Space Science: Practice and Policy

My Spring 2018 semester at CU Boulder I took a class in which we talked about the past, present, and future of human exploration in space. Taught by Dr. Larry Esposito, the class was designed to introduce students to the policies that have influenced the proliferation of the aerospace industry around the world since the derivation of the rocket equation. Each week two teams of three would debate pre-determined topics, such as 'Global Cooperation or Competition in Space?' and 'Should Astronauts Return to the Moon?', in the following format: Each team had 15 minutes to present their initial arguments (five minutes for each person on each side). One team would argue the 'Pro' side and the other team would argue the 'Con' side. Then the teams had 10 minutes each for Rebuttals with a final round of Summaries lasting three minutes per team. With the remaining class time, the panels would be open for questions. As well, each student was required to give a 10 minute presentation at the end of the semester about a topic of their choice.

     Both topics I debated had to do with the ideas of competition and cooperation while my final presentation examined the contrasts between our current global economic model and a Resource Based Economy. (If you've been following my blog for a few years, you likely understand that I chose cooperation over competition and will be a proponent for cooperation over competition for the rest of my life.) Of course, it might be considered a bit distasteful and boring to read from a script, but I had so much information to dive into during my debates that I managed to speak faster than I've ever spoken before: roughly 1600 words in just under 10 minutes for each debate! (Don't believe that's quick? Try reading from a script in front of a room of 30 people without mispronouncing a word or stumbling!) I even anticipated the usual, cliche arguments from the competition side! And, now I've decided to share with everyone both debate scripts as well as my final presentation script.

    

First Topic: Global Cooperation vs Competition in Space

Buckminster Fuller is quoted as saying, “You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.” As a futurist, Fuller was heavily invested in the idea of human cooperation and spent much of his life advocating for a highly technical global society. He recognized the massive social benefit of programs such as Apollo and how these programs provide unmistakably strong evidence in support of cooperation. Fuller explains,

The strictly government-operated NASA Apollo Project… employed business’s industrial facilities but was a human-endeavor cooperating project. It held at bay any importantly diverting manifests of selfishness, even amongst its dramatically publicized astronauts. Their individual names have faded into a dim admixture of identities—omnisublimated by the magnificent demonstration of humanity’s industrially cooperative capability to accomplish history’s most imaginatively “impossible,” scientifically “possible” feat—rocket-ferrying of humans over to the Moon and returning them safely back on board our Spaceship Earth. (Fuller, p. 241)

Indeed, the landing on and safe return from the Moon by astronauts is perhaps one of humankind’s crowning achievements. It required a massive, concerted effort of thousands of people from around the world. Without the input of von Braun, however, it is unclear how advanced the space program in the United States would have been by the end of the 1960s. One thing is certain: The competition for nuclear superiority was at the forefront of thinking for more than thirty years. In that time, NASA was established and quickly grew to 4% of the national budget; steadily declining ever since. It is through this massive investment in space science that we were able to plan and eventually execute the missions that changed the course of human history. According to Carl Sagan in his 1980 book Cosmos, “The total cost of a mission such as Viking to Mars, or Voyager to the outer solar system, is less than that of the 1979-80 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Through technical employment and the stimulation of high technology, money spent on space exploration has an economic multiplier effect. (Sagan, p. 285)”

So, we are certainly capable as a species of bridging our differences for common goals. In Red Sky at Morning, James Speth argues, “Strong personal leadership from outstanding individuals has proven essential in forging many global-scale agreements… A major focusing event was when the ozone hole was discovered over Antarctica… The United States and other governments showed a willingness to compromise. (Speth, p. 94)” Perhaps one of the only fully realized global efforts, the call to end the use of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), proved that, with proper leadership roles filled and an adequately informed citizenry, humans are more than capable of resolving massive issues in a relatively short amount of time. Unfortunately, the excitement surrounding the proof-of-concept that cooperative resolution actually works was short-lived and the United States has failed to take the lead on virtually every environmental issue since .

