Are we future-oriented?

The death of Neil Armstrong, the first man to walk on the Moon, on August 25 got me reflecting on what was accomplished by NASA during his time. I found a YouTube channel called “The Conquest of Space,” and it’s been wonderful getting acquainted with the history I didn’t know.

I knew about the Apollo program from the time I was a kid in the 1970s. I was born two months after Apollo 11, so I only remember it in hindsight. By the time I was old enough to be conscious of the Apollo program’s existence, it had been mothballed for four or five years. I could not be ignorant of its existence. It was talked about often on TV, and in the society around me. I lived in Virginia, near Washington, D.C., in my early childhood. I remember I used to be taken regularly to the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum. Of all of their museums, it was my favorite. There, I saw video of one of the moon walks, the space suits used for the missions (as mannequins), the Command Module, and Lunar Module at full scale, artifacts of a time that had come and gone. There was hope that someday we would go back to the Moon, and go beyond it to the planets. The Air and Space Museum had an IMAX movie that was played continuously, called “To Fly.” From what I’ve read, they still show it. It was produced for the museum in 1976. I remember watching it a bunch of times. It was beautifully done, though looking back on it, it had the feel of a “demo” movie, showing off what could be done with the IMAX format. It dramatizes the history of flight, from hot air balloons in the 19th century, to the jet age, to rockets to the Moon. A cool thing about it is it talked about the change in perspective that flight offered, a “new eye.” At the end it predicted that we would have manned space missions to the planets.

Why wouldn’t we have manned missions that venture to the planets, and ultimately, perhaps a hundred years off, to other star systems? It would just be an extension of the advancements in flight we had made on earth. The idea that we would keep pushing the boundaries of our reach seemed like a given, that this technological pace we had experienced would just keep going. That’s what everything that was science-oriented was telling me. Our future was in space.

In the late 1970s Carl Sagan produced a landmark series on science called “Cosmos.” He talked about the history of space exploration, mostly from the ground, and how our destiny was to travel into space. He said, introducing the series,

The surface of the earth is the shore of the cosmic ocean. On this shore we’ve learned most of what we know. Recently we’ve waded a little way out, maybe ankle deep, and the water seems inviting. Some part of our being knows this is where we came from. We long to return, and we can…

Winding down?

As I got into my twenties, in the 1990s, I started to worry about NASA’s robustness as a space program. It started to look like a one-trick pony that only knew how to launch astronauts into low-earth orbit. “When are we going to return to the Moon,” I’d ask myself. NASA sent probes out to Jupiter, Mars, and then Saturn, following in the footsteps of Voyager 1 and 2. Surely similar questions were being asked of NASA, because I’d often hear them say that the probes were forerunners to future manned space flight, that they were gathering information that we needed to know in advance for manned missions, holding out that hope that someday we’d venture out again.

The Space Shuttle was our longest running space program, from 1981 to 2011, 30 years. Back around the year 2000 I remember Vice President Al Gore announcing the winner of the contract to build the next generation space shuttle, which would take the place of the older models, but it never came to be. Under the administration of George W. Bush the Constellation program started in 2005, with the idea of further developing the International Space Station, returning astronauts to the Moon, establishing a base there for the first time, and then launching manned missions to Mars. This program was cancelled in 2010 in the Obama Administration, and there has been nothing to replace it. I heard some criticism of Constellation, saying that it was ill-defined, and an expensive boondoggle, though it was defended by Neil Armstrong and Gene Cernan, two Apollo astronauts. Perhaps it was ill-defined, and a waste of money, but it felt sad to see the Space Shuttle program end, and to see that NASA didn’t have a way to get into low-earth orbit, or to the International Space Station. The original idea was to have the first stage of the Constellation program follow, after the space shuttles were retired. Now NASA has nothing but rockets to send out space probes and robotic rovers to bodies in space. Even the Curiosity rover mission, now on Mars, was largely developed during the Bush Administration, so I hear.

I have to remember at times that even in the 1970s, during my childhood, there was a lull in the manned space program. The Apollo program was ended in the Nixon Administration, before it was finished. There was a planned flight, with a rocket ready to go, to continue the program after Apollo 17, but it never left the ground. There’s a Saturn V rocket that was meant for one of the later missions that lays today as a display model on the grounds of the Kennedy Space Center. I have to remember as well that then, as now, the program was ended during a long drawn out war. Then, it was in Vietnam. Now, it’s in the Middle East.

