Why Explore Space? A 1970 Letter to a Nun in Africa(launiusr.wordpress.com)
launiusr.wordpress.com
Why Explore Space? A 1970 Letter to a Nun in Africa
https://launiusr.wordpress.com/2012/02/08/why-explore-space-a-1970-letter-to-a-nun-in-africa/?
169 comments
Let's talk about real science. How come the SSC got cancelled in favour of the ISS?
The Higgs could have been found in Texas, around 2002. There would have been no need for the HEP community to build further hadron colliders, it would have run at 40 TeV and upgrading it would have been easy. Now we're stuck with the 27 km LEP->LHC tunnel and only this year the LHC will start running at 13 TeV... The Congress made its choice after spending $2 billion because it would cost $11 billion. The ISS has cost U.S. taxpayers $75 billion and the science there is more or less an excuse. It never was a scientific decision.
There's science and PR "science".
The Higgs could have been found in Texas, around 2002. There would have been no need for the HEP community to build further hadron colliders, it would have run at 40 TeV and upgrading it would have been easy. Now we're stuck with the 27 km LEP->LHC tunnel and only this year the LHC will start running at 13 TeV... The Congress made its choice after spending $2 billion because it would cost $11 billion. The ISS has cost U.S. taxpayers $75 billion and the science there is more or less an excuse. It never was a scientific decision.
There's science and PR "science".
Both the numbers are drops in the bucket as far as federal funding is concerned. Out of a $3 trillion budget, we could have easily afforded both.
Also, to defend the ISS, there is a lot of science done there for private companies that is not made public. It is also a post where many nations get together and can really study how man will survive and cooperate in space for the long run.
Also, to defend the ISS, there is a lot of science done there for private companies that is not made public. It is also a post where many nations get together and can really study how man will survive and cooperate in space for the long run.
Saying we could afford both is the excuse of people who don't want to admit there are opportunity costs and the federal budget is not unlimited.
It's like me saying I have a choice between two news cars and deciding that I can afford both (by ignoring my mortgage, food, and all other expenses)
It's like me saying I have a choice between two news cars and deciding that I can afford both (by ignoring my mortgage, food, and all other expenses)
Indeed! there are many other things we absolutely need to cover. Like the joint strike fighter. It catches on fire too often to actually fly much, but when it does, boy howdy. the absolute best thing for shooting down those ISIS terror-jets.
I don’t get this argument. It’s fine to make poor investments as long as they’re better than our worst investments? I mean, the joint strike fighter proponent could make this argument as well. “Hey, we wasted over a trillion dollars destroying Iraq, at least the boondoggle I'm advocating won’t screw up the world and will fund some R&D that might become useful.”
Maybe we should be looking at the best ways we can spend our money, and not any way to spend our money that’s better than our biggest failures.
Maybe we should be looking at the best ways we can spend our money, and not any way to spend our money that’s better than our biggest failures.
I agree, it's a somewhat silly argument. 2 points.
First I dislike the JSF. If there was any actual R&D, it's all seekrit and classified, in spite of China already having obtained the plans. (50 terrabytes worth of data, perhaps not enough to recreate the thing.) The JSF is its own trillion dollar expense, and didn't help with Iraq, Afghanistan, or Syria.
Second, and in the spirit of the letter, R&D is one of the best things we can spend money on.
It's an old argument, but the lives and property saved by carbon monoxide detectors alone are probably worth nasa's budget.
For a more recent example, consider all the Soylent discussion last year. Research into space exploration has to pin down exactly what nutrition is required, making products like Soylent better, with the added improving food aid - literally saving starving children like in the letter. This aid doesn't need to come from the government, any aid organization could take advantage of the knowledge.
Finally, and a little closer to home, NASA has one of the very few research computer labs. If you want to argue that pair programming is effective or not, you're pretty much going to have to rely on nasa research. Even for google, it is too expensive to try to understand what programming practices actually produce good software.
Government funded research proving feasibility does pretty great things. There is 0% chance google would have a self driving car without the years spent on the darpa grand challenge. By showing it's possible the government opens up new markets for anyone to exploit.
When you look at algorithms like bandit, you see the trade off of exploration vs exploitation. I think it's very hard for any company to do much exploration. They need to make money - developing new technologies is a big honking cost center. At least some resources need to be consistently allocated to exploration.
First I dislike the JSF. If there was any actual R&D, it's all seekrit and classified, in spite of China already having obtained the plans. (50 terrabytes worth of data, perhaps not enough to recreate the thing.) The JSF is its own trillion dollar expense, and didn't help with Iraq, Afghanistan, or Syria.
Second, and in the spirit of the letter, R&D is one of the best things we can spend money on.
It's an old argument, but the lives and property saved by carbon monoxide detectors alone are probably worth nasa's budget.
For a more recent example, consider all the Soylent discussion last year. Research into space exploration has to pin down exactly what nutrition is required, making products like Soylent better, with the added improving food aid - literally saving starving children like in the letter. This aid doesn't need to come from the government, any aid organization could take advantage of the knowledge.
Finally, and a little closer to home, NASA has one of the very few research computer labs. If you want to argue that pair programming is effective or not, you're pretty much going to have to rely on nasa research. Even for google, it is too expensive to try to understand what programming practices actually produce good software.
Government funded research proving feasibility does pretty great things. There is 0% chance google would have a self driving car without the years spent on the darpa grand challenge. By showing it's possible the government opens up new markets for anyone to exploit.
When you look at algorithms like bandit, you see the trade off of exploration vs exploitation. I think it's very hard for any company to do much exploration. They need to make money - developing new technologies is a big honking cost center. At least some resources need to be consistently allocated to exploration.
While I don’t disagree with the general thrust of your post, I think the main issue is that a lot of people don’t feel that manned space exploration is the most efficient way to get these returns. Chances are we’ll at least get something out of whatever we do, but that doesn’t mean it’s worth the cost or is the best use of resources. Even with a debacle like Iraq, for instance, the injuries of service members have spurred DARPA to research advanced prosthetics and brain implants.
So we really shouldn’t be asking whether or not anything good comes from a particular action, but rather whether that action is the best way to accomplish what we want. And it just doesn’t seem like manned space exploration is needed for any of the research we need - except perhaps politically.
And I suppose that’s where theoretical best options run up against reality. Theoretically, it might very well be the case that we’d get much more scientific bang for our buck if we didn’t focus on putting people in space or blowing things up (research from defense spending). But manned space flight and military spending (and of course, lots of pork for the locals) might be the only way to get these funds to go towards any research, even if 90% (made-up number) of it gets wasted.
So we really shouldn’t be asking whether or not anything good comes from a particular action, but rather whether that action is the best way to accomplish what we want. And it just doesn’t seem like manned space exploration is needed for any of the research we need - except perhaps politically.
And I suppose that’s where theoretical best options run up against reality. Theoretically, it might very well be the case that we’d get much more scientific bang for our buck if we didn’t focus on putting people in space or blowing things up (research from defense spending). But manned space flight and military spending (and of course, lots of pork for the locals) might be the only way to get these funds to go towards any research, even if 90% (made-up number) of it gets wasted.
Your point about efficient allocation is very good. I find it hard to quantify what we need without a goal.
Politically, it's hard to engage emotionally without some sort of story. I vastly prefer adventurous explorers to fierce warriors. Maybe we will do something sane without the space story, and that would be great.
I do think there are fundamental problems with defense research. The NSA did great stuff, didn't they invent RSA? but they couldn't tell anyone about it. That system has intrinsic biases about secrecy that aren't useful.
I'll agree space isn't optimal, but they broadcast their successes as widely as possible. As far as i can tell, nasa is open about technology and research. Military success is grisly, and likely secret. Space biases technology to being small, light, and versatile. These aren't bad things. The military on the other hand will throw thousands of warm bodys at solving problems. Ships can be built with a handful of crew, but that dosn't have the prestige of a supercarrier with 6k guys.
I think a space context also thinks a lot harder about failure detection and recovery.
Anywho - i don't think we disagree. Thanks for the thought provoking point of view.
Politically, it's hard to engage emotionally without some sort of story. I vastly prefer adventurous explorers to fierce warriors. Maybe we will do something sane without the space story, and that would be great.
I do think there are fundamental problems with defense research. The NSA did great stuff, didn't they invent RSA? but they couldn't tell anyone about it. That system has intrinsic biases about secrecy that aren't useful.
I'll agree space isn't optimal, but they broadcast their successes as widely as possible. As far as i can tell, nasa is open about technology and research. Military success is grisly, and likely secret. Space biases technology to being small, light, and versatile. These aren't bad things. The military on the other hand will throw thousands of warm bodys at solving problems. Ships can be built with a handful of crew, but that dosn't have the prestige of a supercarrier with 6k guys.
I think a space context also thinks a lot harder about failure detection and recovery.
Anywho - i don't think we disagree. Thanks for the thought provoking point of view.
>It's like me saying I have a choice between two news cars and deciding that I can afford both (by ignoring my mortgage, food, and all other expenses
That is an exaggeration if we look at it in terms of the federal budget. If we compared the annual federal budget to say a median income, this is more a decision of if we should buy a plane ticket or two, not if we should buy a car or two.