Today, nearly half the population of the world is connected to what I personally consider humankind’s single greatest achievement: the Internet. The Internet has become a fundamental necessity in the First World and is being quickly integrated into the fabric of Third World nations. We are almost fully connected on a global scale—capable yet not fully implemented. But, this type of technology easily reveals the shortcomings of a highly competitive, increasingly polarized society: We are easily swayed by visceral reactions and even more easily distracted by the massive influx of both information and trivialities. For example, how can we have instant access to the entirety of humankind’s knowledge base, yet at the same time allow thousands of people to starve to death daily? Clearly, there is a violent clash between emergent technologies and the retention of traditional practices in the 21^st century. There also seems to be a disconnect between the development and the implementation of such increasingly powerful innovations, many of which arise as a direct result of space science funding, e.g. GPS and food preservation techniques, to name just two.

These disconnects spill over into nearly every other facet of society, including our desire to explore space.  It can certainly be argued that competition was the driving factor behind the rapid development of our space programs. However, it must also be acknowledged that over the decades since, researchers around the world have heavily studied the effects of cooperative versus competitive environments on achievement and have found, unsurprisingly, that, while competition clearly works for achieving goals (we did, after all, land on the Moon), it is actually cooperation that produces optimal outcomes.

It can easily be argued that if funding were to increase significantly, the problems of building bases on the Moon, on Mars, and beyond could be easily solved. There seems to be no limit to human ingenuity. Many of us grew up watching an assortment of sci-fi shows, such as Star Trek, depicting what humankind’s adventures into deep space might look like. While the crews of these interstellar spaceships often found themselves in compromising positions, a common thread was woven throughout each series: Survival and social cohesion were ultimately the result of effective cooperation. Another important message to take away from these types of shows is that of a paradigm shift away from the mindset of infinite growth and into a steady-state mindset of preservation.

“To realize such a future, societies will have to free themselves from a variety of pernicious habits of thought, including the enchantment of limitless material expansion and what John Kenneth Galbraith has called, “highly contrived consumption of an infinite variety of goods and services. (Speth, p. 192)”

REBUTTAL

In a 1981 paper by Johnson, Maruyama, Johnson, and Nelson entitled, “Effects of Cooperative, Competitive, and Individualistic Goal Structures on Achievement: A Meta-Analysis,” the researchers, using a comparison of four conditions—cooperation, cooperation with intergroup competition, interpersonal competition, and individualistic effort—found that, through the methods implemented, “These results confirm the superiority of cooperation over both competitive and individualistic efforts and indicate that there is essentially no difference between the effects of interpersonal competitive and individualistic efforts on achievement. (Johnson, et al., 1981)”

So, the competitive market-based model we currently utilize on a global scale can be described as “failing to meet the needs of the world’s people.” It also fails to provide a direct incentive to explore space outside of the context of the market-based logic calling for extracting resources and selling them for profit. But, it’s not an easy subject to address as a world leader. How does, say, an American president advocate for global cooperation in, for example, space exploration while simultaneously leading the world in dropping bombs from drones? How do we address the problems that arise through nationalistic fervor when advocating for a globally cooperative citizenry? Bucky Fuller realized this folly and stated, “If any president of the United States or prime minister of any other quasi democracy even so much as discussed possibilities of de-sovereignizing, he or she would be immediately impeached (Fuller, p. 287).”  So, it’s not an easy thing to talk about, especially when competition is the only kind of system in which we’ve developed globally. As Abraham Maslow stated, “I suppose it is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail. (Maslow, p. 15)”

But, our tools are no longer limited to the physical world. We now conduct much of our business and human-human interaction in the digital realm. And it is within this realm that the true power of open source ideology has been realized. Through sites such as Stack Overflow, Arduino, Wikipedia, and Python, we are able to share increasingly vast amounts of information with the world for free. And with the checks and peer-reviews of any updates offered, there is little incentive or likelihood for data corruption. It’s not an impossible engineering task to expand this concept to the physical world to, say, an automated transportation system which connects people to their destinations faster and more efficiently than ever before. As Jacque Fresco said, “We have to put our minds to this as we did to put a man on the Moon.” The concept can be extended for both planetary and off-world needs.

