You Cannot Explore The Universe When Your Head Is Stuck In The Sand
Humans to Mars: a deeply disturbing idea, Linda Billings
“I have deep moral qualms about this idea, as it appeals to a small fraction of humankind and proposes what would inevitably be an elitist enterprise. Would it be ethical to enable people with enough money to buy a ticket to leave our troubled Earth behind? Would it be ethical for government(s) to subsidize such an enterprise? In Musk’s disturbing “vision” – a nightmare in my mind – how many poverty-stricken Bangladeshis or Congolese, how many permanently displaced Syrian refugees, will come up with $200,000 – or $2,000, for that matter – to “start anew,” as the colonization zealots say they want to do? I participated in a conference this past weekend about “social and conceptual issues in astrobiology.” Among the questions we 30 attendees were asked to consider in our discussions were: “Should humans seek to exploit and/or colonize space? If so, how should this be done? Are there truly universal principals of biology, psychology, morality, etc. that would apply to extraterrestrial life?” My views on these questions are: No. We should not do it. No.”
Keith’s note: I have known Linda for 30 years and have a lot of respect for her work. But I thought this whole “but people are starving in [fill in the blank]” or “why spend money in space when we should spend it on Earth” mindset was a thing of the 1960 and 1970s. If you want to go after budgets to fix social inequalities then NASA is not the place to start – there is much more low hanging fruit elsewhere.
Decades of public opinion polls, popular media, and other cultural phenomena strongly point to a public viewpoint on space that is exactly opposite of what Linda claims. Moreover her viewpoint flies in the face of human history. People explore. Then they colonize. Then they move on to explore some more because that is what people do. In particular I am not certain why this tiny group of 30 space people (no doubt the usual suspects at meetings like this) meeting in their little echo chamber is in any way representative of what America’s 300+ million – or the billions who live elsewhere think about exploring space.
Look at China and India – countries with vast, pressing social issues – issues that surely could use more money. Yet these countries are dedicating large resources toward exploring space – often times repeating what other countries did decades ago. What is it that they have discovered about exploring space that space people in America seem to have forgotten? Meanwhile, as NASA runs in circles with inadequate budgets driven by plans that they were never going to be capable of implementing, the private sector has amassed the resources to do things on their own in space – for their own reasons.
NASA has been 20 years away from sending humans to Mars for over 40 years. Clearly the NASA approach to sending humans on Mars no longer works. Its time for someone else to do it. If not Elon Musk then some other billionaire(s) will certainly step up to the plate. And if not the U.S. then other countries will.
Keith’s personal note: I am eternally fond of Linda. We worked together at NASA Life Science Division in the 80s. She knows her Astrobiology. Much of NASA’s Planetary Protection policies are the result of her hard work. That said, I do not agree with her opinions about humans on Mars. That said, she’s still a true believer in the exploration of space.
Sounds somewhat like Ann Clayborne’s outlook in KSR’s Red Mars trilogy.
And the ship will carry 100 people, most likely around 2030. KSR has nailed it.
You say. We should not do it. As of now, there is no we. There is Mr. Musk. A free human being with a dream and perhaps the money to make it happen. So to my way of thinking…no one in this word has a right to say no to him and his dream…..as for affording to go….my ancestors came from Europe. They did not walk to America….they had to pay to come here. They perhaps had a dream of coming here. They saved for it and made it happen. There were others with the dream, who perhaps did not have the resources to make the trip, and still others who had no desire to leave their native soil . Why do you worry do much about that….small fraction.who may want to make a new home on Mars. Who is anyone to judge their dream as elitist. Is it elitist to want your child to grow to be successful, a doctor or a lawyer say
Is it elitist to want to got to an Ivy League school? How about we let people make their own decisions, struggle to achieve their own dreams and spend their wealth as they see fit….it’s called freedom…it does not cure poverty…never will…but it’s better than being subjugated to the views of others…it’s better I think to be poor and free to do as one dreams and wishes than to be constrained by the. No Vote of an elite st like the author here… And that’s why people will choose to go to Mars…. To be free
Bravo Bob! This idiocy that we shouldn’t push outward until we achieve paradise here is the same BS I’ve been hearing for decades.