That is an exaggeration if we look at it in terms of the federal budget. If we compared the annual federal budget to say a median income, this is more a decision of if we should buy a plane ticket or two, not if we should buy a car or two.
That's false economy when at the same time we wasted billions on a self propelled artillery platform that was obsolete before it was designed and building stealth bombers at $2B a copy. All to face a Soviet threat that had just vaporized.
We know the answer to that question already. Man will not survive in space in the long run with biological limitations. The ISS had essentially proven that.
There should be more interest and development in the quest to preserve and backup the brain in foundations such as http://www.brainpreservation.org/
The current conception of space travel as displayed in much of popular media is next to impossible and wrong. The biological factor will impede any of such fantasies.
The only way to sustain human space travel is to eliminate biology and replace it with technology.
There should be more interest and development in the quest to preserve and backup the brain in foundations such as http://www.brainpreservation.org/
The current conception of space travel as displayed in much of popular media is next to impossible and wrong. The biological factor will impede any of such fantasies.
The only way to sustain human space travel is to eliminate biology and replace it with technology.
> Man will not survive in space in the long run with biological limitations. The ISS had essentially proven that.
It did no such thing. It proved that survival in space is not as easy as we had hoped, and gave us a list of specific problems to tackle. Perhaps it will ultimately turn out to be impossible, at least with any technology feasible in the near future, but we're still far from certain.
It did no such thing. It proved that survival in space is not as easy as we had hoped, and gave us a list of specific problems to tackle. Perhaps it will ultimately turn out to be impossible, at least with any technology feasible in the near future, but we're still far from certain.
Is there an article describing all of the specific problems discovered on the ISS? I have only heard tidbits here and there.
I have a poster I made that I can put up on imgur or something by Friday, if that's not too late.
I'd be interested in seeing something like this.
That sounds great! Would love to see it
Sorry that it took so long, but I had to find where they hung it up in my school (and it was finals week). Nonetheless, this is more of a poster on general issues of sending stuff with people in it into space for long periods of time (not ISS specific issues), but it's a fairly good general big-picture idea (IMHO):
http://imgur.com/a/7om70
http://imgur.com/a/7om70
I don't necessarily disagree with you, but we haven't really explored the full range possibilities of canned apes in space. For example, there are no centrifugal artificial-gravity generators anywhere in space - setting some up could show us whether the various problems with free-fall environments could be mitigated.
Travelling to (e.g.) Mars isn't in the realm of fantasy. Maybe you should say:
> The only way to sustain human space travel beyond our solar system is to eliminate biology and replace it with technology.
> The only way to sustain human space travel beyond our solar system is to eliminate biology and replace it with technology.
Life has survived this long in space with just air and a magnetic field as protection. What we have found is that we need good shielding and to simulate gravity. So at the simplest, we need a lot of mass and we need the bit we live in to spin. Also, biology and technology are not particularly separate. Stuff like Dyson trees should not be written off. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyson_tree
Man will not survive in space
Come on, it's 2015. Can we please stop with this sexist rhetoric? Particularly if you're talking about survival of the species, which definitely needs both genders.
Come on, it's 2015. Can we please stop with this sexist rhetoric? Particularly if you're talking about survival of the species, which definitely needs both genders.
When "man" is used without an article it means "mankind" - that is all humans, male and female. When used with an article ("a man") it indicates a male human.
Just to add, when we use man to mean humans as a whole, it comes from the old English mann which refers to a person of either gender, with wer (hence werewolf) and wif equivalent to current man and woman.
'black' comes from an old word for 'burned', but it would be silly to say that it still means the same thing. You wouldn't say that fashionistas like to wear burned clothing, for example.
Well, people have not continued to use the word 'black' in that way, while they have continued to use the word 'man' in that way.
I think that might make a substantial difference.
I think that might make a substantial difference.
So... you're effectively saying that using words like 'nigger' or 'dago' should be fine, since we all know what they mean in the modern context? Exclusionary language is fine because we all know what it means?
My point was that etymology (though interesting) is largely irrelevant to whether something is exclusionary or not. And it's a bit of a non-sequitor to point to the use of a word from a heavily sexist era as some sort of argument against it being sexist.
Words have a social affect beyond the pure literal meaning of them. And really, it's not hard to not use exclusionary language.
My point was that etymology (though interesting) is largely irrelevant to whether something is exclusionary or not. And it's a bit of a non-sequitor to point to the use of a word from a heavily sexist era as some sort of argument against it being sexist.
Words have a social affect beyond the pure literal meaning of them. And really, it's not hard to not use exclusionary language.
Huh?
I'm not sure I understand your first sentence. Are you saying that people continue to use those words (the second of which I don't recognize) in the same manner as they were used before, and that at the time those words were being used in a way that was not harmful?
I don't think that I am aware of that any common use of that word that matches those criteria, but I may be mistaken (I certainly have not thought this through).
I'd like to note that I wasn't necessarily claiming that using the word 'man' now for a certain purpose is not imperfect, just trying to note a difference between the compared circumstances. (This may have been influenced by a position, and perhaps the method of discussion I am using might be counterproductive, with all its qualifiers and fallbacks, but uh, hm.) Now I am mostly trying to understand what you mean by this most recent message.
When you are talking about using a word from a heavily sexist era, are you talking about using 'man' from 'mann'? Also, are you saying that the use of the word 'mann' at that time was sexist?
If that is not what you meant, I apologize, I don't mean to put words in your mouth.
Finally, I agree that connotation and other properties of words can be harmful when the denotation would not be.
Which very well may be a sufficient reason to avoid the use of the word 'man' to mean a human of any gender.
(though, due to ignorance, _successfully_ avoiding all use of exclusionary language might be difficult? Though of course, avoiding any single instance of exclusionary language likely would not be hard.)
I note that my way of approaching these sorts of things might be harmful, with all the extra qualifiers everywhere, and a few other things like that. However, I didn't really feel comfortable not responding at all, because I felt accused of saying something that I felt I had not said, and which I did not understand how it might follow from what I had said. I hope that I have not engaged in moving any goalposts, or similar harmful rhetorical-ish stuff. However, I feel I might have done so (though I am not sure exactly where), so I apologize if I have.
I'm not sure I understand your first sentence. Are you saying that people continue to use those words (the second of which I don't recognize) in the same manner as they were used before, and that at the time those words were being used in a way that was not harmful?
I don't think that I am aware of that any common use of that word that matches those criteria, but I may be mistaken (I certainly have not thought this through).
I'd like to note that I wasn't necessarily claiming that using the word 'man' now for a certain purpose is not imperfect, just trying to note a difference between the compared circumstances. (This may have been influenced by a position, and perhaps the method of discussion I am using might be counterproductive, with all its qualifiers and fallbacks, but uh, hm.) Now I am mostly trying to understand what you mean by this most recent message.
When you are talking about using a word from a heavily sexist era, are you talking about using 'man' from 'mann'? Also, are you saying that the use of the word 'mann' at that time was sexist?
If that is not what you meant, I apologize, I don't mean to put words in your mouth.
Finally, I agree that connotation and other properties of words can be harmful when the denotation would not be.
Which very well may be a sufficient reason to avoid the use of the word 'man' to mean a human of any gender.
(though, due to ignorance, _successfully_ avoiding all use of exclusionary language might be difficult? Though of course, avoiding any single instance of exclusionary language likely would not be hard.)
I note that my way of approaching these sorts of things might be harmful, with all the extra qualifiers everywhere, and a few other things like that. However, I didn't really feel comfortable not responding at all, because I felt accused of saying something that I felt I had not said, and which I did not understand how it might follow from what I had said. I hope that I have not engaged in moving any goalposts, or similar harmful rhetorical-ish stuff. However, I feel I might have done so (though I am not sure exactly where), so I apologize if I have.
I meant that the argument "these words have meant the same thing for a long time" doesn't mean that the word is therefore okay to use. Similarly the etymology of the word doesn't mean it's okay either - 'nigger' comes from 'negro' which just means 'black', for example, but there's a hell of a lot of social baggage that goes with it.
No need to apologise, by the way, I didn't feel like words were put in my mouth by what you said. I just didn't see the arguments you put forward as meaning it's okay to use certain language - the same arguments work for slurs.
the second of which I don't recognize
It's a racial slur against Spanish folks in British English. Doesn't have the same impact as the other word, but it's still a slur.
Also, are you saying that the use of the word 'mann' at that time was sexist?
I am saying that at the time, women were second-class citizens and largely considered to be in the social background. There aren't a lot of women in the history books, for example. Saying that 'mann' meant all humans in an era when women weren't considered as equals doesn't give the word a lot of credit as a gender-neutral word.
It's a bit like how for a long time 'the UK' and 'England' were interchangeable. The UK had a couple of other countries in it that weren't England, but people frequently referred to the group of them as 'England'.
though, due to ignorance, _successfully_ avoiding all use of exclusionary language might be difficult
Difficult sure, but at the same time, still something to strive for. 'man' and 'mankind' are, at this point, purely rhetorical devices, both of which have plenty of alternatives.
No need to apologise, by the way, I didn't feel like words were put in my mouth by what you said. I just didn't see the arguments you put forward as meaning it's okay to use certain language - the same arguments work for slurs.
the second of which I don't recognize
It's a racial slur against Spanish folks in British English. Doesn't have the same impact as the other word, but it's still a slur.
