitory rewards. But, the public is anti-intellectual; they place a low social value on a degree. Think of the stereotypical engineer. Very few people want to be a socially awkward geek with thick glasses and a slide rule in a pocket protector. Yet, we all know that engineering is the coolest profession in the history of mankind. We need to get the public to think this.

However, we can solve this problem easily. If we get the top celebrities of today to go back to school, this will increase the social value of college degrees. I mean, paying Snoop Dogg to go and earn an engineering degree may get some kids excited for college.

In Case You Skimmed

-How the public views education and space is more important to obtaining their support than the actually benefits of the two.

Reactions

-Do you think the public is the public is anti-intellectual?

-Do you think this strategy is dishonest in anyway?

Resources

Sutherland, Rory. "Life Lessons From an Ad Man" October 2009. Online video clip. TED. Accessed on 14 January 2009. <http://www.ted.com/talks/rory_sutherland_life_lessons_from_an_ad_man.html>

Futron. Space Transportation Costs: Trends in Price Per Pound to Orbit 1990-2000. 6 September 2002. White Paper. Accessed on 14 January 2009. <http://www.futron.com/pdf/resource_center/white_papers/FutronLaunchCostWP.pdf>

New York Times. Faster, NASA, Faster. Edward Lu. 20 December 2009. Web. 14 January 2010. <http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/21/opinion/21lu.html?_r=2>.

10 Commandments of Space Habitation

This commandments are complete idealism. However, I feel that breaking these rules will lead humanity down a path to because a species that commits atrocities to other life forms and a species at never ending war. I’m just tossing some ideas out on the table, feel free to debate and challenge these commandments. Remember, I’m not a god.

Photo by tommrkr

1: Thou shall not inhabit another planetary body that has macroscopic life.

This commandment is meant to stop all the atrocities of the colonial period. I excluded microscopic life because it is too hard to detect from orbit, but microscopic life should be handled cautiously because of the health risks. However, microscopic life can be considered macroscopic if they are visible in clusters. Basically, if we can see a life form from orbit, we can’t inhabit that planet.

Then there is the whole ethics thing, but I could write a book about that.

This commandment only applies to macroscopic life we did not put on the surface.

2: Thou shall not send out a spaceship with enough arms for over 1% of the occupants.

This commandment is included to prevent interstellar warfare. An interplanetary war would be far more costly in lives then any other war we have fought, plus, we risk losing both warring biospheres. However, weapons will be needed for security forces on a space habitation, mainly because amoral people will smuggle weapons to a space settlement. So, those at customs stations will have to be armed and police will have to be armed to protect themselves and others.

3: Thou shall not leave anything that isn’t working in space.

We messed up Earth’s orbit, let’s not do it again. Please. And please don’t create interplanetary space junk. That would be a nightmare to deal with.

4: Thou shall not take more then 5% of the freshwater on any planetary body into space.

Crews will need water to get from one body to another, however, I fear that a huge fleets of spaceships will extract too much water from Earth and other planets for supplies while in transit. I think water should be “on loan” from the main planet. For example, if we had a commuter level of traffic between Earth and Mars, ships would pickup water for the voyage at an orbital station and drop off the water at another station at the end of the voyage, where another ship could use that water. This will take intense water recycling system, but it will protect the water resources we do find and allow of communities to flourish where ever we find water.

Now, water can be made into fuel, but I think this fuel should only be made from undrinkable water. For example, salt water on Earth and water that is contaminated on the moon. In other words, if all that is needed to make the water drinkable is a simple filter and an anti-bacterial agent, then it should be valued to not taken in excess from a planetary body.

5: Thou shall not bar people from joining the space settlement  mission because of race, religion, sex and sexual orientation.

When I read about the Neo-Nazi Mars base initiative, shivers went down my spine. The racial tension between such a colony and the rest of humanity is enough to spark war.

Of course, religious organizations will want their own settlements, but I do not think people will necessary skills should be barred from a mission. To do that would endanger the mission. I think becoming a spacefaring species will allow us to be a more companionate species and be tolerant of each other.

