Apollo Poked the Box but we are in a Dip

Seth Godin wrote a blog post about the "contradiction (it seems) between Poke the Box, which argues that you must consistently ship innovations to the market (and frequently fail), and The Dip [both by Mr. Godin], which argues that... the real success comes after the quitters have left the building".

The Apollo program, in fact the whole space race, poked the box in unique way. What they did back then is the biggest example of pushing pass the fear of shipping Seth Godin mentions.What's impressive about this is the cultural changes that took place to allow the space race. People, at one time, thought even short range rockets where impossible. Whole administrations on both sides of the race were against space programs at first.

We are now is the middle of the dip, the part where people quit because this is the most tiresome part of any endeavor. The excitement of the firsts has worn off. But quitting the multi-generational project that is space exploration "in the middle is dumb". We are on the verge of something epic. Every step through the brick wall that is holding humanity back from being space-faring will be awful, absolutely awful, but it will so be worth decades of effort on our part. Efforts that we might not see the fruits of, but efforts humanity will enjoy. No one said this would be easy.

Now is the hardest time in our progress towards space settlement, not our first baby steps, but our first steps as adults. We are allowed to fail over and over in the start, to keep poking at it until a species reaches its firsts in space. But once the project is committed to by showing the public successful baby steps, successful pokes, then, then we must not quit. Even as this struggle tempts us too.

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 Connection Between Human Rights and Space Habitation

A species which denies certain basic rights can not become a spacefaring species. Imagine, if you will, a species as a a supercomputer and each member of a species as a processor. If you deny permissions to a processor that processor can not participate in the task.

What if reporters in America where denied the freedom of expression and where blocked from reporting on Sputnik? Would NASA exist? Would humanity have landed on the moon? Would we have a generation of engineers who want to school to fill a "brain gap" and where motivated by Sputnik? Would we have the technologies and interconnectivity brought on by spaceflight? Would we have had a space race?

A species which denies certain basic rights can not become a spacefaring species.

How can this biological supercomputer solve the huge boatload of problems, most social problems, that spaceflight if certain processors are not "loaded" with basic programming to analyze problems. How can we become spacefaring if people can not participate in and understand an increasingly scientific world? Space takes no prisoners, it will find a species' weakness and take advantage of it to prevent it from entering space. Someone denied the right to education may have been the one with the insight we need to become a spacefaring species.

A species which denies certain basic rights can not become a spacefaring species.

With such a massive task, how can one deny the right to participate in a culture? How can you not ask every member of a species their opinion on the group's path; give each member the ability to shape the culture that leaders in the space field will derive the goals of spaceflight from? How can you expect a member of a species to feel excitement for space when they can not participate in the thrill of a launch? When they are too scared to express their excitement for anything? When they can not speak about their passions in public?

A species which denies certain basic rights to any member of that species can not become a spacefaring species.

How can anyone dream of space or look up at the stars if they are denied housing, food, water and health care? What then does the whole species miss by their inability to participate, not only in space, but in all of that species' goals. How can a species survive in space, a place which tests everything to it's breaking point, when it is unwilling to provide for every member?

A species which denies certain basic rights can not become a spacefaring species. When we give every human these basic things, we will be ready; this species will then be mature enough to become spacefaring. Now, looking at how much suffering humans cause one another, I doubt we can inhabit space.

Reactions

Am I right? It it possibly for humanity to move to space while making members of this species second class world citizens? One a scale of one to ten, how much is lack of human rights holding back humanity?

Resources

Photo by riacale

In Case You Skimmed

-A species which denies certain basic rights can not become a spacefaring species

-Denying a human their rights removes their perspective from all the problems we must solve

-Denying a human their rights removes any chance of them becoming inspired by space

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.

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. 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.

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.

Fear in Space Habitation Pt. 1

I've noticed I've been posting alot on human extinction and I'm using that argument as my flag ship argument. That worries me. Fear has been studied and is generally considered a bad motivator. But, we can use fear in a moral and appropriate matter

"Collective fear stimulates herd instinct, and tends to produce ferocity toward those who are not regarded as members of the herd." ~ Bertrand Russell

I worry about those opposed to space habitation. When I use human extinction as an argument, I tap into people's fears and their fears about their children. The emotional response will be huge. People who I have convinced with the human extinction argument will target those opposed to space habitation as treats to themselves as their children. I don't want to cause someone's life to be ruined because of an idea.