Also, are you saying that the use of the word 'mann' at that time was sexist?
I am saying that at the time, women were second-class citizens and largely considered to be in the social background. There aren't a lot of women in the history books, for example. Saying that 'mann' meant all humans in an era when women weren't considered as equals doesn't give the word a lot of credit as a gender-neutral word.
It's a bit like how for a long time 'the UK' and 'England' were interchangeable. The UK had a couple of other countries in it that weren't England, but people frequently referred to the group of them as 'England'.
though, due to ignorance, _successfully_ avoiding all use of exclusionary language might be difficult
Difficult sure, but at the same time, still something to strive for. 'man' and 'mankind' are, at this point, purely rhetorical devices, both of which have plenty of alternatives.
'Mankind' is also a sexist term, and it's easily modifiable to 'humankind'. 'Mankind' still puts one gender ahead of the other; 'man and others' is what it means.
The ironic thing is that people dismiss it as 'it doesn't really matter' as you've just done. If it doesn't matter that much, why persist in using it? Just change it to a more inclusive term and move on.
The ironic thing is that people dismiss it as 'it doesn't really matter' as you've just done. If it doesn't matter that much, why persist in using it? Just change it to a more inclusive term and move on.
> 'Mankind' still puts one gender ahead of the other;
It is really the other way around, since "man" as meaning both genders is the more original meaning of the word. So there is nothing sexist about "mankind". However it was arguable sexist to use "a man" to mean "a male" rather than "a human".
It is really the other way around, since "man" as meaning both genders is the more original meaning of the word. So there is nothing sexist about "mankind". However it was arguable sexist to use "a man" to mean "a male" rather than "a human".
I believe the word “woman” is also inherently sexist and should be replaced by “wohuman”?
'Humankind' is also a prejudice term, and it's easily modifiable to 'animal', 'collection of biological material', 'product of genetic material', or 'matter'.
It's unfortunate that you only chose the words you posted. You should have included all of the words, both known and unknown. It's unfortunate that prejudiced collections of subatomic particles such as yourself still do not believe in equality.
It's unfortunate that you only chose the words you posted. You should have included all of the words, both known and unknown. It's unfortunate that prejudiced collections of subatomic particles such as yourself still do not believe in equality.
I feel like this is just another variant on the utility argument, though. You feel the SSC would have been more useful to scientific research than the ISS. But there is still the argument to be made that we don't know in advance what knowledge will be more useful. Maybe in the future, it will turn out that we really need to know how to keep humans alive in space, but the Higgs is useless for all practical purposes.
But--what I just said is still the argument from utility!
As the GP pointed out, we pay for all sorts of things that have little directly measurable utility, like fireworks and parks and the arts. Yes, towns with good fireworks, parks, and arts will have an advantage in attracting good companies and employees. And I'd say the same is true of space exploration (it helps the U.S. reputation). But once again, we're into utility.
Why do those things create advantage in the first place? Because people like those things. So turn the utility argument on its head and consider: things have high utility because they allow us to do things that we like.
Now consider that exploration is itself popular. Whether it's diving to the Mariana Trench, free climbing a new route on El Cap, or flying to orbit on the Space Shuttle, these are stories that many people love to read, and kids love to dream about.
So I would argue that space exploration can skip the utility argument altogether...we do it because we like it--directly. The purpose of exploration is to explore. This is behind quite a bit of the history of science as well: people exploring places and phenomena simply because it was so interesting to do it.
Edit to add: this sort of reasoning can make fans of science uncomfortable because it's not a logical or scientific argument. But the fact is that emotions like awe, excitement, etc. are often big reasons that kids begin to pursue careers in science. Not many 18 years olds start on a physics degree because of a deep-seated desire to add 0.01% to future GDP.
But--what I just said is still the argument from utility!
As the GP pointed out, we pay for all sorts of things that have little directly measurable utility, like fireworks and parks and the arts. Yes, towns with good fireworks, parks, and arts will have an advantage in attracting good companies and employees. And I'd say the same is true of space exploration (it helps the U.S. reputation). But once again, we're into utility.
Why do those things create advantage in the first place? Because people like those things. So turn the utility argument on its head and consider: things have high utility because they allow us to do things that we like.
Now consider that exploration is itself popular. Whether it's diving to the Mariana Trench, free climbing a new route on El Cap, or flying to orbit on the Space Shuttle, these are stories that many people love to read, and kids love to dream about.
So I would argue that space exploration can skip the utility argument altogether...we do it because we like it--directly. The purpose of exploration is to explore. This is behind quite a bit of the history of science as well: people exploring places and phenomena simply because it was so interesting to do it.
Edit to add: this sort of reasoning can make fans of science uncomfortable because it's not a logical or scientific argument. But the fact is that emotions like awe, excitement, etc. are often big reasons that kids begin to pursue careers in science. Not many 18 years olds start on a physics degree because of a deep-seated desire to add 0.01% to future GDP.
> But the fact is that emotions like awe, excitement, etc. are often big reasons that kids begin to pursue careers in science. Not many 18 years olds start on a physics degree because of a deep-seated desire to add 0.01% to future GDP.
Emotions are paramount, they are part of who we are, and they are what drives us to care about others. Also, pretty much no 18-year-old in their right mind starts anything because of a "deep-seated desire to add 0.01% to future GDP". They choose their careers to help themselves and/or to help others and/or because it's cool and/or because they have no other choice.
Emotions are paramount, they are part of who we are, and they are what drives us to care about others. Also, pretty much no 18-year-old in their right mind starts anything because of a "deep-seated desire to add 0.01% to future GDP". They choose their careers to help themselves and/or to help others and/or because it's cool and/or because they have no other choice.
Creating a sense of inspiration by science/technology is not that hard to do. The robot challenges do it for much less, for example and there are many other ways other than space.
the counter to this argument is that the ISS doesn't really help with exploration. We could have gone to the moon many more times with the same amount of money (and probably get really good at it too!)
The ISS has the benefit of more jobs and pork that Congress can farm out to various different congressional districts. The SSC would have resulted in jobs primarily in Texas, and mostly in short term construction instead of ongoing contracts.
You're right. Add there the fact that ISS serves also as a ground for international cooperation. There is therefore both an economical reason and a political one involved.
I'm not sure many people opposing to federal funding of science consider the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake an inherently worthless activity.
For a start, the federal funding thrown at the Space Race this article talks about - a bigger proportion of the US budget than education in the mid 1960s - wasn't, by any stretch of the imagination exclusively "the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake". The prestige of beating the Evil Empire, the serious worry that falling behind would render the US defenceless and undoubtedly juicy contracts for the regular suppliers to the military all played major parts. (Of course, NASA funding also paled in comparison with what was being wasted on the regular military at the time, including the highly targeted pursuit of knowledge for the sake of becoming more efficient at winning wars.)
Then there's the question of whether the government is any good at establishing the relative merits of scientific endeavours. The fact that we ended up with GPS and satellite television (some of it even benefiting poor people in Africa in some way) and didn't end up with an efficient way of levelling Moscow from orbit says much about the fact that scientific progress takes different directions from that those authorising the spending may have intended, but I'm not sure that necessarily weakens the case for those opposing federal science funding.
For a start, the federal funding thrown at the Space Race this article talks about - a bigger proportion of the US budget than education in the mid 1960s - wasn't, by any stretch of the imagination exclusively "the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake". The prestige of beating the Evil Empire, the serious worry that falling behind would render the US defenceless and undoubtedly juicy contracts for the regular suppliers to the military all played major parts. (Of course, NASA funding also paled in comparison with what was being wasted on the regular military at the time, including the highly targeted pursuit of knowledge for the sake of becoming more efficient at winning wars.)
Then there's the question of whether the government is any good at establishing the relative merits of scientific endeavours. The fact that we ended up with GPS and satellite television (some of it even benefiting poor people in Africa in some way) and didn't end up with an efficient way of levelling Moscow from orbit says much about the fact that scientific progress takes different directions from that those authorising the spending may have intended, but I'm not sure that necessarily weakens the case for those opposing federal science funding.
Was just about to write something similar. It's absurd that the original argument characterized any opposition to the space program as born of ignorance or backwardness. Since when has science been about dogmatically supporting any endeavor?
Indeed, you can't know what you know until you know it, and you can't know the value of knowledge until perhaps decades or centuries after it was originally acquired. Thus the logical choice is to be quite promiscuous in the acquisition of knowledge and to maintain a healthy degree of curiosity towards all manner of knowledge, no matter how seemingly abstract or useless.
The study of electromagnetism and quantum mechanics in the 19th and early 20th centuries has resulted in an economic benefit somewhere in the range of quadrillions of dollars of value, and hundreds of billions of person-years of life/lives added which would not have been possible otherwise. And all from some nerds futzing around with things they thought were interesting.
I think that sort of RoI justifies spending a few billion here and there now and again on seemingly esoteric research.
The study of electromagnetism and quantum mechanics in the 19th and early 20th centuries has resulted in an economic benefit somewhere in the range of quadrillions of dollars of value, and hundreds of billions of person-years of life/lives added which would not have been possible otherwise. And all from some nerds futzing around with things they thought were interesting.