Manned space flight ended for a time after the SL-4 mission to the Skylab space station in 1974. It didn’t begin again for another 7 years, with the first launch of the Space Shuttle. The difference is the Shuttle was first conceptualized towards the end of the Apollo program. It was there as a goal. Perhaps we are experiencing the same gap in manned flight now, though I don’t have a sense that NASA has a “next mission” in mind. As best I can tell the Obama Administration has tasked NASA with supporting private space flight. There is good reason to believe that private space flight companies will be able to send astronauts into low-earth orbit soon. That’s a consolation. The thing is that’s likely all they’re going to do in the future–launch to low-earth orbit. They’re at the stage that the Mercury program was more than 50 years ago.

What I ask is do we have anything beyond this in mind? Do we have a sense of building on the gains in knowledge that have been made, to venture out beyond what we now know? I grew up being told that “humans want to explore, to push the boundaries of what we know.” I guess we still are that, but maybe we’re directing that impulse in new ways here on earth, rather than into space. I wonder sometimes whether the scientific community fooled itself into believing this to justify its existence. Astrophysicist, and vocal advocate for NASA, Neil deGrasse Tyson has worried about this, too.

I realized a few years ago, to my dismay, that what really drove the creation of the space program, and our flights to the Moon, was not an ambition to push our frontiers of knowledge just for the sake of gaining knowledge. There was a major political aspect to it: beating the Soviets in “the space race” of the 1960s, establishing higher ground for ourselves, in a military sense. Yes, some very valuable scientific and engineering work was done in the process, but as Tyson would say, “science hitched a ride on another agenda.” That’s what it’s often done in human history. Many non-military benefits to our society flowed from what NASA once did, none of which are widely recognized today. Most people think that our technological development came from innovators in the private sector alone. The private sector did a lot, but they also drew from a tremendous resource in our space and defense research and development programs, as I’ve documented in earlier posts.

I’ll close with this great quote. It echoes what Tyson has said, though it’s fleshed out in an ethical sense, too, which I think is impressive.

The great enemy of the human race is ignorance. It’s what we don’t know that limits our progress. And everything that we learn, everything that we come to know, no matter how esoteric it seems, no matter how ivory tower-ish, will fit into the general picture a block in its proper place that in the end will make it possible for mankind to increase and grow; become more cosmic, if you wish; become more than a species on Earth, but become a species in the Universe, with capacities and abilities we can’t imagine now. Nor do I mean greater and greater consumption of energy, or more and more massive cities.

It’s so difficult to predict, because the most important advances are exactly in the directions that we now can’t conceive, but everything we now do, every advance in knowledge we now make, contributes to that. And just because I can’t see it, and I’m an expert at this, … doesn’t mean it isn’t there. And if we refuse to take those steps, because we don’t see what the future holds, all we’re making certain of is that the future won’t exist, and that we will stagnate forever. And this is a dreadful thought. And I am very tired when people ask me, “What’s the good of it,” because the proper answer is, “You may never know, but your grandchildren will.”

– Isaac Asimov, 1973, from the NASA film “Small Steps, Giant Strides”

Then as now, this is the lament of the scientist, I think. Scientists must ask society’s permission to explore, because they usually need funds from others to do their work, and there is no immediate payback to be had from it. It is for this reason that justifying the funding of that work is tough, because scientific work goes outside the normal set of expectations people have about what is of value. If the benefits can’t be seen here and now, many wonder, “What’s the point?” What Asimov pointed out is the pursuit of knowledge is its own reward, but to really gain its benefits you must be future-oriented. You have to think about and value the world in which your children and grandchildren will live, not your own. If your focus is on the here and now, you will not value the future, and so potential future benefits of scientific research will not seem valuable, and therefor will not seem worthy of pursuit. It is a cultural mindset that is at issue.

Edit 12-10-2012: Going through some old articles I’d saved, I came upon this essay about humanity’s capacity for intellectual thought, called “Why is there Anti-Intellectualism?”, by Steven Dutch at the University of Wisconsin-Green Bay. It provides some reasonable counter-notions to my own that seem to confirm what I’ve seen, but will still take some contemplation on my part.

There’s no science in the article. In terms of quality, at best, I’d call this an “executive summary.” Maybe there’s more detailed research behind it, but I haven’t found it yet. Dutch uses heuristics to provide his points of comparison, and uses a notion of evidence to provide some meat to the bones. He asks some reasonable questions that are worth contemplating, challenging the notion that “humans are naturally curious, and strive to explore.” He then makes observations that seem to come from his own experience. Overall, he provides a reasonable basis for answering a statement I made in this article: “I wonder sometimes whether the scientific community fooled itself into believing this to justify its existence.” He comes down on the side of saying, in his opinion (paraphrasing), “Yes, some in the scientific community have fooled themselves on this issue.” He discusses the notion that “humans are naturally curious,” due to the behavior exhibited by children. He concludes by saying that children naturally display a shallow curiosity, which he calls “tinkering.” The harder task of creative, deep thought does not come naturally. It’s something that needs to be cultivated to take root. Hence the need for schools. The question I think we as citizens should be asking is whether our schools are actually doing this, or something else.