"There is nothing to fear except the persistent refusal to find out the truth, the persistent refusal to analyze the causes of happenings." ~ Dorothy Thompson

People who support space habitation out of fear will not critically look at what he supports. If space habitation is completely disprove, fear will not allow a person to give up. Maybe there are other ways to prevent human extinction and I believe all space habitation supporters must be open minded, but if I use fear I could close the mind of anyone who follows me.

"You gain strength, courage, and confidence by every experience in which you really stop to look fear in the face. You must do the thing which you think you cannot do." ~ Eleanor Roosevelt

But, humanity really looking into the face of it's own mortally may help us deal with other times when we do not have a threat. Thinking about humanity dying off is scary, we have trouble thinking about our own deaths, but the thought of no one experiencing life is horrifying. Really take a breath in and imagine that was the last breath that will every be drawn in this universe. But, if we pull of what ever macro-engineering project that will ensure our survival, we will come out of this scary time a stronger and more confident species. Maybe talking about human extinction will make us stronger.

Fear is an emotion indispensable for survival. ~ Hannah Arendt

This is human however, this is what made us live till today. Fear is what caused the creep of technological advancement. Everything we do has a taint of fear in it. Going to school can be supported with fear of poverty, partying may be done out of fear of loneness and having a relationship may be done out of fear of missing something in life. Everything we do has fear and space habitation, consuming a large amount of resources will also consume alot of human emotion.   

Tell your heart that the fear of suffering is worse than the suffering itself. And no heart has ever suffered when it goes in search of its dream.- Paulo Coelho

However, we are already worrying about it. The 2012 fear wave is already causing alot of suffering. Maybe, since we are all ready started to have fear about human extinction, we can focus on some project, some dream and decrease the suffering. Because people running around in circles screaming "the sky is falling" is worse then supporting a dream with some fear. I rather have a rush to build a space colony then riots.

I have to consider this more, please, if you think I use fear too much, tell me.

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

Catalysis for a Space Economy

China is moving forward with it's Tiangong-1 project: a manned, military, space laboratory. With this action China has set in motion a space race that will motivate the development of space.


"'The People's Liberation Army's General Armament Department aims to finish systems for the Tiangong-1 mission this year,' says an official Chinese government statement on the new project. Work on a ground prototype is nearly finished...

The Tiangong vehicle's debut in late 2010, and increase in Chinese manned mission flight rates will coincide with the planned termination of the U.S. space shuttle program and a five year hiatus in American manned space launches" (Spaceflight Now 1).


I think there is only one way to explain what China just did: using xkcd... They should call America Mario land, because we just got 1-up'd (xkcd 2). China is taking America's place as the leader of space, which is a big problem for us, because Americans have assumed that we would always be the leader in space. This is why we have vulnerable space systems which we are depended on.


A Day without Space would be a crippling day as reported by LTG Joseph M. Cosumano, Jr. This report makes it clear how dependent we are on space. “Effective Space control leads to Space superiority which, like air and information superiority, is critical to our success as a military [and economic] force” (US Army 3). We rely on space for global positioning, necessary not only in civilian navigation, but military control and command. Furthermore, we need space to track and provide early warning of incoming ballistic missiles. Space superiority is just as critical as air superiority.


Thus, the military does not want to loss space superiority, not only for their needs, but to protect civilian space-assets as well. I predict that the US Army will respond with a space laboratory of their own. But, China wants to gain space superiority, so they will build something bigger than American space systems. This new space race will provide the motivation to build the infrastructure to support a space-based economy as each nation 1-ups each other. This could even push us to establish a moon base to beat China in this race.

Do you think this is provide motivation to the US to develop space?



---------------------------------------------------

(1): China readies military space station – launch coincides with shuttle phaseout. 2 Mar. 2009. Spaceflight Now. 7 Mar. 2009 <http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n0903/02chinastation/>.

(2): Mario. Xkcd. 7 Mar. 2009 <http://xkcd.com/151/>

(3): A Day Without Space: Ensuring It Doesn't Happen. US Army. 7 Mar. 2009 <http://www.armyspace.army.mil/SpaceJournal/Article.asp?AID=15>

Analysis of the Poll "Do you think humanity will move off earth in the near future?"