I think that sort of RoI justifies spending a few billion here and there now and again on seemingly esoteric research.
Case in point: think about lasers. They were described as interesting but totally useless phenomena when first developed in the 50s/60s. They were called a "solution looking for a problem". Look where are we now with them, just 50 years later.
I find it disturbing that you think clean parks are a white elephant. In any case, your list has things that directly improve people's day-to-day lives. Sending men to the moon consumed a huge amount of money, but to the average person, it was just bragging rights; we beat the russkies.
s/average person/average American/
> Perhaps it's because the enormous scientific illiteracy afflicting the populace as a whole (which can be observed simply by reading any popular journalistic account of scientific developments) places scientific developments and scientific pursuits into some mental category of "abstract, probably useless stuff".
This is a bigger problem amongst the general public then I think many inside the bubble of science and technology really understand. I remember a conversation I had some years ago with a co-worker who was adamant that space exploration was an absolute waste of money. Because "we have enough problems down here we should fix instead." I tried explaining all the advancements that the space race brought about in terms of technology and medicine. And the go to response was: "Well scientists should have just invented that stuff anyway. They didn't need NASA as an excuse to build it.". A complete lack of understanding or appreciation for what goes into scientific or technological discovery and advancement is worryingly common within the general public.
This is a bigger problem amongst the general public then I think many inside the bubble of science and technology really understand. I remember a conversation I had some years ago with a co-worker who was adamant that space exploration was an absolute waste of money. Because "we have enough problems down here we should fix instead." I tried explaining all the advancements that the space race brought about in terms of technology and medicine. And the go to response was: "Well scientists should have just invented that stuff anyway. They didn't need NASA as an excuse to build it.". A complete lack of understanding or appreciation for what goes into scientific or technological discovery and advancement is worryingly common within the general public.
Hence the dark side of democracy - we have to listen to people's opinion about things they have absolutely no clue about.
To me is more like when people say "why are you fighting for animal rights when there are children starving to death in Africa?"
Even if your goal is to pursue knowledge for it's own sake, the manned moon missions were enormously wasteful.
Sending a robotic probe to collect moon rocks would have been worthwhile. But sending humans to do the same job was far more costly and provided very little additional scientific value.
Sending a robotic probe to collect moon rocks would have been worthwhile. But sending humans to do the same job was far more costly and provided very little additional scientific value.
The manned missions added tremendous additional scientific value, especially for the time period. They didn't have rovers with the ability to determine which rocks would be of value. The humans were trained to do just that.
Plus that wasn't the (only) goal of the missions: beating the USSR there was a stronger motivator.
Plus that wasn't the (only) goal of the missions: beating the USSR there was a stronger motivator.
'We feel the need to beat the USSR' wasn't mentioned in the letter to the nun - perhaps because being able to boast about winning a race might appear to be less important than people suffering in Africa.
Let me ask you this: Given the scientific advances made due to the first moon landing, do you think that the second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth moon landings also added tremendous scientific value? Do you think there should have been a seventh?
Let me ask you this: Given the scientific advances made due to the first moon landing, do you think that the second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth moon landings also added tremendous scientific value? Do you think there should have been a seventh?
Do you think there should have been a seventh?
No, because we clearly weren't willing to commit the resources to make our efforts pay off in the long run. Who knows what might be possible now, if we had used the money we spent on the Viet Nam war to successfully establish a permanent manned lunar colony?
No, because we clearly weren't willing to commit the resources to make our efforts pay off in the long run. Who knows what might be possible now, if we had used the money we spent on the Viet Nam war to successfully establish a permanent manned lunar colony?
The sixth, certainly; it was the first that had become routine enough to send a professional geologist along. I'd go so far as to say that most of the scientific value in 12-16 was in making 17 possible. There absolutely should have been a seventh, eighth and probably ninth; scientific targets had already been picked for the next three IIRC.
After that, maybe not so much. But the program was designed with ~nine landings in mind, and that's what we should have done.
After that, maybe not so much. But the program was designed with ~nine landings in mind, and that's what we should have done.
Manned spaceflight saved the Hubble telescope from being space junk, it's not difficult to imagine further situations where manned spaceflight can solve problems with unmanned objects.
Manned maintenance of Hubble proved to be unfeasible from an economical point of view. It would have been cheaper to just crash command to the old and broken telescope satellite and then send another one instead.
Enormously wasteful? This is just ridiculous. You think the world in 2015 would have been better off than if humans had never set foot on any other celestial body? How can you seriously argue that? Also, as far as the scientific value, I think many of the scientists involved in that exploration would very much disagree with you.
If the goal is pursuing knowledge for its own sake, then yes:
I think the depth and breadth of human knowledge would now be greater if the moon missions were unmanned and the money was instead spent on other areas of scientific research which were judged to be cost-effective.
Perhaps the following experiment would be a way to resolve our differences: Let's survey a random sample of 100 scientists asking whether they agree with the above statement. But not just scientists involved in space exploration - all types of geologists, climatologists, astrophysicists, neuroscientists, anthropologists, palaeontologists, etc. If less than say 25 scientists agree then I would accept that I was wrong about the wastefulness of manned moon missions. If more than 75 scientists agree would you accept that I was right?
I think the depth and breadth of human knowledge would now be greater if the moon missions were unmanned and the money was instead spent on other areas of scientific research which were judged to be cost-effective.
Perhaps the following experiment would be a way to resolve our differences: Let's survey a random sample of 100 scientists asking whether they agree with the above statement. But not just scientists involved in space exploration - all types of geologists, climatologists, astrophysicists, neuroscientists, anthropologists, palaeontologists, etc. If less than say 25 scientists agree then I would accept that I was wrong about the wastefulness of manned moon missions. If more than 75 scientists agree would you accept that I was right?
One of my math teacher told me once a short story about Henri Poincaré arguing with a child about the use of mathematics. When the kid asked him what were maths used for, he answered : « and you, what are you used for? »
I don't know if this story is true or not. I suspect it isn't. But frankly I have the feeling there is more sincerity in this answer than in this long letter to a Nun in Africa.
If you spend some time on a spaceflight forum, you will read enthusiast posts about how cool it would be to see other words, to experience micro-gravity, or how interesting the science behind rocket engines is, but I rarely read about how space science will solve hunger, world peace and whatnot, and when I do it's precisely as an answer to someone who brought this up, and in this case someone who does not work in aerospace.
When a Kid loves space and rockets, when he spends countless time reading science-fiction books, it's because to him it's fun, fascinating and exciting, not because it's supposed to feed starving children. I doubt an adult rocket scientist or engineer is fundamentally different. Deep down he just doesn't give a crap about starving children in Africa.
I don't know if this story is true or not. I suspect it isn't. But frankly I have the feeling there is more sincerity in this answer than in this long letter to a Nun in Africa.
If you spend some time on a spaceflight forum, you will read enthusiast posts about how cool it would be to see other words, to experience micro-gravity, or how interesting the science behind rocket engines is, but I rarely read about how space science will solve hunger, world peace and whatnot, and when I do it's precisely as an answer to someone who brought this up, and in this case someone who does not work in aerospace.
When a Kid loves space and rockets, when he spends countless time reading science-fiction books, it's because to him it's fun, fascinating and exciting, not because it's supposed to feed starving children. I doubt an adult rocket scientist or engineer is fundamentally different. Deep down he just doesn't give a crap about starving children in Africa.
"When a Kid loves space and rockets, when he spends countless time reading science-fiction books, it's because to him it's fun, fascinating and exciting, not because it's supposed to feed starving children. I doubt an adult rocket scientist or engineer is fundamentally different. Deep down he just doesn't give a crap about starving children in Africa."
I appreciate your focus on measurable behaviors. But make no mistake, there are lots of people involved in space science because they want to improve people's lives.
There are unique opportunities to measure climate change from space, for instance, and significant numbers of people in this area have literally devoted their professional careers to finding out what's going on with climate change. They will tell you that straight out, and their decisions in other areas of their life mirror that outlook, so you can tell it's not lip service.
The people who study planetary atmospheres can be motivated by similar considerations (hello, runaway greenhouse effect), also terrestrial weather (hurricane intensification, tornado genesis, etc.), space weather (solar flares, etc.), ecological forecasting, etc. Some folks are drawn to these areas because they matter in an obvious way.
You are correct that some space scientists/engineers are motivated by pure curiosity, tenacity, novelty, etc. -- inward-looking things. But by no means all, and in some disciplines, it tilts rather the other way.
I appreciate your focus on measurable behaviors. But make no mistake, there are lots of people involved in space science because they want to improve people's lives.
There are unique opportunities to measure climate change from space, for instance, and significant numbers of people in this area have literally devoted their professional careers to finding out what's going on with climate change. They will tell you that straight out, and their decisions in other areas of their life mirror that outlook, so you can tell it's not lip service.
The people who study planetary atmospheres can be motivated by similar considerations (hello, runaway greenhouse effect), also terrestrial weather (hurricane intensification, tornado genesis, etc.), space weather (solar flares, etc.), ecological forecasting, etc. Some folks are drawn to these areas because they matter in an obvious way.