Just imagine had our early ancestors adopted this brilliant thesis. We’d still be in caves, stuck on whichever continent you pick … we’d have gone exactly nowhere. Brilliant!
Also. You ask if it would be ethical to enable people with enough money to buy a Mars ticket…mother of God…people can spend their money as they wish…. Ethical? Are you insane or a communist?
Is it ethical for me to buy filet mignon when my neighbor can only afford ground chuck….ethical??? Please
She is the one responsible for “planetary protection” policies which are the most restrictive, liberty curtailing regulations governing human activity on other solar system objects, “for the greater good.”
Then what possible reason is there for spending billions for a few elitist astronauts to go to Mars ? What purpose does human exploration serve at all? If we really want to save Bangledesh, take all the budget devoted to subjects other than Earth science and heliophysics and devote it to global warming.
There’s also the problem that this is the way it already works now. People earn more money, they move to better neighborhoods with better schools, etc. I don’t see how space is going to be any different. That said, I personally would never go to Mars anyway. I like being outside without a spacesuit, going to the store to get a Coke, watching a baseball game, walking my dogs, having four seasons. I like Earth. I could sit trapped in my house all day for free. I don’t have to pay $200,000 for it.
It would be interesting to read an analysis of vehemently pro settlement and anti settlement space advocates philosophy and psychology. I’m pretty sure the two philosophies end up ultimately fundamentally incompatible, but it would be interesting to understand what drives both.
And one point of view will ultimately win, place your bets
That would be an interesting study. But I’m not sure if one side will ultimately win. I see a long-standing conflict between personal rights and freedoms, which implies risks if the individual makes the wrong choices or simply has bad luck, versus collective actions and coordination through a hierarchy, which is much safer but offers less freedom or independence. This is something people have been arguing and fighting about for thousands of years. So I don’t see an ultimate winner in sight.
Sure, but in this case if a meaningful human settlement happens beyond earth, one side has clearly won and end of argument
Like everything else in the west, the decision will be made by money and nothing else.
Resources will be allocated via a (mostly) capitalist economic system. Since that is the only amoral system I know of, what would you suggest?
A strong argument can be made that capitalism is far from amoral, as you put it.
I would say this, not knowing the answer to your question, exactly, but thinking more broadly: we presently live in a capitalist society, one held to be some sort of pinnacle in the search for an ideal way to organize ourselves. But is this true?
I have pointed out here (as have others) that we are natural creatures of the century we inhabit. Pushing time back, say, 700 years, it is the divine right of kings to organize society that would appear natural and right. There is a similar phenomena, of course, with the religion of our fathers.
The sweep of history will be the ultimate judge, as one day capitalism may come to be seen as outdated, a system that cannot provide a level playing field for all citizens. That day is not now and may never come.
Capitalism has many disadvantages, one being an inherently unfair distribution of wealth, but the chief issue is our tendency to measure the value of everything in terms of money. This single fact is undermining our great country.
Capitalism doesn’t distribute wealth — it just calls for the lack of force. Transactions that are mutually beneficial and voluntary. Not sure what is unfair about that.
Not all the transactions are mutually beneficial and voluntary. If, for example, unemployment is high and jobs you’re qualified are rare, your employer can twist your arm into working for wages which are not exactly mutually beneficial and under what I would not call a truly voluntary basis. I think the issue is probably what you mean by “lack of force.” If you limit it to violent force, then you’re allowing various forms of non-violent coercion into your definition of “voluntary.” If you use a broader definition of “force”, then you’re probably implying government involvement at a level beyond a pure definition of capitalism.
Using your example, you are not forced to work for the employer offering wages you are not happy with.
Now that’s just silly. The term ‘force’ may not be at the end of a gun but it is force nonetheless, and not one of those happy ‘transactions between willing people’.
It’s simply not the case that, in the realm of workers and employers that there’s any sort of equality at all, without which there can be no willing transaction.
There is definitely silly here, but you need to look in the mirror. There is literally zero force — of any kind — being applied to you to take any job under capitalism or in the United States (where we have imperfect capitalism). I suspect you are confusing the lack of the benefits which come from employment (compensation, etc.) with force.