Introduction

Public opinion will be a huge factor when advancing to humanity's colonization of other planets and the future of manned space flight. Disasters like the space shuttle Columbia have the possibility of reducing public support. However, “A poll taken yesterday [,a few days after the Columbia accident,] suggests that Americans still support the shuttle program, with 82 per cent in a CNN-USA Today-Gallup poll saying manned flights should continue. That's about the same percentage who said it should continue after the 1986 Challenger disaster. The poll of 462 adults had a margin of error of plus or minus five percentage points”(The Globe and Mail 1). In a poll more recent poll with a larger sample size, the Coalition for Space Exploration found that 43% of American adults placed a very, very high value on the space program, compared to 12% placing very little to no value, and the rest ranging in between those extremes. This report found that the highest source of value American adults what in technological innovation and development that came with the field, at 77%, and consumer goods developed from the space program, at 73%. A interesting part of the Coalition for Space Exploration's report pointed out a problem the space community faces, before giving examples of spin-off technology, only 38% said that they where completely sure they interacted with technology developed from space. After being show examples of spin-offs, 93% said they where completely sure they interacted with technology developed from space. Further education in the survey increased respondents opinions of the space program, 76% and 79% strongly affected positively by learning that the aerospace industry contributes 2% to the gross domestic produce and adds 500,000 jobs to the Unites States, respectively. The survey gave more information and education throughout, resulting in a gain of 30 percentage points in those who placed a huge value on the space program, up from 43% to 73%. This survey had a large sample of American adults (n = 1,018), so these results can be generalized to the whole population of American adults. (Coalition for Space Exploration 2)

Aim

This study is geared to find the opinions of those who visited my blog. The results should be of use to those blogging about manned spaceflight so they may gear their articles to better serve their readers.

Methods

Design

This study used the blogger.com poll widget to ask the question “Do you think humanity will move off earth in the near future?”. The poll had the following options: “No, it is too risky.”, “No, there is no will to do so.”, “Yes, there is a big enough of a reason to go.”, “Yes, we need to move off earth to survive.”, “Maybe, only if we get out if this bad economy”, “Other”, “Maybe, only if the public is motivated enough to support it”. The subjects where then invited to leave their blog's URL and post a explanation of their vote and voice their opinions on the subject using the blog's comment system. A dedicated post was “sticked” for this purpose. The participants where offered a free backlink for participating in the survey, this was a voluntary sample, yielding 17 responses.

Because of the high bounce rate and the low time amount of time visitors spend on my blog, this survey had to be quick. I also did not have a large enough subject poll to take an SRS (simple random sample) from. This survey took place over a week, but comments where left open to allow non-subjects to voice their opinions.

Subjects

We do not know much about the subjects because we did not ask for any demographical information. We can assume they all have Internet access and that they vast majority are bloggers because many subjects left URLs.

Results and Discussion

Technicalities

Because of the low sample size, I can not generalize these results to the population of Americans, I may be able to generalize to my readers, but it is a stretch at best. It is also possible for a person to enter their opinion twice, over the course of 2 days. Also, bias may be formed because of the voluntary nature of the survey because only interested people will take the survey.

Outcomes

The answer choices were: “No, it is too risky.”(5%), “No, there is no will to do so.”(29%), “Yes, there is a big enough of a reason to go.”(11%), “Yes, we need to move off earth to survive.”(17%), “Maybe, only if we get out if this bad economy”(0%), “Other”(17%), “Maybe, only if the public is motivated enough to support it”(17%). They are numbered in this order on the above chart.

Conclusions

Though I got opposite results when compared to current research, this is not surprising. Because of the huge increases in opinion of manned space flight when subjects where provided literature on the subject, I think may sample did not know the benefits of space or I got extremes of opinions because of the low sample size and voluntary nature of this survey. These results show a failing of the space community to educate the public on space. These results could also show my selection of a voluntary survey type which is prone to error and underrepresentation.

Another anomaly is the general pro-space stance of the comments, verses the less positive survey results. Because of the errors in my method I have to label this as inconclusive. However, I have learned enough to modify my methods and try again, building a survey that will reduce the number of people who answer “Other” is crucial as well. Further exploration into what other opinion exist is necessary, as well as a more in depth survey. Maybe I can offer entrecard credits to increase my sample size.

Acknowledgments

The participants who chose to identify themselves are:

chato of Mental Health Humor and Cartoons,
sarah of PC Game Trek,
Bob of Black holes and astrostuff,
Spicybugz of Spicybugz World,
Metallman of Metallman's Reverie,
Ravyn of Exchange of Realities,
bstone of planet earth looks blue,
nipsy of its completely nipplelicious,
Jude of Mature Not Senile,
April of The Crazy Green Cheapskate,
RevOxley,
Stephanie of Rocket Scientist,
webbielady of Webloglearner,
Lubasa of Lubasa sketchlog.
Thank you to all the other poll takers who did not identify themselves and to those who did id themselves.

