The arguments for space habitation imply that humanity must leave this planet at break neck speeds. Space settlement is presented as a window, as an opportunity that can be missed. Supporters mention the varies ways we can go extinct as a reason we should move to space, whether from nuclear war or from a massive object smashing into earth, all of which are time sensitive. Still more urgency creeps in when dwindling resources are noted. This gives those working the field a huge adrenaline rush, it feels like they are working against an unseen clock. Is this attitude healthy? Does urgency make the settlement of space go faster?
In his lecture, Carl Honore examines the speediness of modern life. He reveals that, before he became an advocate of the Slow Movement, he wished that he could speed up his interactions with his son. However, after some deep thought, he realized that his speed was damaging his relationship with his son. Wondering what was the cause of this culture is, he realized that “[i]n other cultures, time is cyclical. It's seen as moving in great unhurried circles. It's always renewing and refreshing itself. Whereas in the West, time is linear. It's a finite resource, it's always draining away”. This causes time to have a much inflated value making us to jam every second with an activity. This might feel like the only way, but it isn’t as Honore proves when he cites economies, such as those in “Nordic countries”, who move slowly yet do well. That, among other examples, lead to his thesis that it is possible to get things done faster then ASAP, but completing work this quickly produces low quality work. In short, he claims it is possible for “good slow” to exist.
Just as Honore, I must concede and say “that there is such a thing as ‘bad slow’. [For example, Honore] got stuck on the M25, which is a ring road around London …and spent three and a half hours there…that's really bad slow.”. It’s really bad slow when we do not fix out failing schools for years. It is really bad slow when telescopes aren’t being built fast enough to provide the ability to look for objects that can threaten us. It is really bad slow if research in the space and STEM field were to stop. Not having rapid prototyping machines is bad slow. Having to place a hold on a project because the funding was cut is bad slow.
But, do we have to generate progress towards space habitation every second of everyday? I believe the answer is no based on my experience with this blog. What motivated me to post an article everyday was my belief that I needed to generate content to, somehow, help humanity reach the next Maslow Window- a period when space habitation is fundable- before it closes. These need to post by midnight every night lead to horrible posts, writing that did nothing to further the field. If I took this attitude into the industry, I would have produced low quality parts/designs, and I would have burned out sooner or later. However, when I’ve allowed a blog post two or three days in development time I tend to produce posts which I’m most proud of, posts which I know are convincing people and furthering the field because of the reaction I see on social media.
Here’s where I take the pervious paragraph and toss it into my generalization machine. If the urgency I see in space settlement works is replicated in technical works towards space settlement, we have a problem. I don’t work in the aerospace industry, so I have no clue about the culture of NASA, Boeing and other space organizations. But, if those people think we need to progress every second, they will go slower. Once again, it is faster to go as slow as one needs to in order to preserve quality. I point to Apollo as an example of what happens to a program whose main design consideration is a speedy development. The program burnt out in a relatively short time. In short, it is better to wait for the next train to the future instead of sprinting on foot towards it.
Yes, this strategy could delay space habitation, but the Apollo model of space development, the draining bayonet charge to a space faring society doesn’t work in the long term. Yes, we could miss the windows we need to reach for space development. However, if one were to look at these windows as cyclical objects, one would find that humanity still has a chance if we miss a window. But, if we keep having Apollo style bursts into space, the humanity’s chances are greatly reduced because each window is wasted. It is better to miss one window to jump cleanly out of the next.
In Case You Skimmed
-We must redefine what urgency means in this field, it means producing high quality work, not bucket loads of low quality stuff.
Reactions
-Will this slow pace cause trouble with our political cycles? Can we maintain support of long periods of time? Do have have to complete our missions in four years?
Resources
Honore, Carl . “Carl Honore praises slowness” February 2007. Online video clip. TED. Accessed on February 20 2010. <http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/carl_honore_praises_slowness.html>
Photo Credit
Stephen Poff
Thinkers like Gerard O'Neill, Ted Taylor, G. Harry Stine, Edward Gilfillan and many others have warned that a space faring society can destroy themselves. This idea is presented as a solution to the Fermi paradox. But, such a society will be presented with challenges like war, disease and pollution long before they are tested on their ability not to hit the big red button.