You are correct that some space scientists/engineers are motivated by pure curiosity, tenacity, novelty, etc. -- inward-looking things. But by no means all, and in some disciplines, it tilts rather the other way.
Beyond that, this ignores people who loved space and rockets when they were kids and did go on to do things that people would consider more directly applicable to starving children in Africa because they learned to love science.
I'm an Epidemiologist. I've done work trying to address the Ebola outbreak, and prevent hospital acquired infections. And I started doing it because, when I was a kid, space was awesome.
I'm an Epidemiologist. I've done work trying to address the Ebola outbreak, and prevent hospital acquired infections. And I started doing it because, when I was a kid, space was awesome.
> When the kid asked him what were maths used for, he answered : « and you, what are you used for? »
I think there's more than one way to read that statement. It seems overly cynical to interpret that anecdote as implying that children have no use (present or future); I think the implication is that while they may have no present use, they will have future use when they develop into adults.
Similarly, new branches of mathematics or space science might not be used for much today, but will develop into fields that have uses in the future. Just as humans must invest in rearing their children, so too must they invest in developing their science and math.
Not everyone is effective at solving every problem. I don't know anything about agriculture or logistics or politics or many other fields that would be needed to begin to tackle hunger in other countries, or even my own country. I solve the problems that I know how to solve, and we all cooperate as a society. The technology developed in one field like robotics or global positioning makes other fields like agriculture more effective (automated farming machinery). It would be shortsighted to suggest that everyone put their field on hold and inefficiently try to tackle world hunger. A better question is "do we have the right amount of people and resources dedicated to solving world hunger?" which gets back to the budgetary and governance matters discussed in the letter.
I don't think it's true that a rocket scientist necessarily "doesn't give a crap about starving children in Africa". It's probably more that he doesn't know anything about the issue and has no expertise with which to solve the problem, and so he focuses on problems that he can solve, like launching satellites for weather, communication, GPS, which may in turn assist people in other countries with problems like food distribution. Without the rocket scientists, satellite equipment shuts down, and everyone in every field is worse off. We should trust to the natural equilibrium and distribution of human interest, balancing that with the government we've created, to make sure that problems get solved adequately -- we should not judge people for the field that they've chosen if it contributes to society.
Even fields like computer science, as applied to building Internet forums like this one, contribute in their own way by bringing people together and allowing them to have discussions like this.
I think there's more than one way to read that statement. It seems overly cynical to interpret that anecdote as implying that children have no use (present or future); I think the implication is that while they may have no present use, they will have future use when they develop into adults.
Similarly, new branches of mathematics or space science might not be used for much today, but will develop into fields that have uses in the future. Just as humans must invest in rearing their children, so too must they invest in developing their science and math.
Not everyone is effective at solving every problem. I don't know anything about agriculture or logistics or politics or many other fields that would be needed to begin to tackle hunger in other countries, or even my own country. I solve the problems that I know how to solve, and we all cooperate as a society. The technology developed in one field like robotics or global positioning makes other fields like agriculture more effective (automated farming machinery). It would be shortsighted to suggest that everyone put their field on hold and inefficiently try to tackle world hunger. A better question is "do we have the right amount of people and resources dedicated to solving world hunger?" which gets back to the budgetary and governance matters discussed in the letter.
I don't think it's true that a rocket scientist necessarily "doesn't give a crap about starving children in Africa". It's probably more that he doesn't know anything about the issue and has no expertise with which to solve the problem, and so he focuses on problems that he can solve, like launching satellites for weather, communication, GPS, which may in turn assist people in other countries with problems like food distribution. Without the rocket scientists, satellite equipment shuts down, and everyone in every field is worse off. We should trust to the natural equilibrium and distribution of human interest, balancing that with the government we've created, to make sure that problems get solved adequately -- we should not judge people for the field that they've chosen if it contributes to society.
Even fields like computer science, as applied to building Internet forums like this one, contribute in their own way by bringing people together and allowing them to have discussions like this.
> I think the implication is that while they may have no present use, they will have future use when they develop into adults.
I think even this assumption is dangerous, and besides, you're just kicking the can down the street (how do you define a human's usefulness?).
The simple truth is that not everything on this planet needs to have a use, let alone a positive use. This goes for both things and matters that we have control over (science) and things we have no control over.
I think even this assumption is dangerous, and besides, you're just kicking the can down the street (how do you define a human's usefulness?).
The simple truth is that not everything on this planet needs to have a use, let alone a positive use. This goes for both things and matters that we have control over (science) and things we have no control over.
But the point of mathematics is not to be useful. Sure, math is very applicable, but that is not why mathematicians study it.
The point of the anecdote is that just as a single person does not have to have a 'use' to justify their existence, mathematics does not need to be useful to be studied.
The point of the anecdote is that just as a single person does not have to have a 'use' to justify their existence, mathematics does not need to be useful to be studied.
>If you spend some time on a spaceflight forum, you will read enthusiast posts about how cool it would be to see other words, to experience micro-gravity, or how interesting the science behind rocket engine is, but I rarely read about how space science will solve hunger,
If I go to a video gaming forum, do people talk about how to end world hunger? For the price of one new video game, you can feed someone in Africa for two months.
If I go to a video gaming forum, do people talk about how to end world hunger? For the price of one new video game, you can feed someone in Africa for two months.
> For the price of one new video game, you can feed someone in Africa for two months.
Once you've killed the person who wanted to see the person you're feeding starve to death.
These days, starvation is political, as it is a weapon of war.
Once you've killed the person who wanted to see the person you're feeding starve to death.
These days, starvation is political, as it is a weapon of war.
[deleted]
Well, if you go to a forum about space exploration video game, you might indeed find some intalligent discussion about world hunger, among other things ;).
Video games aren't routinely justified as the solution to an extinction event on earth.
Because they are not. Colonizing other worlds is.
Not really. Even if multiple extinction events hit Earth, Earth’s still going to be much more hospitable than Mars is now.
...?
Hence it is appropriate to discuss how the problems would be solved on a spaceflight forum, but not so appropriate on a video game forum.
Hence it is appropriate to discuss how the problems would be solved on a spaceflight forum, but not so appropriate on a video game forum.
I doubt an adult rocket scientist or engineer is fundamentally different. Deep down he just doesn't give a crap about starving children in Africa.
With your hypothetical scientist, while she might spend her career with rockets, I am not sure that is enough to tell you whether she also does or does not give a crap, deep down or shallowly, about starving children, or what the rough geographical location might be of any she disregards.
People are a lot more varied than that. There is no neat little box marked 'rocket scientist'.
With your hypothetical scientist, while she might spend her career with rockets, I am not sure that is enough to tell you whether she also does or does not give a crap, deep down or shallowly, about starving children, or what the rough geographical location might be of any she disregards.
People are a lot more varied than that. There is no neat little box marked 'rocket scientist'.
> Deep down he just doesn't give a crap about starving children in Africa.
This is a pretty uncharitable reading of the article. But I agree with the assessment that scientists' main motivation doesn't tend to be altruism but probably more things like curiosity and competitiveness, and of course always needing more funds. Which I think is fine.
This is a pretty uncharitable reading of the article. But I agree with the assessment that scientists' main motivation doesn't tend to be altruism but probably more things like curiosity and competitiveness, and of course always needing more funds. Which I think is fine.
It doesn't matter what the scientist's motivation is, what matters (in the context of the letter's argument) are the eventual results.
Applied to the microscope-argument: Even if the inventor and early users of the microscope were only interested in satisfying their curiosity, the results are immeasurably valuable many years later.
Applied to the microscope-argument: Even if the inventor and early users of the microscope were only interested in satisfying their curiosity, the results are immeasurably valuable many years later.
[deleted]
It's not that he doesn't give a crap. It's that his priorities are different. The real question here is "How can someone have priorities different from me?".
I submit the answer is "Why would they share yours? They aren't you.".
I submit the answer is "Why would they share yours? They aren't you.".
> When a Kid loves space and rockets, when he spends countless time reading science-fiction books, it's because to him it's fun, fascinating and exciting, not because it's supposed to feed starving children. I doubt an adult rocket scientist or engineer is fundamentally different. Deep down he just doesn't give a crap about starving children in Africa.
While I agree with the emotional motivation (hell, I'm a geek because of Star Trek, and note that includes me wanting all of humanity to have a bright future), I very much disagree with the conclusion that a rocket scientist "doesn't give a crap about starving children". Not only giving a crap is not related to being a space enthusiast, I'd wager that on average, your rocket scientist (or even space geek) has more things to say about the hunger problem than an average person.
Not only many of them care, they actually have the intellectual tools to rationally address the topic.
And RE video games, space and world hunger tangent downthread - only today I saw people debating environmental issues on a Kerbal Space Program forum. So nope, those dicussions in fact are there (usually in a subforum dedicated to off-topic discussions).
While I agree with the emotional motivation (hell, I'm a geek because of Star Trek, and note that includes me wanting all of humanity to have a bright future), I very much disagree with the conclusion that a rocket scientist "doesn't give a crap about starving children". Not only giving a crap is not related to being a space enthusiast, I'd wager that on average, your rocket scientist (or even space geek) has more things to say about the hunger problem than an average person.