I immediately thought of the scene in the original BBC version of the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy where the “event planners” et al on the crashed B ship sat around endlessly debating the pros & cons of “fire” and “the wheel” and never actually accomplished anything.
Her rant is rather extreme and irrational. What is most disturbing is that she is supposedly a well regarded Space Policy analyst. This rant of her’s should put into question her past current and future work as these types of people have a difficult time being objective.
Really? It’s hardly irrational; and it is extreme only in comparison to other points of view. She is hardly alone.
Take some time to actually read some of her broader writings.
Her argument could be applied to any number of things that the federal government spends money on. Not the least of which would be “defense”. Why are we spending money on waging war (lining the pockets of the executives at the top of hundreds of defense contractors) when we could be spending that money on addressing hunger, healthcare, and homelessness?
It’s a false choice. We can spend what amounts to a very tiny amount of money on space exploration and ultimately colonization (whether it’s a fraction of a percentage point of the federal budget or whether it’s a fraction of a percentage point of private spending) and we can spend money on solving the problems we have “at home” on earth.
Who the hell is Linda Billings?
Linda has a 30+ year resume of supporting NASA exobiology and astrobiology. I used to work with her. She’s solid.
What the hell is google?
Ernst Stuhlinger: https://launiusr.wordpress….
That is all…
It depends on value…(not just short term cost benefit analysis)
Spending money on R&D educates and inspires-gives hope.
“People can set their minds to magical seemingly impossible ideas and through science and technology bring them to reality..and that then sets other people on fire..” So many examples…e.g. Apollo electronics… direct and indirect…
Linda discussed her ‘value’ judgement on the value of a ticket to leave earth and billions spent on the system. The current SpaceX effort however is directed toward scalable large cryo composite tanks and new high ISP engines. Its very easy to see that this technology would likely further reduce the costs of space travel and many other apps, not just colonization.
NASA (and Congress?) shall conduct “The long-range studies of the potential benefits to be gained from, the opportunities for, and the problems involved in the utilization of aeronautical and space activities for peaceful and scientific purposes.
The inspiration: a shift from expendable $10B/person hardware to completely re-useable, scalable designs ->240K (+ lots of other logistical costs). Because of the latter costs alone, besides significant reductions in transport costs for both HSF and science missions, many advocate for “to Mars” first.
Will IPS break the cost barrier for landing heavy objects on gravity wells–a Grand Challenge? Do we change opinions based on new facts…do we take time to think outside the box?
GWP: “Stage 2 initiates human exploration of the solar system with a variety of destinations including “near Earth objects” such as asteroids, the Lagrange points; and the vicinities of the moon and Mars. Note that human landings on the moon or Mars are not included, although landings on the Martian moons (Phobos or Deimos) could be made, as they have negligible gravitational attraction and no atmosphere…both safer and more cost effective than going directly to the planetary surfaces as landing and ascent vehicles would not be required.” http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lun…
https://www.youtube.com/wat…
https://youtu.be/_3BxBeLzbg8
The problem I have with her belief is that there’s never really a time when we have gotten everything in order before doing discovery. Look at Galileo, doing scientific discovery in Italy while central Europe was devastated in religious warfare. You wait for “maturity” – whatever that means – and you’ll be waiting forever.
From reading her blog for a while, I get the impression that she sees space colonization and resource use as an extension of economic systems she hates here on Earth, so she opposes them in space. She’s not the only one.
The conversation Billings raises is one worth having more of, even if I can’t say I agree with her conclusions.
As time goes by my least favorite “why” to space exploration has become that whole progressive notion about the inevitable evolution of mankind, with the usual analogies to growth, procreating, or the seeds of a tree flying away in the wind to grow elsewhere (queue inspirational music and Sagan speech). I sense in Billings writings a certain disdain for these simple evolutionary mandates, which being evolutionary are ultimately purposeless and mindless. In the great silence, what might we do different than other intelligent races, all thinking they had this figured out too?