Read Full Post »

Restoring America’s economy

Luigi Zingales wrote an excellent article for City Journal, called “Who Killed Horatio Alger?” He lays out very clearly how a meritocratic society works, and the diversions that can take us off that track. He says this is what’s happened with the bubbles and bailouts, and that they risk ending our belief in a meritocracy. He identifies a crucial agenda to reasserting it, which he calls, I think aptly, “pro-market.” It is neither anti-business nor pro-business. Rather it asserts that the rules of a market should rule in the economy: When you succeed, the reward you receive from the market should not be pillaged. You get to keep the lion’s share of it. When you fail, it’s all on you. Do not expect the government to back you up. He points out that a “pro-market” agenda does not have a lot of political allies right now. Pro-business, particularly big business interests, and anti-business interests are on the same page: Neither of them like the market approach.

Zingales does a great job of describing what’s different about the political realm vs. the market, and how culturally similar business monopolies are to political institutions.

I think he puts forward a legitimate warning that if we don’t stop doing the bailouts when future market crashes happen (and they will happen), the free market principles this country has used since its founding will go away, and may never come back, because people will see that using free market assumptions in their own lives don’t pay off when society doesn’t believe in them.

The alternative in such a scenario is to see success as purely a matter of luck, not merit, and that there is nothing fair about it. This provides a rationale to redistribute income to the less lucky, and for government to pick winners and losers in the economy, favoring some businesses or industries over others. The position of industries in the market would be seen as purely arbitrary, a matter of luck. He points out that redistribution leads to economic stagnation, because there is no incentive to create new wealth in that scenario.

Here are some salient quotes from the article:

[T]his rosy picture obscures a hard fact: meritocracy is a difficult principle to sustain in a democracy. Any system that allocates rewards on the basis of merit inevitably gives higher compensation to the few, leaving the majority potentially envious. In a democracy, the majority generally rules. Why should that majority agree to grant a minority disproportionate power and rewards?

…

America … encouraged meritocracy from its inception. In the eighteenth century, the social order throughout the world was based on birthrights: nobles ruled Europe and Japan, the caste system prevailed in India, and even in England, where merchants were gaining economic and political strength, the aristocracy wielded most of the political power. The American Revolution was a revolt against aristocracy and the immobility of European society, but unlike the French Revolution, which emphasized the principle of equality, it championed the freedom to pursue happiness. In other words, America was founded on equality of opportunities, not of outcomes.

…

When the difference between a comfortable retirement and an indigent one is determined not by hard work or by a frugal lifestyle but by lucky timing in buying or selling your house, people start questioning the fairness of the market system. The fact that the real-estate bubble was the second large bubble to pop in less than a decade further undermined trust in markets as a good indicator of where to invest resources.

Though he doesn’t get into this, in my mind the third quote relates to monetary policy. The Fed kept interest rates low in the 1990s for an extended period of time. Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan said that there was no fear of inflation, due to increases in productivity from the computer/internet revolutions. The Fed’s easy money policy likely was a major contributor to the dot-com and telecom bubbles that burst in 2000. The Fed returned to an easy money policy in 2001, which fueled the housing bubble, and led to its subsequent collapse. It continues to implement an easy money policy to this day. That needs to change if Zingales’s pro-market agenda is going to work. All this policy has done is led us to ruin.

Read Full Post »

“What a waste it is to lose one’s mind”

The title of this post is from a verbal gaffe that Dan Quayle committed when he gave a speech at the United Negro College Fund (now called “UNCF”, their slogan being “A mind is a terrible thing to waste”) when he was vice-president. I use it as a symbolic way of introducing this subject.

I came upon the following videos on YouTube. It is a dramatization of Ayn Rand’s thoughtful rant (nay, “indictment” is more like it) of our society’s promotion and acceptance of irrationality, through her character named John Galt, in her novel, “Atlas Shrugged”. It’s called “This is John Galt speaking…,” performed by Christopher Hurt, with video added by Richard Gleaves.

I am not wholeheartedly endorsing Rand’s Objectivist philosophy, but I agree strongly with her criticism of our society in the broadest sense. At times I have felt like screaming some of these criticisms, because I have seen the ignorance described, which seems impermeable, and I understand some things about the destructiveness it can produce. Screaming about it does little good, though. I am reminded of what Adlai Stevenson said of Eleanor Roosevelt, that she’d rather light a candle than curse the darkness.