Sources

(1) Ha, Tu Thanh. “NASA woes put space future on hold” The Global and Mail. 3 Feb. 2003. 28 Feb. 2009 <http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/PEstory/TGAM/20030203/UNASAN/International/international/internationalAmericasHeadline_temp/9/9/18/>

(2) CSE_Gen Pop National TOPLINE_090203. No publication date given. Coalition for Space Exploration. 28 Feb. 2009 <http://www.spacecoalition.com/banners/09_88percent/CSE_Gen%20Pop_National_TOPLINE_090203_adjusted.pdf>

4. chota. “No humanity” [Weblog comment.] Approximately 16 Feb. 2009. Poll: Do you think humanity will move off earth in the near future?. Daniel Sims. Habitation Intention. <http://habitationintention.blogspot.com/2009/02/poll-do-you-think-humanity-will-move.html#IDComment15277006> 28 Feb. 2009

3. sarah. “I think” [Weblog comment.] Approximately 16 Feb. 2009. Poll: Do you think humanity will move off earth in the near future?. Daniel Sims. Habitation Intention. <http://habitationintention.blogspot.com/2009/02/poll-do-you-think-humanity-will-move.html#IDComment15277185> 28 Feb. 2009

4. Bob. “We have to” [Weblog comment.] Approximately 16 Feb. 2009. Poll: Do you think humanity will move off earth in the near future?. Daniel Sims. Habitation Intention. <http://habitationintention.blogspot.com/2009/02/poll-do-you-think-humanity-will-move.html#IDComment15282426> 28 Feb. 2009

5. Spicybugz. “And where” [Weblog comment.] Approximately 16 Feb. 2009. Poll: Do you think humanity will move off earth in the near future?. Daniel Sims. Habitation Intention. <http://habitationintention.blogspot.com/2009/02/poll-do-you-think-humanity-will-move.html#IDComment15284076> 28 Feb. 2009

6. Metallman. “Hey there” [Weblog comment.] Approximately 23 Feb. 2009. Poll: Do you think humanity will move off earth in the near future?. Daniel Sims. Habitation Intention. <http://habitationintention.blogspot.com/2009/02/poll-do-you-think-humanity-will-move.html#IDComment15293712> 28 Feb. 2009

7. Ravyn. “It's all dependent” [Weblog comment.] Approximately 23 Feb. 2009. Poll: Do you think humanity will move off earth in the near future?. Daniel Sims. Habitation Intention. <http://habitationintention.blogspot.com/2009/02/poll-do-you-think-humanity-will-move.html#IDComment15373370> 28 Feb. 2009

8. bstone. “well, we've always” [Weblog comment.] Approximately 23 Feb. 2009. Poll: Do you think humanity will move off earth in the near future?. Daniel Sims. Habitation Intention. <http://habitationintention.blogspot.com/2009/02/poll-do-you-think-humanity-will-move.html#IDComment15379180> 28 Feb. 2009

9. nipsy. “Unfortunately” [Weblog comment.] Approximately 23 Feb. 2009. Poll: Do you think humanity will move off earth in the near future?. Daniel Sims. Habitation Intention. <http://habitationintention.blogspot.com/2009/02/poll-do-you-think-humanity-will-move.html#IDComment15403953> 28 Feb. 2009

10. Jude. “I think many” [Weblog comment.] Approximately 23 Feb. 2009. Poll: Do you think humanity will move off earth in the near future?. Daniel Sims. Habitation Intention. <http://habitationintention.blogspot.com/2009/02/poll-do-you-think-humanity-will-move.html#IDComment15423662> 28 Feb. 2009

11. April. “I think the” [Weblog comment.] Approximately 23 Feb. 2009. Poll: Do you think humanity will move off earth in the near future?. Daniel Sims. Habitation Intention. <http://habitationintention.blogspot.com/2009/02/poll-do-you-think-humanity-will-move.html#IDComment15480089> 28 Feb. 2009

12. RevOxley. “I think eventually” [Weblog comment.] Approximately 23 Feb. 2009. Poll: Do you think humanity will move off earth in the near future?. Daniel Sims. Habitation Intention. <http://habitationintention.blogspot.com/2009/02/poll-do-you-think-humanity-will-move.html#IDComment15646321> 28 Feb. 2009

13. Stephanie. “No. I hope we do” [Weblog comment.] 24 Feb. 2009. Poll: Do you think humanity will move off earth in the near future?. Daniel Sims. Habitation Intention. <http://habitationintention.blogspot.com/2009/02/poll-do-you-think-humanity-will-move.html#IDComment15716415> 28 Feb. 2009