Not only many of them care, they actually have the intellectual tools to rationally address the topic.
And RE video games, space and world hunger tangent downthread - only today I saw people debating environmental issues on a Kerbal Space Program forum. So nope, those dicussions in fact are there (usually in a subforum dedicated to off-topic discussions).
You're just being very unfair and making unsubstantiated claims based on reading a web forum. I think the writer was very sincere and it is true that advances in science via exploration can lead to many indirect improvements. Technology that may be developed to make, say, Mars more habitable could help on Earth as well. It is not because, as you say, he does not "give a crap about starving children." The author notes correctly that much of the problem of starving children is political; it has to do with regimes and unstable governments. It is not simply there is not enough food or technology on Earth to feed children.
The world is more than is dreamt of in your web forum browsing.
The world is more than is dreamt of in your web forum browsing.
One thing I see missing from these discussions is the notion of diminishing returns. In the end money is an abstraction over the productive capabilities of our economy. If I were to spend twice as much money on food I could get twice as much. But if the world doubled it's expenditures on food I doubt food production would go up by more than 30% or so. If you read charity evaluations at Givewell they always ask "How efficiently are they spending their money" but they also ask "Could they efficiently spend more money if it was given to them."
Another is that it seems odd how selectively we apply this argument. I often hear about the need to stop space exploration until everybody is fed but I don't think I've ever heard someone say we should stop making movies until we end hunger.
Another is that it seems odd how selectively we apply this argument. I often hear about the need to stop space exploration until everybody is fed but I don't think I've ever heard someone say we should stop making movies until we end hunger.
Your observation about diminishing returns is an excellent one, but your comparison about space exploration and movie making doesn't make much sense.
The reason these people don't argue that we shouldn't stop making movies until we end world hunger is that (well, most of the time), the making of movies is not funded by the government, but by the private market.
It's a one thing to to argue that we shouldn't do Y at all as a species until we accomplish X ("we shouldn't make movies when people are starving"). It's very different to argue that maybe the government should completely prioritize X over Y for the purposes of allocating tax money ("let's not spend money on space until we can feed everyone").
The reason these people don't argue that we shouldn't stop making movies until we end world hunger is that (well, most of the time), the making of movies is not funded by the government, but by the private market.
It's a one thing to to argue that we shouldn't do Y at all as a species until we accomplish X ("we shouldn't make movies when people are starving"). It's very different to argue that maybe the government should completely prioritize X over Y for the purposes of allocating tax money ("let's not spend money on space until we can feed everyone").
It should be remembered that movie productions are subject to an impressive array of subsidies and movie companies the beneficiary of a great deal of government policy and enforcement.
That aside, there will always be a better cause to which all resources should be devoted. And usually problems which would result from a solution. Would a more rapidly growing world in which everyone has food but in which nobody has a job be a better one?
That aside, there will always be a better cause to which all resources should be devoted. And usually problems which would result from a solution. Would a more rapidly growing world in which everyone has food but in which nobody has a job be a better one?
>stop making movies until we end hunger.
Or building interstates or sports stadiums or paying inflated union benefits and salaries, or military spending, etc.
The problem is the above are all politicized and directly financially benefit some voters, thus have cheerleaders and other irrational actors holding up this spending and defending obvious corruption and abuses. Science, when done right, is non-politicized and doesn't financially enrich voters directly, so there's very little "I got mine" mentality here like there is with other programs. Many of which turn into "make work" programs (bridges to nowhere, etc), if not outright entitlements (welfare).
Not to mention the philosophical and practical problems with welfare in general. Once you establish a system where being poor is favorable to not being poor, then who will pay for all these resources. As a Chicagoan, CHA housing is a lot better than what you can rent on your own unless you make a decent wage. My wife and I used to wake up every morning in the winter and shovel snow only to watch the CHA housing across the street have city employees do this for them. Hell, if the government is going to house you, feed you, shovel your snow, etc what incentive do you have to ever leave that system? None as far as I can see. Now we have an idle class of people involved in drug abuse and gang related crime and shootings, as well as epidemic of unwanted children used to further game the system for benefits. Give up on space exploration for the sake of the insatiable welfare state which inevitably creates massive ghettos, massive taxation, angry youth mobs, and religious radicalization? No thanks. We've watched this path unfold in Europe and want none of it.
Or building interstates or sports stadiums or paying inflated union benefits and salaries, or military spending, etc.
The problem is the above are all politicized and directly financially benefit some voters, thus have cheerleaders and other irrational actors holding up this spending and defending obvious corruption and abuses. Science, when done right, is non-politicized and doesn't financially enrich voters directly, so there's very little "I got mine" mentality here like there is with other programs. Many of which turn into "make work" programs (bridges to nowhere, etc), if not outright entitlements (welfare).
Not to mention the philosophical and practical problems with welfare in general. Once you establish a system where being poor is favorable to not being poor, then who will pay for all these resources. As a Chicagoan, CHA housing is a lot better than what you can rent on your own unless you make a decent wage. My wife and I used to wake up every morning in the winter and shovel snow only to watch the CHA housing across the street have city employees do this for them. Hell, if the government is going to house you, feed you, shovel your snow, etc what incentive do you have to ever leave that system? None as far as I can see. Now we have an idle class of people involved in drug abuse and gang related crime and shootings, as well as epidemic of unwanted children used to further game the system for benefits. Give up on space exploration for the sake of the insatiable welfare state which inevitably creates massive ghettos, massive taxation, angry youth mobs, and religious radicalization? No thanks. We've watched this path unfold in Europe and want none of it.
Reducing world hunger isn't just about growing more food. It also involves working towards more harmony between and within nations - which requires money, time, and effort. There's certainly a diminish returns factor there - regardless of resources used, people aren't going to be all chummy tomorrow. But it's also a false equation to pit space money versus food money (in the US), as you'd have an easier time trimming fat out of the military budget.
Stuhlinger's letter expresses a basic optimism toward science that was characteristic of the modern era in general and the middle of the 20th century in particular, and which has tarnished a great deal since then. Their faith held that science has a sort of generalized power to produce good; more specifically, that given a relatively small cost investment (in terms of money, time, effort, attention, education, etc.) in scientific endeavor, a very large and concrete benefit is likely to eventually result. His story of the lens grinder captures that expectation.
Without arguing the case, I think it's fair to say that a much smaller proportion of the people in Western societies (at least) now hold this faith as strongly. The costs of modern "progress" have become more apparent over time: cures often harbor severe side effects; machines have their wastes and their dangers; knowledge that seems sure at first often proves less sure with further study. Our confidence that the costs of science are as low as we once thought they were has weakened; our confidence that the benefits are as great or as inevitable has also declined.
His argument that reapportioning money from science to humanitarian causes is not as simple, in a democratic, bureaucratic country, as it seems it should be is still as strong as it was when he gave it, if not more so.
But the underlying assumption that, "If we just do something ambitiously scientific, vastly great goods for humanity will result," is harder to sell than it was. We no longer accept that a manned voyage to Mars (for example) will result in concrete benefits for humanity in a way that is remotely analogous to the support of a lens grinder at the dawn of optics.
Proponents of space exploration must continue to both show the rest of us the concrete benefits of investment and, at the same time, limit their expectations. It will never again be like it was in the 60s and early 70s.
Without arguing the case, I think it's fair to say that a much smaller proportion of the people in Western societies (at least) now hold this faith as strongly. The costs of modern "progress" have become more apparent over time: cures often harbor severe side effects; machines have their wastes and their dangers; knowledge that seems sure at first often proves less sure with further study. Our confidence that the costs of science are as low as we once thought they were has weakened; our confidence that the benefits are as great or as inevitable has also declined.
His argument that reapportioning money from science to humanitarian causes is not as simple, in a democratic, bureaucratic country, as it seems it should be is still as strong as it was when he gave it, if not more so.
But the underlying assumption that, "If we just do something ambitiously scientific, vastly great goods for humanity will result," is harder to sell than it was. We no longer accept that a manned voyage to Mars (for example) will result in concrete benefits for humanity in a way that is remotely analogous to the support of a lens grinder at the dawn of optics.
Proponents of space exploration must continue to both show the rest of us the concrete benefits of investment and, at the same time, limit their expectations. It will never again be like it was in the 60s and early 70s.
Thanks for an extremely thoughtful and well reasoned contribution.
FWIW, I wonder if the decentralization / popularization of access to space technology will contribute to lower costs that can iteratively enable higher research goals without needing to cajole wrist-slashing degrees of government spending?
FWIW, I wonder if the decentralization / popularization of access to space technology will contribute to lower costs that can iteratively enable higher research goals without needing to cajole wrist-slashing degrees of government spending?
Stuhlinger's thoughtful reply seems like something very few people would do today. Not just the part about taking time to reply to a random letter, but the part about deeply considering the role of their work and its effect on humanity as a whole. Perhaps he's just rationalizing a greater good because he really likes space exploration, but if that's the case he did an excellent job of it.
I see no reason to conclude that the number of people who "deeply consider the role of their work and its effect on humanity as a whole" has gone down since 1970.
I don't have any quantitative data, agreed. The Internet certainly provides a lot more visibility for such contemplation, and I can't recall seeing a lot of it.