6: Thou shall not populate another life supporting system or system that is capable of supporting life at the expense of another.

This commandment prevents us from becoming an interstellar fire, consuming everything in our path. I do not feel that hoping from planet to planet, exploiting the resources on each planet is a sustainable way from a species to operate. Following this commandment will also ensure we are creating biosphere backups.

However, Near Earth Objects(NEOs) and other places that can not be terraformed are fair game, so long as those resources are used responsibly (As explained in the next few commandments). However, we can not strip mine Mars because it can support life with a few modifications. Thus, an planetary object that should be respected is an object with enough mass to have an atmosphere.

7: Thou shall not use more than .01% of the resources in a solar system per year with respect to 2010.

This commandment assumes we will not achieve faster the light travel. If this assumption is true, then this solar system will be the only one we inhabit for a while. This commandment ensures a sustainable lifestyle, one that guarantees we can live in a solar system for a minimum of 10,000 years. Long enough to prepare for a mass migration or replenishment of resources. I’ve also noticed that in an age a plenty, we will toss things away, but when we do not have much, we will recycle. This commandment will force use to recycle resources we find to prevent us from reaching the maximum because the abundance of resources while be put into perspective.

8: Thou shall not use more than .01% of the resources on a planetary body per year with respect to 2010

This rule budgets the use of Each planet’s, object’s and moon’s resources so that a civilization using those resources will be able to tap into those resources for 10,000 years. Long enough to make the investment worth while.

9: Thou shall not make or accept an unbalanced trade with another space settlement.

The goal of this is to prevent a space settlement from just being a mining outpost, one that is abandoned as soon as the resources are gone. In other words, the best way to use space is to inhabit it, not strip it. Balanced trade is that best way to do this. Trading one resource for another will allow communities to fix its weakens by using its strengths. If done correctly, when the resources that attracted people to the site in the first place are gone, a vibrant community the can support its self will still remain. 

10: Thou shall not equip a spaceship with weapons that can penetrate the hull of a standard spaceship

Spaceships are basically tin cans with 1 atmosphere is pressure pushing out. A hole in the ship will cause a significant loss of air. Yes, we can build bulk heads for seal off damaged areas, but the crew has to react within seconds, while under fire, to prevent the whole spaceship from depressurizing. In this light, I consider any weapon that can penetrate the hull of a spacecraft a weapon of mass destruction because one shot has the potential to kill 1000s of people if fired at a larger spacecraft.

However, non-penetrating weapons are the non-lethal weaponry of interstellar combat. One can target weapon ports, communications arrays, solar panels and engines to get an aggressor to stop. I would suggest EMP weaponry, but it would destroy life support systems and most circuitry in space is hardened, so that they of weaponry is ineffective.

Note: this commandment assumes people will install some type of armor to protect against the many fast moving rocks and junk floating in space.

Reactions

-Do I cover everything?

-Will these rules be useful in the real world, remember, these rules are complete idealism?

-Will following these rules place humanity in harm’s way?

-Would you rewrite this rules if you where director of space habitation?

In Case You Skimmed

• We should settle space in a sustainable way
• We should learn from our mistakes on Earth

An Unwanted Change

The Future of Work article titled Compass: Back to Basics:  Change Banagement 101 brought up a good point:

“people don't universally resist change; what they resist, and resent, is being changed, with no control over where, when, or how that change is imposed on them. People don't demand stability—what most of us want is predictability, or at least a reasonable level of personal control over whatever changes they are subjected to.”

This causes a problem for space habitation. We don’t know how space habitation will affect society. People will feel like they can not control the societal changes brought by space habitation. We already see this resistance manifested in the culture wars. Space habitation will see similar resistance because they are forced to change for space habitation. A space faring culture will demand more education; it will demand more skills. New professions will be formed and professions will die because of the increased technology. This will cause people to fight against space habitation.