If we were to say let’s take space exploration outside of evolution, let’s forget that evolutionary mandate, lets take matters into our own hands, rather than handing it over to ill-understood drives and what got us this far, then I wouldn’t be surprised all the problems on Earth got solved along the way. As we explored beyond Earth, at least it would be for all the right reasons. It’s not enough to say we do something to survive. To live another day. So one’s children live on. We always have to ask why it even matters, why us. If we do one day take care of all our problems on Earth, more than likely by discarding those evolutionary weaknesses, perhaps then we’d at least be worthy of inheriting the stars. If we explore Mars or Europa, or who knows where, to solve problems on Earth, from poverty to racism to distrust and war, then maybe we finally have a good “why”.
Complete agreement with your comment. To add to it, there’s that old adage that we learn more by trying and failing, than if we don’t try at all. However, I also think that it’s inevitable that large-scale expansion into space will be driven, at least initially, by traditional economic concepts . . .opportunity, exploitation of resources, etc.
Of course, once there exists sufficient industry off-planet to be self-sustaining/expanding, many traditional norms of Earth economics may well become memories.
I am eternally fond of Linda. We worked together at NASA Life Science Division in the 80s. She knows her Astrobiology. Much of NASA’s Planetary Protection policies are the result of her hard work. That said. I do not agree with her opinions about humans on Mars.
In your personal note Keith you wrote “she’s still a true believer in the exploration of space”.
Yet Ms Billings openly decries both the private enterprise and government sponsorship necessary to deliver this outcome.
I’m not trying to offend, but I’d love to hear the alternative.
It is very easy to criticize free enterprise because it is inherently flawed and unfair. The benefits of economic activity are unfairly distributed. While we are as individuals unequally avaricious, the system lionizes the particularly rapacious amongst us. Worse, it assigns dollars as the measurement of worth, a measure applied to every human activity from space to education.
On the other hand, free enterprise has the benefit of providing a sturdy economic whirlwind, appealing as it does to our acquisitive and covetous instincts. And as with democracy as practiced here in America, beneficial alternatives remain undefined, a fact not recognized by many.
The search for alternatives continues, with thinkers like Dr. Billings and others. And while I disagree with her completely, she is not to be condemned but applauded.
It’s called ‘thinking outside the box’.
I would agree if she / that side presented a viable, defined alternative. What we see instead is applause-light rhetoric. If you want to criticize capitalist expansion into space, sure go ahead. It has its faults. But for me to lower my ignore filters you must provide a plausibly better alternative plan. Otherwise you might as well be arguing for rainbows and unicorns.
But there isn’t. Socialism is simply not as innovated or sustainable as free markets when it comes to creating new industries.
Pity they ignore studying basic economics which has already answered those questions. And it is not about instincts, it is about competition. Economies work just like ecosystems and are shaped by the same competitive force.
Part of me wants Musk to succeed, but a large part of me wants limited human exploration of Mars first instead by teams of scientists – 6 or 8 – at a time every 26 months or so for a couple of decades. If areas of contemporary life ever are discovered, I’d advocate a large and careful ‘Nature Reserve’ allocated around those areas – only strictly authorized personnel allowed in or out. Sending hundreds of people to Mars in some sort of headlong rush without a fairly decent and considered infrastructure set up first also makes me nervous. But I may be not giving Musk enough credit for having those goals go without saying. But also; Antarctica hasn’t been ‘colonized’ by humans – I’m glad about that – but professional, multi-national science teams do good work there.
I want ‘Antarctic-style’ Outposts first on the Moon and Mars before allowing the wholesale exploitation of a scientifically rich planet. I wish Elon Musk had announced Raptor upgrades to the Falcon Heavy instead and Dragon 3.0 to allow Mars Direct-style science missions to Mars in the 2020s; stealing a march from NASA and making SLS etc pork obsolete. After a trilogy or two of those missions, mankind would then be in a far better position to dream of moving big numbers of folks to Mars – and much of the necessary technology to do so would have been prototyped and pioneered there, first.
I’m afraid I don’t think that’s realistic. Mars is an entire world. Half a dozen, Mars Direct-style missions means about 25 people, for a couple of years on site each, at half a dozen locations. The idea that they could explore an entire world simply isn’t realistic. Even your comparison to Antarctica shows this: The extremely incomplete exploration of that continent, from the beginning through the IGY period (when we could at least claim most of it had been explored) required thousands of people. I know sending huge numbers of people to Mars may harm what we want to study, but the task is really too large to accomplish without sending huge numbers of people.