To the contrary, I think one of the defining factors of the Internet is that it creates an unprecedented amount of visibility to shallow contemplation, thereby drowning out any marginal increase in deep contemplation.
Every era has its overwhelming amount of shallow contemplation. Historians and archivists are excellent at sorting out the deeper material in retrospect.
Today you'd get a tweet written by Russel Brand calling the nun a stupid whore.
Bad example. Russell Brand is a thoughtful person. Read his essay on addiction: http://www.theguardian.com/culture/2013/mar/09/russell-brand...
It is not 'just' about starving children in Africa, but also about actual space research. It is crippled by huge manned projects with questionable scientific return. With money spend on Apollo, Shuttle and ISS we could have already explored every corner of solar systems. Just imagine hundreds of lunar and mars rovers.
This is the most bothersome and asinine aspects of Elon Musk fandom. Instead of a smart space approach we're degenerating back into a Star Trek-like fantasy of manned exploration. Sorry but our bodies are not built for space travel and the costs of fitting machines around us to keep us alive is incredible. I don't know why people can't be satisfied with robotic missions. Lusting after landing on what is essentially a dead and hostile planet like Mars is a bewildering prospect. I don't see these people going to Antarctica, which would be a comparable experience.
Seems to me, cheap and effective terraforming is a prereq to any planetary migration or exploration. Even then it would just be a pick up and drop service to Mars or where-ever. Exploration, in general, should be done by robots.
Seems to me, cheap and effective terraforming is a prereq to any planetary migration or exploration. Even then it would just be a pick up and drop service to Mars or where-ever. Exploration, in general, should be done by robots.
Because SpaceX's end-goal isn't to land humans on Mars to conduct a bit of science. It's to start self-sustaining off-world colonies in order to increase mankind's prospects of surviving in the universe.
You can literally put an infinite number of rovers on Mars and still not have this.
You can literally put an infinite number of rovers on Mars and still not have this.
Robots can do "a bit of science" just as well, if not better. With a comparable budget, you'd see some pretty incredible robots on Mars. Meanwhile we're pissing away dollars shoving meatbags into tincans in LEO and pretending its progress.
Even during the madness of spending that was the Apollo program the time spent actually doing "a bit of science" was extremely limited. The cost per minute doing science with people is a whole different league than robots.
Even during the madness of spending that was the Apollo program the time spent actually doing "a bit of science" was extremely limited. The cost per minute doing science with people is a whole different league than robots.
Sure, but just to be sure, you don't seem to be responding to what I said. Elon Musk's venture isn't based on doing science. Again, they're trying to build a colony for a goal that isn't necessarily scientific, but will have scientific benefits.
I find it fascinating how they want to build colony, but right now we are not even able to drill small hole in there. It is like running startup in three steps: 1) collect underpants 2) ???? 3) profit!!!!
You need robots even for colony. Farting into bubbles on LEO will not get you there.
You need robots even for colony. Farting into bubbles on LEO will not get you there.
They are doing it the other way round from the gnomes though.
They are starting with profit, are not sure about the middle, but know that if it all works then they are definitely going to have to collect some new underpants.
They are starting with profit, are not sure about the middle, but know that if it all works then they are definitely going to have to collect some new underpants.
The end goal is the sustainable colony. The only way to get there is to have low-cost, routine surface to orbit launches. That is what SpaceX is working on now, that is their current goal.
I'm unsure of how you consider what they're doing right now immaterial to their goals.
I'm unsure of how you consider what they're doing right now immaterial to their goals.
The previous generation of rovers already drilled some small holes, so I'm not sure quite what you're talking about.
> Farting into bubbles on LEO will not get you there.
Who thinks it will? Is SpaceX planning on funding LEO bubbles?
Who thinks it will? Is SpaceX planning on funding LEO bubbles?
Ignoring the ethical arguments, you could also improve and augment the human (or its support species) to lessen the necessity for terraforming.
If I had a synthetic bacterium in my intestines that allowed me to digest a wider variety of foods, such as sawdust or tree leaves, that would even reduce our need to terraform Earth (via agriculture) to support larger human populations.
By the time we have acquired those capabilities from our biological research, it would be useful to already have the capability to transport live organisms to hostile environments on other planets. Those organisms should then be able to adapt to their local niche conditions.
To me, cheap and effective terraforming means designing a single-celled, self-reproducing organism that can survive in the hostile environment while also making it a tiny bit less hostile.
If I had a synthetic bacterium in my intestines that allowed me to digest a wider variety of foods, such as sawdust or tree leaves, that would even reduce our need to terraform Earth (via agriculture) to support larger human populations.
By the time we have acquired those capabilities from our biological research, it would be useful to already have the capability to transport live organisms to hostile environments on other planets. Those organisms should then be able to adapt to their local niche conditions.
To me, cheap and effective terraforming means designing a single-celled, self-reproducing organism that can survive in the hostile environment while also making it a tiny bit less hostile.
Antarctica is a herring. (And similar analogies like building an underwater city.) It's inhospitable, but land usage rights are tied up among the international community (not for bad reasons) so you can't just take a ship of pilgrims and supplies there and start building and hunting penguins as you please. And even if you could, you'd still have to worry about outsiders. Mars is an entirely unowned dead planet and the first-mover advantages will be huge. If you can get things there, tools and people, no one's going to stop you from doing what you want.
I think Musk is smarter and Mars colony is just very good PR. Hey, I am going to Mars, I need rocket... and bunch of satellites... and maybe some rovers to explore it.... and perhaps some automated drilling operation on Mars to find water... and how about seizmic detonations... you know, cosmoboys must be safe :-)
Nobody is going to spend any serious money just on robots.
Nobody is going to spend any serious money just on robots.
TL;DR:
We cannot solve any single problem faced by humanity any faster by focusing on it to the exclusion of all other pursuits. Indeed, the solutions to some problems are often found accidentally, while working on something apparently unrelated. Such serendipitous discoveries cannot be forced; they can only be encouraged by working on as many diverse efforts as we can reasonably sustain.
How many of our problems could be solved simply by being more unified and cooperative as a species? Space exploration, by virtue of its great difficulty and its ability to refocus our perspective on something much larger than ourselves, drives us to become better as a species, and attacks in a single stroke all those problems caused mainly by our everyday selfishness and cruelty to one another.
Here is a photo that fits every human alive, except the three behind the lens, into 3% of the field of view. I hope it readjusts your perspective as it has readjusted mine.
We cannot solve any single problem faced by humanity any faster by focusing on it to the exclusion of all other pursuits. Indeed, the solutions to some problems are often found accidentally, while working on something apparently unrelated. Such serendipitous discoveries cannot be forced; they can only be encouraged by working on as many diverse efforts as we can reasonably sustain.
How many of our problems could be solved simply by being more unified and cooperative as a species? Space exploration, by virtue of its great difficulty and its ability to refocus our perspective on something much larger than ourselves, drives us to become better as a species, and attacks in a single stroke all those problems caused mainly by our everyday selfishness and cruelty to one another.
Here is a photo that fits every human alive, except the three behind the lens, into 3% of the field of view. I hope it readjusts your perspective as it has readjusted mine.
Many comments on this previous post about the letter:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4372563
It's interesting to note how much has happened in the short 891 days since that previous discussion occurred in mid 2012. At that point, the space shuttle fleet was retired but SpaceX hadn't yet flown a commercial resupply mission to the ISS. Curiosity hadn't yet landed on Mars. Rosetta/Philae arriving at their comet, etc. I'm sure someone can come up with a more complete timeline, but I've been following space exploration as a layman for a number of years and these last couple of years have been some of the most exciting in quite awhile.
where is the nun's letter?
I really liked Stuhlinger's reply and I am for space exploration, but this question is relevant. Without knowing what she asked, it is not possible to know whether the answer addressed the concerns she raised.
Agreed. I would also like to see what (if any) reply she had to this letter.
Footnote:
Having read Dr. Stuhlinger’s letter, Sister Mary responded: “Thank you – from now on, I firmly believe in the profound value of the space program.”
Having read Dr. Stuhlinger’s letter, Sister Mary responded: “Thank you – from now on, I firmly believe in the profound value of the space program.”
Funny. I appreciate the want for more exploring, but the logic he lays out is almost the exact rationale that has slowly eroded NASA from 1.6% to 0.5%. Maybe not all for "think of the children," but after we lost the fear/competition of Russia, space always comes second when you pose the question as "...when we could do X with the money." Why not spend it on something that will fulfill our lower needs as a group (hunger, health, shelter, happiness)?
More annoying, the political defense to try and keep the votes for it makes it all the more silly. It spreads over multiple states and locations to ensure votes, which naturally makes it more diffuse and internally fractured. But you're still arguing with the increasing conservatism of an aging country whose Reps know that voting stability and order gets them back in.
OK. It would also help if they had a goal that wasn't just "stay up." Well projected vision can set fire to a thousand hearts. (cue Superman joke)
More annoying, the political defense to try and keep the votes for it makes it all the more silly. It spreads over multiple states and locations to ensure votes, which naturally makes it more diffuse and internally fractured. But you're still arguing with the increasing conservatism of an aging country whose Reps know that voting stability and order gets them back in.