Reactions

-How do we prevent a war against space habitation?

Resources

Ware, Jim. Charlie Grantham, “Compass: Back to Basics:  Change Banagement 101.” Weblog entry. The Future of Work. 10/22/2007. Accessed 12/28/2009 <http://www.thefutureofwork.net/newsletter_1209_Compass.html>

via

Smith, Stephen, “Thinking about Change.” Weblog entry. …words. 12/26/2009. Accessed 12/28/2009 <http://stephenpsmith.com/blog/2009/12/thinking-about-change/>

In Case You Skimmed

• Space habitation will be resisted because it will change society.

A Species’ Momentum

Any species or society will have a momentum in terms of its development. A stone age species will want to go to the end of stone age technology unless it is acted on by an outside force. An industrial society will want to hit the wall of industrial age technology unless it is acted on by an outside force. Think about it, if an outside force didn’t act, a steam punk society could have been a reality. In this light, I wouldn’t be surprised to see that humanity only seriously attempts to become a space faring species when we are forced off Earth by disasters and over population. I won’t be surprised to see humanity only seriously fund space out of greed.

Reactions

-Can we become space faring without an outside force?

Reactions

-An industrial society will continue to be an industrial society until an outside for acts upon it

A Caution on Japan’s Investment

A few posts ago, I said that Japan was investing $21 Billion in Space Solar Power (SSP). I was very excited, until I read a blog post from the Land Art Generator Initiative called Total Surface Area Required to Fuel the World With Solar. SSP should be a long term goal. We only need about 500,000 kilometer squared of solar panels to power the world until 2030. I think $21 billion is a great investment for a multi-generational project, be we must have a stable sources of power now. If we have this it will lead to a space faring society faster. If we have that we can stabilize human society for 20 years. If we can ensure everyone has plenty for 20 years, then we will be able to focus more on education and species development and less on survival.

We need energy now, every major economy is based on the assumption of cheap energy. Look around in the room you are in, there are thousands of joules of energy represented in the items you see before you. Consider the internet. 

 We think about information that goes across the Internet. And we never think about the hidden connection. But I brought along here a lump of coal -- right here, one lump of coal. And what does a lump of coal have to do with the Internet? You see, it takes the energy in one lump of coal to move one megabyte of information across the net. So every time you download a file, each megabyte is a lump of coal. What that means is, a 200-megabyte file looks like this, ladies and gentlemen. OK? [He pulls out a bag of charcoal] So the next time you download a gigabyte, or two gigabytes, it’s not for free, OK? The connection is the energy it takes to run the web and to make everything we think possible, possible.

Energy is critical in a creating a space faring. Computer Aided Engineering will be the tool of the design of space habitation, the same process that brought the Boeing 777 to life will bring space habitation into reality. We need energy to do this, we need to keep the internet alive to allow humanity to work collectively on a project all at the same time. We need to keep lights on for the students who study into the night. I will gamble and say we can not achieve space habitation or SSP without the internet and without computers.

Thus, we should push Earth based solar power to it’s limit will working on SSP to replace it when Earth based solar power can not provide all of the energy. To get access to space, a stable energy supply must be secured. It will not happen without this. We can not lake a risk on SSP when we will have trouble powering the future.

Reactions

-Is there such a thing as a stable energy source?

Sources

Walker, Jay. "Jay Walker's library of human imagination” Feb 2008. Online video clip. TED. Accessed on September 16, 2009. <http://www.ted.com/talks/jay_walker_s_library_of_human_imagination.html#> 6:06 – 7:06

Ferry, Robert. Elizabeth Monoian, “Total Surface Area Required to Fuel the World With Solar.” Weblog Entry. Land Art Generator Initiative. August 13, 2009. September 16, 2009.

In Case You Skimmed

-We need energy to develop space assets

-SSP is a long term goal that must be developed to replace any short term solutions we have

-But, we needed alternative, short term energy solutions yesterday and SSP can’t get developed in a short time frame.