14. webbielady. “Unless the earth” [Weblog comment.] 25 Feb. 2009. Poll: Do you think humanity will move off earth in the near future?. Daniel Sims. Habitation Intention. <http://habitationintention.blogspot.com/2009/02/poll-do-you-think-humanity-will-move.html#IDComment15750241> 28 Feb. 2009

15. Lebasa. “Probably” [Weblog comment.] 27 Feb. 2009. Poll: Do you think humanity will move off earth in the near future?. Daniel Sims. Habitation Intention. <http://habitationintention.blogspot.com/2009/02/poll-do-you-think-humanity-will-move.html#IDComment15828434> 28 Feb. 2009

Surveys and Backlinks

On Sunday my little study on the public opinion of space habitation ended. I want to write a post the mimics the format of professional studies. While researching for the introduction section of this study, I came across several papers that discussed the very topic I was studying. I am very happy with the post and will be posting it on the weekend, after I finish proofreading. I would like to thank those bloggers who participated in my survey now and later in the study itself. (Backlinks, for everyone!) My data had a huge non-response rate, so I can not make generalizations about the opinions of all mankind. But, I can redesign my study based on the comments I got. The participants who chose to identify themselves are:

chato of Mental Health Humor and Cartoons,
sarah of PC Game Trek,
Bob of Black holes and astrostuff,
Spicybugz of Spicybugz World,
Metallman of Metallman's Reverie,
Ravyn of Exchange of Realities,
bstone of planet earth looks blue,
nipsy of its completely nipplelicious,
Jude of Mature Not Senile,
April of The Crazy Green Cheapskate,
RevOxley,
Stephanie of Rocket Scientist,
webbielady of Webloglearner,
Lubasa of Lubasa sketchlog.
Thank you to all the other poll takers who did not identify themselves. Your time and your efforts have given me inside into the subject which I am passionate about.

In other news, there is a real study on public opinion of manned space flight. If you have any free time, please take this survey. Surveys like mine and the space expectations survey need a very large sample size to get over the problem of voluntary sampling and to make conclusions about a population. In voluntary sampling, only those who care about the subject will take the survey, creating biased results. Every questionnaire matters in a survey, the space community needs your input to but understand and serve you, please take survey ran by the International Academy of Astronautics.

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

A Flaw in My Last Post

I have a very strong bias in support of NASA and all they do, so in my last post, Creativity in Negative Times, I assumed that NASA would be open to internal innovation. But, I have found evidence that proves this is not the case. While dropping entrecards I ran into a mispelt bog [sic]. The first post was an embedded youtube video called Barriers to Innovation and Inclusion directed by NASA astronaut Andrew S. W. Thomas. This video is based on real events that occurred at NASA.
The video details the following roadblocks to innovation at NASA. They are...

• Superiors wanting to stay within their comfort zones
• Compartmentalizing employees
• Assuming ideas from contractors means they are wasting working time and contract restrictions (It is possible that a passionate employ spends his/her free time doing work)
• Fear of retribution from superiors and other departments
• Fear of losing a contract because of an idea
• Lack of trust in employees and deferring problems to the chain of command
• Conformity to the current direction/Institutional inertia
• Ad Hominem Arguments (Attacking the source of an argument or an idea to disprove the argument or idea)
• Risk aversion
• Worrying about the process to develop the idea with disregard of the outcome.

So, it seems that NASA is not as supportive of innovation as I originally assumed. I found an article about someone who tried to fix this called Wayne Hale's NASA Blog: Stifling Dissent, but after working on fixing this problem...

Still, it is hard to tell how effective the change effort has been. Even though I personally try to solicit information from a variety of folks in a variety of places and ways, the reports were generally that alternate opinions are welcomed, dissent is accepted and evaluated, and we are doing better than ever.
But the anonymous polls and [Internet] feed back says there is still a lot of work to be done.
Recently I had a couple of events which affected my thinking on this. I have been out of the Shuttle Program manager job for almost a year now and a trusted coworker just a week ago told me that people in his organization had been prevented from giving me important alternative choices for some program choices that occurred a couple of years ago. This was staggering. It was happening right in front of me and I was totally unaware that people - who I trusted, who I hoped would trust me - kept their lips sealed because somebody in their middle management made it clear to them that speaking up would not be good.

I will write further blog posts about this flaw I found, it is fascinating and I want to understand why it occurs. This is only my opinion though, is there good that can come out of what I think is a flaw in NASA's management.