Perhaps more importantly, the goal is not and should not be “to study.” At least that is not the primary, and certainly not the sole purpose of Martian colonization. This is about expanding intelligence, specifically humanity into the cosmos, permanently.
Yes, I’m fully aware of the concept – being an old Star Trek fan from way back and having read O’Neill decades ago. Lunar Colonies would expand and protect human endeavours just fine, with a much shorter supply chain to boot. Not to mention extremely large space stations at Lagrange and other waypoints.
Right, I’m sure you are familiar. It’s just that these outlooks are fundamentally at odds with each other. The “science preserve” trades all the benefits of colonization for marginal risk reduction of a few scientific research scenarios. This is such a one sided trade that I find it very hard to believe people that claim to prefer the science preserve alternative (yet you are not the first to argue for it).
Yeah, I know 25 people over a decade can’t survey a whole planet with far more land area than Earth, but 20 years of detailed work with long-ranging manned Rovers not to mention a lot of robotic assistance ought to narrow down considerably the ‘keep out’ areas to protect any Martian bio-areas. I’m by no means an expert in these concepts. But I still would prefer some careful and sober surveys of the planet before mankind goes blundering into the place.
This is getting a little murky, since I don’t know what sort of protection you have in mind. Unless you’re concerned about any microbes which might be carried by wind for a thousand kilometers, then a colony on one part of the Martian surface wouldn’t contaminate other regions. If that’s acceptable, then something like the environmental protocols of the Antarctic Treaty might be applicable. In some places, like MacMurdo, environmental protection is limited to “ship the trash out; no landfills allowed in Antarctica, and don’t even think of hunting the penguins.” But in other places, designated “specially protected areas” the protocols are very strict. Scientific studies of the SPAs actually benefit from the lest strict standards at the large bases; they provide an easy and efficient staging ground for research teams.
I don’t have a problem with not spending public money on colonization. Colonization is not exploration, and so perhaps Kieth has miscategorized this story. There are some ‘inherently governmental’ functions like technology development, or helping establish transportation infrastructure, like the transcontinental railroad or the national superhighway system or major airports. Even in those cases, government can help to get it going, and sell bonds or charge tolls for their use.
I’d rather the government just stick to defending the borders and delivering the mail. They can even skip the latter if it proves too difficult.
It’s the former that confuses it.
Personally if I believed that mankind is a bunch of doomed destructive selfish prats that don’t deserve to take their problems off planet and “spread the disease” then the LAST thing I’d want to do is be stuck in a closed system with those people, they sound no fun at all. It would make me want to explore space for the purpose of colonization even more.
Seriously, I hear the “fix earth first” utopia BS all the time from people, and from people who should know better. Seems to be a common theme from otherwise smart people who just don’t give a hill of beans about manned space.
Anecdotally, I see more of this among the pure science/robotic exploration crowd than the manned folks. It’s a fundamental difference in philosophy I think which is why I’ve often thought that selling space exploration primarily on science return is self defeating.
Ahh, the old human infestation of Earth stance. True but we are stuck with human-centrism, especially when things make us feel better, give us more power or allow us to have more things. Its in our DNA, and our intellect/teaching generally just hasn’t caught up. And yes, the search for fundamental knowledge will never be a significant driver for diversifying humanity off Earth. Our greatest feats to date were not forward thinking and noble, they were a result of a ego-political race. But, I believe that having humans expand off Earth permanently will have a great positive inspirational effect on all humanity, though it may be short lived: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/a…
Perhaps we simply recognize that there is starvation in the world and endeavor to do something about it. Certainly it is less obtuse than including the NFL and refugees in the same argument.
The world is not zero sum.
In this case the whole argument boils down where the money comes from – private, public or some combination. This is the same argument for many things in human life. But decrying a person from wanting to do something with their own money is to limit their freedom – an supposed American credo for all.
Otherwise, humans have been working on our social problems here on Earth for over 100,000 years. As our population increases so do our problems, with no end in sight. So, how do you “ethically or morally” fix this problem; Brave New World?