SPC #14: The Cultural Imperative to Colonize Space: An Astrosociological Perspective

Welcome to the Sunday Paper Club. (Almost) 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; basically I read the paper and write down my thoughts are I read it. 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 Cultural Imperative to Colonize Space:An Astrosociological Perspective.

The paper’s first main point is how humans are drawn to space more then the bottom of the oceans. This is due mainly to the culture defining aspect of space. I urge you to look at table 1 on page 4. As you will see, the way we viewed, for example, Mars effected the way society operated.

The main point of the paper is to point out how space habitation is needed to sustain the way that humans live. But, while reading this paper, I was reminded of this quote in The Matrix

I'd like to share a revelation that I’ve had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species, and I realized that humans are not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment; but you humans do not. Instead you multiply, and multiply, until every resource is consumed. The only way for you to survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern... a virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer on this planet, you are a plague, and we... are the cure.

The whole point of this paper is null and void if humans are able to change they way they live. A simple change in mind set, from a short term one to a long term one, could be enough to save humanity. It might even be so much that space habitation is not needed. The question is “can humans develop a natural equilibrium”? We also must learn how to not waste opportunities.

Manned space flight is like the wheel, it is game changing. It will completely redefine everything about human life. But “The Aztecs… had the wheel, but only used it in the construction of toys and in their calendars. There is
likely an assortment of mundane explanations for the failure of the wheel to diffuse across other sectors of Aztec
society”. The critical part of that quote is contained in two words “mundane explanations” (Read: the day-to-day actions of the members of Aztec society). It is nothing more then that. Nothing more prevented the Aztecs from saving themselves from collapse. They had a huge advantage.

Why does that sound so familiar…

I remember, humanity’s space activity is a mix between a recruitment ad for scientists and engineers and a power grab by the leaders of various nations.  Yes, we need more scientists and engineers, but that is an inherent quality about all space activity. We can move on to bigger, betting things and use the ground breaking technology to change the game.

Last, but not least, the paper suggests a vast increase in education funding. But, the only way we can get the money is if we over come the vast anti-intellectualism in the world.

Reactions

-Can humans become less virus like?

In Case You Skimmed

-If human society remains the same, then we need space habitation.

Public Relations, Herculean Efforts and Space Habitation

Seth Godin posted a thought on how enormity (something that is really horrible) is a bad marketing tool because people stay away from huge problems which are have horrible consequences. Mr. Godin pointed out how infomercials asking for donations starving and sick kids are ineffective because the problem is huge. If the problem was small, people would rush to help, but ending world hunger is a massive task.

So would space habitation. Based on Seth's post, I think the size of space habitation is pushing people away from the idea of space habitation. "If [we've] got a small, fixable problem, people will rush to help, because people like to be on the winning side, take credit and do something that worked." 1. There is no away we can make space habitation easier, it is going to be a macro-engineering project regardless of the planning. But, in order to increase public support, we can make the public fell like the pro-space habitation side is the winning side. We have to give our supporters credit and parade them as supports and we MUST prove that this will work. That's hard for us because space habitation is a multi-generational plan. Current supports can't stand on the finish line. Maybe we can give each generation a goal in the path to space habitation to reach, but we must give people the 3 things Seth Godin points out to get them to help to build space habitation.

Reactions

-Can people who will not be alive when the team wins still fell like they are working on something valuable?

Resources

Godin, Seth, “Enormity" Weblog entry. Title of Weblog. September 02, 2009. http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2009/09/enormity.html

In Case You Skimmed

• The amount of work needed for space habitation to work is scaring people away from space habitation.

Space Habitation Is Urgent

Stephanie B, author of the blogs Ask Me Anything and Rocket Scientist posted this comment on yesterday's post:

Urgency is a relative term. If we WILL need something 30 years down the line but it takes 30 years to get there, it is urgent.

If we need something a hundred years from now and we can get there in thirty years, it's not urgent.