John Galt’s speech is provocative, but it is provocation with a purpose, to get people to think about what has produced our modern world, and its problems, to think about the causes, not just the effects, and to perish the thought that it all comes about by magic. That’s always valuable, to get a reality check. The reason I feature this rant is not to sway people towards a particular point of view, but to say that even though in our private lives we may find it valuable to hold beliefs in the supernatural, whether they be based in religious or secular views, they have real consequences in the health of our society when they are brought into the realm of politics, because they influence policy in unhealthy directions.

I am not putting all parts of Galt’s monologue here (the original dramatization has 17 parts), but certain key parts that I found thought-provoking, and valuable to share. I have long been interested in what creates and sustains modern civilization, and I think the Objectivist philosophy, as portrayed here, is an important piece of that, but I found it too limiting to be all-encompassing. In my encounters with philosophy, I’ve always found that materialism of any sort is too limiting as a singular governing principle for society. I would classify Objectivism as a “libertarian materialism.” I see it as just something to think about and consider.

Rand goes after all purveyors of irrationality in her time, but she seems to reserve particular scorn for mystics of all stripes, and catholicism. I find her criticism valuable from an anthropological perspective. If you take out the labels of different political systems and religions, and just look at their characteristics, it’s easier to see why those characteristics are probably destructive, as opposed to thinking that a particular instance of those characteristics, with a label, is destructive. That’s missing the forest for the trees.

Richard Gleaves used his own imagery and audio to illustrate what Galt was talking about. I do not agree with all of the imagery used, particularly regarding religion, and some political points. It gives one the sense that all religion is like what is portrayed. I can say from experience that it’s not. Not all sects demand thoughtless obedience, though some popular forms of religion do promote this, and I agree with the specific criticism against that. While I think some of the imagery is relevant, I found it was more valuable to pay attention to the words, and to separate them from the imagery.

Rand seems to attack most forms of authority, a view I don’t agree with. I would just promote the idea of skepticism of authority.

The premise of this monologue is the society in Rand’s fictional tale has collapsed, and a character named John Galt, whom people in the story have wondered about, reveals himself to the world, telling everyone why society has collapsed, and how to bring it back to life.

Part 1: This is John Galt Speaking

Parts 3 and 4: The Morality of Death

There is a brief segment showing a “Hitler youth” rally where it’s difficult to see the subtitles. They say:

“Because you are the epitome of altruism, this youth wants to be altruistic. Because you are our ideal of loyalty, we also want to be loyal. Adolph Hitler, leader of German youth, will speak!”

Part 7: Epistemology, and Free Will

Part 7 is my favorite segment out of the whole series. Gleaves uses clips from the movie, “The Miracle Worker”. The way this was put together is poetic. As I watched it I reflected on myself. At times I feel like Helen Keller’s teacher, trying to reach others. At other times I feel like Helen herself, going for long stretches feeling lost, mystified, and babbling about nothing of much value. Then I have experiences that feel like her at the water pump. The connection is made, and POW! Realization! The joy I feel afterward is like her running around, seeing a little better, taking it all in with a voracious hunger. Wonderful.

Part 8: Evasion, and Causality

Edit 2-19-2011: Emotions (this comes from a new version of the series Gleaves created more recently. It’s called Part 7 there, but it comes after “Evasion and Causality”)

Part 9: The Men of the Mind, and Value and Virtue

Part 15: The destructiveness of mysticism in all its forms, religious and secular

In a way, this post is a follow-up to an interview with Judy Shelton I featured on here about a year ago. She expressed concern that with the bent the U.S. government had at the time, that business owners, the people who create wealth, will eventually go on strike, “like John Galt,” because society no longer appreciates the personal risks they take to create products and services, and create jobs.

What I really like about this is it doesn’t just complain about society, but illustrates the difference between a non-thinking society and a thinking society, and that this difference matters a great deal. The hope is that people will “wake up” and realize that this “dream” of certainty they’ve been in is not all its cracked up to be. While there will always be things we don’t know, there’s a lot less that’s “unknowable” than people think, and it would behoove us to find out as much about what’s really going on as possible, because it DOES affect us.

Like I said, this philosophy is not all-inclusive in terms of the important things that make up a functioning modern society. One thing it neglects is the fact that “intellectual life” is not just in the private sector. It’s also in our universities, at least in some holdouts. There is a healthy element of competition in this system, but in a well functioning system of this sort, the goal should not just be profit. An unfortunate fact I’ve been reading about is that universities are increasingly seeing profit as a primary goal. This narrows the focus of academic study significantly, and not always to good ends. It’s not just happening here. It’s happening in the UK as well.

So while I think Objectivism provides a valuable message to consider, I think it’s good to keep in mind that it is a vantage point from which one can be jarred, and see reality a little better, but that there are other valuable intellectual perspectives to explore and keep in mind as well.

Read Full Post »