OK. It would also help if they had a goal that wasn't just "stay up." Well projected vision can set fire to a thousand hearts. (cue Superman joke)
I think it is more complicated than that. There are political factors at play. It is not as if every American has a direct voice in the budget. It is less than 50% of what is was but at the same time it is a 0.9% drop so I think we should be careful what conclusions we draw here.
The "invest in earth problems instead of space problems" has been a common rhetoric among people as of late with various missions such as to Mars.
What I find an excellent addition from this letter is the discussion of goverence of tax money in the letter.
It isn't a simple case of just deciding to redistribute funds from one department to another.
What I find an excellent addition from this letter is the discussion of goverence of tax money in the letter.
It isn't a simple case of just deciding to redistribute funds from one department to another.
By explaining how space exploration could help fight hunger, he misses the point that we already produce enough food to end hunger. So clearly more science is not what is needed right now.
Nothing against more science, better food production and so on. Of course they help - and perhaps people are also more willing to donate if they have more (which better production would yield). But the real problem is probably political (of course science could help with that, too).
I just don't think you can justify space exploration that way, because clearly there would be more efficient ways to end hunger right now.
Assuming we wouldn't have food anyway, and every dollar for the space program would have to be to taken away from a starving child, I don't think there would be any way to justify it.
Nothing against more science, better food production and so on. Of course they help - and perhaps people are also more willing to donate if they have more (which better production would yield). But the real problem is probably political (of course science could help with that, too).
I just don't think you can justify space exploration that way, because clearly there would be more efficient ways to end hunger right now.
Assuming we wouldn't have food anyway, and every dollar for the space program would have to be to taken away from a starving child, I don't think there would be any way to justify it.
>> The voyage to Mars will certainly not be a direct source of food for the hungry.
This sentence highlights the certainty a mission to Mars was during the Apollo program. Soon after this (early 70's) the NASA budget was slashed, and the mighty Saturn V mothballed.
This sentence highlights the certainty a mission to Mars was during the Apollo program. Soon after this (early 70's) the NASA budget was slashed, and the mighty Saturn V mothballed.
I was always under the impression that Antoni van Leeuwenhoek (who is Dutch, not German) invented the microscope. I can't find anything about a German Count who funded microsope research anywhere. Does anybody know a source for this?
To quote the late (and great) Billy Wilder: "The Austrians have completed the feat of turning Beethoven into an Austrian, and Hitler into a German."
Stuhlinger was part of similar effort, downplaying von Braun role in Nazi war effort (including use of slave labour).
Stuhlinger was part of similar effort, downplaying von Braun role in Nazi war effort (including use of slave labour).
"significant progress in the solutions of technical problems is frequently made not by a direct approach, but by first setting a goal of high challenge which offers a strong motivation for innovative work"
What I find remarkable is that Stuhlinger worked for the Nazis at Peenemünde, where he undoubtedly was part of the machine that rained rockets and death on the Britain and the rest of Europe.
Imagine being at the spear tip of something so evil as being part of the Nazi killing machine - and then, fast forward a few decades, transform into a sage statesman, arguing so passionately for the oneness of humanity and for the peaceful uses of space.
I wonder if he ever chose to explain that dichotomy to his children before he died. It blows my mind.
Imagine being at the spear tip of something so evil as being part of the Nazi killing machine - and then, fast forward a few decades, transform into a sage statesman, arguing so passionately for the oneness of humanity and for the peaceful uses of space.
I wonder if he ever chose to explain that dichotomy to his children before he died. It blows my mind.
I don't know much about this, and even less about Stuhlinger and Peenemunde in particular, but I suspect that some blame for raining death on people can be laid at the feet of quite a few rocket scientists on both sides of the war, that those scientists possessed a wide range of individual views on the justness of their cause, and that they were nearly all pleased to be able to apply their talents to a good and peaceful cause after the war ended.
Well, spare your mind. Stuhlinger switched from the nazi killing machine to the american killing machine. The only difference is that the results of the work he did for US were not used in a war yet (ICBMs). Like many other governmental programs, the space program served military purposes first. See early history: wikipedia.org/wiki/DARPA
In 2004, NASA hosted the Virtual Iron Bird workshop. I attended. At the time, VPOTUS Dan Quayle proposed that we fly to Mars. But, because there was no additional budget, it meant that NASA had to re-budget funds from other programs. There was some grumbling. My argument for Mars exploration was to drive bio science. Because, by the time you get to Mars, you'd probably have cancer. It was meant to be a joke. But, not really.
Working as a software developer in radio astronomy, I frequently get asked the same question. Where's the value in spending half a billion euros on a massive telescope array? I struggle to understand how people cannot simply accept the answer: to know more!
This article will definitely help me to explain the value of radio astronomy and science in general in a more succinct and 'useful' way.
This article will definitely help me to explain the value of radio astronomy and science in general in a more succinct and 'useful' way.
>I struggle to understand how people cannot simply accept the answer: to know more!
When you say that, people are thinking "so would you let people die unnecessarily, JUST so you can know more?". What's important about knowing more? It's useful for its entertainment and curiosity-satisfying properties, but that ranks far lower than stuff like people starving.
When you say that, people are thinking "so would you let people die unnecessarily, JUST so you can know more?". What's important about knowing more? It's useful for its entertainment and curiosity-satisfying properties, but that ranks far lower than stuff like people starving.
So I'd counter - where's the value of spending half a billion Euros on a few blockbuster movies? Or 10% of an Olympics game? Why do you want a right to watch soccer games and want to deny me right to knowing more about the universe around us?
That being said, I'd go back to explaining very carefully how everything we have around us is built on top of people doing weird stuff just to know more.
That being said, I'd go back to explaining very carefully how everything we have around us is built on top of people doing weird stuff just to know more.
No comments on that submission. Here's a previous submission with discussion - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4372563
One example that comes to my mind after reading this is of the aboriginal/native tribes in various continents that decided not to explore alien areas. In my opinion, the natives were far less developed when the explorers from the old earth conquered them.
This is primarily the reason that we should explore the space and try to find new and exciting things.
This is primarily the reason that we should explore the space and try to find new and exciting things.
[deleted]
What a wonderful piece. The argument that space exploration is a catalyst to new discoveries was very well put, but what struck me most was the contrast between peaceful space exploration and earthly wars. He made the letter very easy to relate to.
It's a very beautiful letter. I think this should be a standard reading middle school. It not only enshrines a strong purpose for scientific exploration but it is a wonderfully written piece.
[deleted]
I'm always surprised by "starving kids in Africa" argument. Why would one assume that hunger is a solvable problem? As soon as there is more food, there will be more children. It's basic ecology. If anything, the Green Revolution that produced more food in the 20th century has devastated the environment (our life support system) and will probably lead to more starvation in the long run.
Your model is simple, nice, but wrong. Experimentally proven wrong by the fact that developed nations (where food is not an issue for most of the population) there are declining birth rates.
But the developed nations didn't become developed simply by throwing food at them. In fact, one could argue that space programs were a significant factor in their development, and therefore prevented more starvation than food aid ever did.
I think you need to take that ecology class again. Humans are bit different than tadpoles; I'm being serious there is more complexity at work than "more food --> more offspring." Your basic ecology simpleton logic doesn't include any conception of sociological factors that are inherent in human populations. Does your basic ecology conceive of frogs deciding to either delay or even not engage in reproduction in favor of careers?
I believe there's more of an inverse correlation: the wealthier a population, the lower its birth rate. One-off starvation events caused by unusual weather in agricultural societies are one thing, where temporary aid would be helpful. But poverty in particular places isn't caused by a global shortage of food, but local factors such as incompetent and/or corrupt administration or culture and subsequent lack of economic development. There may not be much that a US organization could do about it.
love how they both ignore the fact that children only starve because of war and such. mostly for resources that are paid handsomely on space exploration, changing hands on wars often dressed as religious ones.
There are often wars in places where resources like food and water are scarce. People fight over what little there is, or they see the weakened country as a target for an invasion. Somalia for example, has been in the grip of war for years but also has had significant droughts over the past few years. The two problems are related. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_East_Africa_drought
And a lot of people, including me, would love to go there and work on cheap desalinization if we didn't have the certainty that our lives would be at risk, and our work would stand a very high chance of being expropriated by a number of predatory competing quasi-governments in case it does work.
Look at Zimbabwe's food output on a chart and you'll see what I mean.
Look at Zimbabwe's food output on a chart and you'll see what I mean.
So where is all this space exploration that is produce by the Central African Republic that you are talking about?
tldr;
While it's trivially obvious that the value of unknown knowledge is unknowable, this doesn't often occur to such people, focused as they are on the limitations of the present instead of the possibilities of the future. Even if the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake were a completely useless activity which diverted resources away from more pressing problems, societies everywhere have accepted that their tax dollars inevitably fund certain things which are unnecessary. Clean parks, public support for the arts, city fireworks on holidays, etc. Yet people generally find these latter sinks of funding less objectionable than things like space exploration and federal support for science. Perhaps it's because the enormous scientific illiteracy afflicting the populace as a whole (which can be observed simply by reading any popular journalistic account of scientific developments) places scientific developments and scientific pursuits into some mental category of "abstract, probably useless stuff".