One of the points I mention when I encounter one of these “no money for space” people is that no one is putting dollar bills in rocket ships and launching them. All that money is spent here on Earth employing people, including many minorities.
That usually shuts them up.
Your missing the second half of that argument. Yes, all money is spent here, but the “no money for space” people only see that time and energies are directed at some nebulous off world effort instead of digging water supplies in 3rd world nations or some other human “fixing” efforts. That same decrying of money spent could be directed towards any non-human elevating endeavor (i.e., most basic science, etc.). Funny though, you never see the “no money for space” people denounce military spending. I guess training people and building machines to kill other humans is ok. Hum?
The problems of clean water supply are not at all fiscal or technological, but entirely political and in most cases social as well. What would you have us do? March into every little village and take it over, shooting the local warlord and powers-that-be if they get in the way of Clean Water For The People?
Oh, and we’ll have stay there forever, because of course once we leave, the old local society and powers become re-established — and we’re back to drinking from ditches again.
Cost to end world hunger = $30 Billion (UN estimate)
Market for gym membership in the US = $30 Billion
Delta in US defense budget to nearest rival = $380 Billion….
Delta in US defense budget to combined total of remainder of top five spenders = $150 Billion
NASA Budget =$19.3 Billion.
lower hanging fruit.
Mr. Musk is trying to deliver low-cost access to abundant near-Earth resources piggy-backing on longer-range goals. If we aim to deploy sub-km^2 solar arrays in space then scaling those up enormously is an incremental engineering challenge. Many issues that underpin Dr. Billings’ arguments against Grand Space relate to resource squabbles and migrations that will only intensify until we move away from fossil fuels. Disruptive sea level rise is already ‘baked in’, other perturbations are clarifying. We must electrify as rapidly as possible to accept agnostic inputs from nuclear, solar, wind, biowaste, OTEC, etc. Cheap space access is a small but significant part of that solution.
Though interesting proposal by Musk (I’m still not convinced as it just seems too optimistic, same old story for past 50 years about humans to Mars but we have much better CGI these days!). And the latest are bitter arguments of Mars missions… and yet another neglecting of the Moon.
The LOX tank prototype sure looks real:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media…
It sure is beautiful!
Given how close in revenue the NFL is to the budget of NASA ($13 billion to $19 billion), that’s a pretty good comparison to make. The NBA takes in about $5.5 billion per year and MLB about $9 billion if you want to extend it to their sport of choice.
Keep in mind that money spent on space is not actually spent in space. It goes into the pockets of many people on earth, mostly in the US, then they spend some of it on goods and services mostly in the US, but some goods and services from elsewhere including charities like UNICEF, etc..
There are no stores or banks in space and all the food on ISS is paid for by the government, so how can you spend money up there? 😉
I expect that Mars would have some kind of monetary system or something that replaces money eventually. Would there be interplanetary trade and exchange of currency?
It’s hard to imagine any base/colony on Mars that was totally self-sufficient. At least not for a very long time. For example, locally manufacturing microchips isn’t a near-term prospect, and they will be needed to replace/repair electronics. So something’s going to be imported to Mars, and that’s interplanetary trade.
As far as currency, that’s tricky. I once saw a paper (in one of the Case for Mars proceedings, I think) suggesting Martian currency might be hydrogen-backed (as opposed to a gold or silver backed hard currency.) That was based on the need for and difficulty of producing various commodities in situ. But that would not be negotiable on Earth, so some other currency would be expected to pay for the imports.
The Antarctica analogy probably wrks here as well?
That’s hard to say. Travel to Antarctica has always been relatively cheap, even in the days or Ross or Shackleton. At least, cheap enough that importing bulk supplies has been the rule. (Even in their attempts to justify territorial claims, I don’t think Argentina or Chile seriously attempted to grow food there.) And cheap enough that science and national prestige could be the “product” exported to pay for supplies. Mars would be different, since the transport costs would probably mandate local production of bulk necessities like food. But I could imagine a science-for-replacement-microchips form of interplanetary trade.
The story is told that when someone (perhaps a government official) asked Michael Faraday what use the electrical machines he was investigating would be, he replied with a counter-question: “What use is a newborn baby?”