The problem, of course, is that (a) predicting how long it will take to get there can change depending on urgency and technological breakthroughs and (b) no one knows how soon the needs will become critical and (c) no one really knows how long it would take to get there.

There's too much speculation for me to have a definitive opinion.~ Stephanie B

She is right, that there is a lot of speculation here, but, after reading her comment, I was convinced that space habitation was more urgent then what I previously thought. Let's assume if we do not have space habitation when we need it then bad things will happen. Since we do not know how long it takes to achieve space habitation and when it will become a need, we have to assume it is urgent to avoid the consequences of not having space habitation when we need it.

 

Someone needs to give her a raise. For more brilliant ideas like the above comment, check out Ask Me Anything and Rocket Scientist.

Resources

Stephanie B. "Urgency is a relative term" [Weblog comment.] August 28, 2009. Type 1 and Type 2 Engineering. Aron Sora. Habitation Intention.  August 28, 2009. (http://habitationintention.blogspot.com/2009/08/type-1-and-type-2-engineering.html) August 28, 2009.

In Case You Skimmed

• Since we do not know when we will need space habitation, we must assume it is an urgent need.

Type 1 and Type 2 Engineering

I stumbled across the late Randy Pausch's lecture on time management. In this lecture, he presented a revision to the tradition to-do list. In his modified to-do list, one would have 4 categories for the following types of tasks: important and urgent tasks; important, but not urgent tasks; not important nor urgent tasks and urgent, but not important tasks. I think this concept can be applied to society's to-do list.

Type one engineering would be the type of engineering that addresses urgent and important problems/needs. Type two engineering is the type of engineering that addresses important, but not urgent problems and needs. Right now, space habitation and all space activities are solely within the field of type two engineering. It is need urgent. But, in order for human society to move forward, we must address space before it become a type one need; an urgent and important need. We can be ok without the resources and room of space for another, I'm guessing here, 50 years. But, what we can not do is neglect the development of space habitation until it become and important need and urgent need.

We already see what happens when we ignore type two needs and wait until they become type one problems. We see this in global warming and the dwindling energy resources. It is coming to the point where human society can not even function without those two problem solved. We saw those two problems coming and we waited, now it is becoming urgent to address those two things. As if it was bad enough, type two engineering is easier then type one because type two engineers have the resource of time available to them.

Basically, the type one engineer is the person running around putting out society's fires. The type two engineer is the society's fire inspector, preventing those fires from even occurring. Let's look at NASA which is the prime example of a type 2 engineering organization. Space is important, don't get me wrong, but we will live till tomorrow without it. But, there will be a day where human society can not function without space. There might even be a day where human society can no longer grow and expand on this planet. If NASA needs becomes a type one engineering organization because society urgently needs space then space will be much harder then if space was accessed when NASA was a type 2 engineering organization. Society might even collapse if the need for public space access become urgent because that need wasn't fulfilled fast enough.

Basically, type one engineering is needed because of short term planning. Type two engineering is needed because of long term planning. The more long term plans we have, the more type two engineering occurs and our problem become less urgent as they are solved earlier.

Reactions

-Do you think space is already a type one need?

Resources

Pausch, Randy. "Randy Pausch Lecture: Time Management"" February 06, 2008. Online video clip. YouTube. Accessed on August 27, 2009. < http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTugjssqOT0 >

In Case You Skimmed

• Space habitation is not an urgent need, if it become an urgent need, it will be much more difficult to meet the need.

Poll: Do you think that we (humans) have to change our social structure to achieve space habitation?

Most of my blog post suggest that we need radical changes to human society before we can achieve space habitation. But, I want to know what you think. Feel free to add more ideas in the comment section.

Photo by Tumnaselda

Urbanization Will Produce Better Space Inhabitants

I saw this and thought to myself that humanity will be mentally ready for space habitation. Seriously, go watch this, wait for the train to pass and you will see how cities are preparing space inhabitants. Then come back here.