You humans keep creating those babies. A good many of them grow up to be doctors. A good many of the doctors work in hospitals and clinics, dealing day to day with routine accidents and illnesses. Then there are doctors like Herb Needleman, who started his career as a pediatrician in Philadelphia. He reasoned out the connection between learning disabilities in the inner-city children he saw and exposure to lead.
That was when Dr. Needleman’s trouble really began. Lots of people didn’t want to hear about his findings. But he was tough and determined enough to prevail — with a lot of help, of course. (You can read about it in a book i reviewed here.)
My point is that there are two main reasons we don’t abolish hunger or fix the many other problems and injustices in the world. One is that there is a subset of people who are very comfortable having those problems endure. The other is the large number of people who don’t want to get involved in the necessary changes. Recall the struggle over catalytic converters in vehicles.
It’s been demonstrated time and time again that redirecting the relatively small amounts spent on whatever noble (or wacky) cause you care to name (curing cancer, improving nuclear power plants, exploring space, building wind farms, etc.) won’t make much of a difference in the world’s major problems.
There’s no guarantee that pursuing such causes will make a difference either. But then again, it always has.
While I must count myself underwhelmed by numerous points of Mr. Musk’s presentation and extremely skeptical regarding many others, Ms. Billings’s blog posting suffers from a number of rather dated flaws in thinking. As Chesterton once wrote, “Nine out of ten of what we call new ideas are simply old mistakes.” Conveniently, she neatly encapsulated most of her errors in the following paragraph:
“Right now, at this point in time, humanity is too immature to leave home. We can’t even figure out how to take [care] of ourselves – that is, all humanity – on our home planet. It’s crazy talk to claim that simply by moving to another planetary body we’ll reinvent society.”
The first sentence contradicts her own emphatic denial—one paragraph above—of the existence of ‘truly universal principals’ (sic). ‘Too immature’ according to whose absolute judgment? Hers? [For the sake of brevity I’ll leave aside her seriously philosophically flawed position of denying universal principles in matters of morality and ‘etc’.]
And does she truly believe that humankind will reach a point where we’re going to be able to ‘take care of’ ALL of humanity? What criteria will we (she?) use to define when ‘take care of’ has been achieved so that we may then proceed with extra-planetary settlement? And does ‘all’ literally mean every last person on the planet, at every moment of their lives, according to each and every person’s own definition of satisfaction? [I’d love to see how well THAT website launch goes.]
While she may blithely imagine that Gene Roddenberry’s vision of a utopian human society with no hunger, illness, or money will somehow be established before the 23rd century, I personally put more stock in another wise person’s words regarding our situation when he said “You will always have the poor among you…”; he seems (at least to me) to have a better bead on the human situation than even Mr. Roddenberry. But I suspect that not even Mr. Roddenberry imagined that we would solve all our worldly problems prior to settling our own solar system.
And, finally, the last sentence about ‘crazy talk’. Moving from one world to another once did, in fact, reinvent society. Oh, we brought our human flaws along with us for sure, but the settlement of the New World (and the forging of a new kind of government here) did help to reinvent society. Most would accept that, on balance for all humankind, such a development was for the better.
Humanity is flawed, there’s no denying it. Pain, suffering, and imperfection exist in the universe. Such is the nature of…the way it is. But humanity does good and is good. So is the universe. And humanity will advance outward and forward into that universe, as they have from the beginning. Such is our nature.
I’m sure Linda Billings is a nice lady and well meaning. That said, her apparent zero-sum economic views are outdated. From the philosophical point of view…well…I’ll let Carl Sagan handle that,
http://youtu.be/YH3c1QZzRK4
“Nice lady and well-meaning?” Can you be any more sexist and condescending? She has a PhD and more than 3 decades of hands on experience in all aspects of space policy at NASA.
You’ve never known a PhD who was nice and meant well? And is she a man? C’mon Keirh, you’re reaching to find offense where none was intended. That aside, having a PhD doesn’t make one correct – male or female. She clearly isn’t in this case.
Your comments were sexist and condescending. I make that decision on this website – not you. You do not get a second warning.