Yes, I know, it's another TED lecture, but this is really cool. The fact that a main market street and a train line can be the same thing and occupy the same space is amazing. Based on this I think that, as cities become more dense and more of the same spaces are used for many different things, humanity will be more prepared for space habitation. This is because the culture that will be created in dense cities will value personal space less. This is good because smaller, more dense space habitations will be cheaper to launch. Giving a bigger financial incentive to space habitation. If people can be trained, from birth, to work and live in spaces which are tiny and crowded, I think they will experience less stress in a tiny, crowded space habitation. Thus, the space inhabitant from a crowded city may function better in space then someone who has lived their whole life in the country. 

Not to say that this is all good, crowded cities have a lot of problems. But, It's inevitable that we will be completely urbanized, better space inhabitants in a benefit of urbanization.

Reactions

-Can urbanization damage humanities' chances at space habitation?

Resources

Photo by 顔なし

Brand, Stewart. "Stewart Brand proclaims 4 environmental 'heresies'" July 13, 2009. Online video clip. YouTube. Accessed on August 07, 2009. < http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUxwiVFgghE&feature=channel_page >

In Case You Skimmed

• Cities are crowded
• More people are moving into cities
• Thus, more people are living their whole lives in cities
• So, people will become use to living in crowded spaces similar to the environment in space habitats

Defining Success in the Space Faring Society

In Alain de Botton's TED (Technology, Entertainment, Design) talk, titled A Kinder, Gentler Philosophy of Success, Alain de Botton points out the link between our views on success and how we feel about ourselves. He tells us in his talk why a meritocratic society forgets about the randomness of success. I think the space faring society will have an even more extreme version of meritocracy then today. Assuming the interstellar spaceship is the symbol of a space faring society, then that society will think that anyone can do anything. Think of the ideal spaceship; the spaceship of Star Trek. This spaceship is very defiant, it overcomes gravity and thumbs its nose at the laws of physics with its warp drive. The radiation that keep man from exploring space is laughed at with its energy shields. Nothing can stop an ideal spaceship.

If the spaceships of the space faring society influence the development of that society, then we might have a problem. If the society is influenced by the spaceship then we might see bigger expectation that one is successful, far greater then what is seen today. Simply because the ideal spaceship has nothing stopping it from achieving greatness; only poor maintenance or a poor crew can stop it. This might cause the society to think nothing stops a person from success except for personal weakness. I'm speculating with this post, but I'm really curious about how a space faring society will think about success.

Reactions

-Will a space faring society have an extreme view on success?

Resources

Photo by aloshbennett

Botton, Alain de. "A Kinder, Gentler Philosophy of Success" July 2009. Online video clip. TED. Accessed on August 06, 2009. <http://www.ted.com/talks/alain_de_botton_a_kinder_gentler_philosophy_of_success.html>

In Case You Skimmed

• The characteristics spaceship with be reflected in the believes of a society
• A space faring society, because a spaceship can easily overcome obstacles, might think that everyone can overcome their obstacles  

What Type of Education System Should the Spacefaring Society Have?

I have been pondering this question, but I'm having trouble finding an answer: what type of education system should the spacefaring society have? On one hand, we need more science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education to become spacefaring. But, on the other hand, I've seen my high school produce some of the most miserable and lifeless people I've even met.

Schools, I think, can and should be harder. I participated in the W.E.B. DuBois Scholars Institute, one of the most intense academic summer camps in the world. The workload was huge, and me and my classmate all learn a lot, not only about the material, but about ourselves. But, my high school had less intense work, yet the students are passionless.

 

When comparing my high school experience and my experience in the W.E.B. DuBois Scholars Institute, I think my experience in the W.E.B. DuBois Scholars Institute was rare. I want to conclude that the spacefaring society have the most intense schools possible, because the intense summer in the DuBois program made me into who I am, but I can't do that. I worry that an intense curriculum might produce the most miserable people in the world.

 

So, I this question for my readers: what type of education system should the spacefaring society have?

Resources

Photo by Misterteacher