I certainly picked up condescending but not sexist. If we are at a point where we are unable to acknowledge each other’s gender with common courteous addresses for fear of being branded ‘sexist’, our society is in big trouble. Would ‘nice guy’ have been sexist phrasing? You get to call it, Keith, but I am troubled about what your call suggests regarding where we’re all going.
That logic can be applied to all scientific endeavor, not just any specific project. The real question is if the project can benefit human race in the long term, the future generations, the answer is a resounding yes.
I remember as a child in the 70s and a teenager in the 80s, that the US (with taxpayer monies) as well as children/teenagers throughout the country donating icecream monies etc toward getting rid of hunger throughout Africa. Those monies apparently never made it toward the intended purpose.
I mean 40+ years later and hunger is still rampant in Africa specifically and the world generally. Any monies provided to end hunger tends to go to despot leaders who don’t give a damned about their people but take the money for personal enrichment.
Call me jaded but sending taxpayer money with no proof of actual elimination of hunger is irresponsible. We should continue funding our space program. I respectfully understand the sentiments of Ms Billings, but its not responsible to keep spending monies with no positive results.
No matter how one views free enterprise or social spending programs…it is myopic to think that industry growth investment is a totally bad thing. That is what we are talking about here, not rich folk hording the money and extravagant living.
Also, I’ve flown a lot on airliners but I’ve only paid for it myself three or four times. All of the other times I did it while working for someone else with deeper pockets. Ms. Billings seems to be getting exploration and colonization confused with space tourism. If/when SpaceX has seats to Mars available, for any price, NASA and ESA employees will be sitting in some of them, along with staff of any other corporate or government organizations with an interest in Mars from all over the world. Some individuals who buy seats will probably have someone knock on their door with offers for funding. People on Mars is too big a thing not assume that it will or even can be closed to all but the personally wealthy.
One of the major failings of our school system,especially in college, is failing to teach students where the luxuries and wealth of the modern world comes from. It comes from entrepreneurs and dreamers seeking new ways to make money, and by creating an environment that rewards and encourages their efforts.
Science didn’t emerge until the 1600’s because Europe prior to the rise of the Adventure Merchants that drove the Age of Discovery was just too poor to support it. You might have an isolate monk or two doing some research but the sustained funding and motivation for science only came about by the creation of wealth by business.
Second, the problem she illustrates are not problems from the lack of wealth but problems created because the societies involved suppress entrepreneurs by viewing the profit motive as evil and anti-social. The is why the best and brightest flee to the U.S. where they do well, often very well, like Elon Musk who fled South Africa to where he could get rich.
That’s stretching things a bit. Copernicus worked for the Church. Tycho was rich and self-funded. Kepler worked for Tycho. Galileo spent the second half of his career working for Cosmo D’Medici. Newton was a professor of mathematics at Cambridge, at a time when Trinity College was funded by an endowment from the British monarchy. So your comment about adventure merchants and the age of discovery isn’t quite right.
And where do you think the Church got its money from? Or the British Monarchy? And how did Tycho’s family get rich? And the D’Medici? It came from the trade boom created by the merchant adventurers.
The wealth they were bringing to Europe was causing all the economies to expand. The expanding economies created the surplus that funded science. Just look at the world today. Where is the best science being done? In poor nations or rich ones?
I am somewhat sympathetic to Dr. Billings concerns about space “colonization”. I too have read her blog for a number of years and find her views thoughtful, even when I disagree. What is surprising to me here is that she is characterizing all “commercial” activity negatively. Her statement: “As a taxyaper, citizen, and space policy analyst, I continue to be baffled by the current administration’s fondness for the ‘space libertarian’ crowd.” It seems obvious why the current administration (or any administration supporting space exploration and development) would favor spending less than $100M a launch, vs. more than $200M a launch from ULA. Without the private sector and real competition, we will be forever limited to the slow progress and lack of innovation inspired by cost-plus contracting.
Worth repeating because it has been true for almost half a century: “NASA has been 20 years away from sending humans to Mars for over 40
years. Clearly the NASA approach to sending humans on Mars no longer
works. Its time for someone else to do it. If not Elon Musk then some
other billionaire(s) will certainly step up to the plate. And if not the
U.S. then other countries will.”