(Cosmos) “Human history can be viewed as a slowly dawning awareness that we are members of a larger group. Initially our loyalties were to ourselves and our immediate family, next, to bands of hunter-gatherers, then to tribes, small settlements, city-states, nations. We have broadened the circle of those we love. We have now organized what are modestly described as superpowers, which include people from divergent ethnic and cultural backgrounds working in some sense together—surely a humanizing and character-building experience. If we are to survive, our loyalties must be broadened further to include the whole human community, the entire planet Earth. Many of those who run the nations will find this idea unpleasant. They will fear the loss of power. We will hear much about treason and disloyalty. Rich nation-states will have to share their wealth with poor ones. But the choice, as H.G. Wells once said in a different context, is clearly the universe or nothing. (Sagan, p. 283)"

Second Topic: Space Can Improve Competitiveness

When discussing human activities in space, conversations tend to revolve around a few basic concepts. First, the militarization of space seems to be a constant hot topic which stands as a testament to human belligerence. Second, the prospect of prospecting for minerals and precious metals, for example on asteroids, has led certain experts to value these traveling wellsprings of material at quadrillions of dollars! Third, the competitive model espoused by the capitalist/free market mentality is repeatedly touted as the be all end all of economic models. So it only seems logical to extend these principles into the ‘final frontier’ of space. On Earth, however, this predatory system is actually rife with failures and corruption, perpetuating the inherently divisive ideology of social stratification--a still-thriving remnant of the days of kings and lords. Fourth, since extinction-level impactors are zipping around the solar system, many ideas have been offered over the decades to prevent one from hitting Earth, ranging from blowing them up (probably not the best idea) to simply pushing them into a different orbit. Lastly, perhaps the basis for all that we’ll ever do as a species, exploration has been at the forefront of human thinking for thousands of years.

Military Competition in Space

Even before the rockets capable of leaving Earth’s atmosphere were designed and built, scientists and science fiction writers alike talked about technological progression and how intimately it can be tied to a seemingly-unfettered desire to kill one another. From H.G. Wells’ atomic bombs and Nikola Tesla’s death rays to the actualization of thermonuclear warheads and directed energy weapons, human civilization appears hellbent on self-destruction under the guise of “terrorism prevention” and in the name of conquering insignificant pieces of this larger, yet equally insignificant, piece of space dust. Apparently, so the story goes, we’re incapable of cooperating on this planet without pointing giant weapons at each other and threatening global destruction. And somehow--as if by some magical “invisible hand”--market competition actually improves this situation. Meanwhile, here in reality, free market capitalism, free enterprise, laissez-faire--whatever you want to call it--has revealed itself over the course of the past two centuries to be arguably the most environmentally destructive ideology ever put into practice on this planet. Now, don’t get me wrong, we have developed some pretty incredible advancements across a wide number of fields. And it would be foolish to say that capitalism had nothing at all to do with it. But, we must step back, take a broad view, and realize that practically every critical system on this planet is currently in decline. And there is a common thread: the idea of infinite economic growth.

It is an unfortunate truth that many military campaigns throughout history have been directed toward land and resource acquisition at any cost. Just try and imagine this mentality extending into resource acquisition and control in space! Could it be only a matter of time before a military power reaches space and declares, “The rules have changed! We’re in charge now! WE OWN EARTH! WHO’S GONNA STOP US?”? That kind of throws a big wrench in the idea of mutually assured destruction. While nonarmament agreements such as the Outer Space Treaty have been put into place to prevent the weaponization of space, the modern practice of corporate and interest-group lobbying makes the likelihood of withdrawal from or abandonment of such treaties practically an inevitability. And with military operations shrouded in secrecy, it’s not a far stretch of the imagination to suggest that space-based weapons systems already exist.

So, I’m failing to see how military in space can improve competitiveness. We know that when militaries compete on Earth, men, women, and children die so what does that look like in space? Surely a military superpower based in space isn’t going to want to allow others the same ultimate advantage! Just think about it for a moment--militaries already don’t want to share weapons technology and airspace down here! But competition in space is somehow going to improve by moving militaries there? I disagree. It seems this is a dangerous approach because there are probably only a few things that can effectively be ‘improved’ by such a program: Paranoia. Secrecy. Inflated egos. Black funds. Destructiveness of weapons. The influence of decreasingly factual propaganda. Dare I ask, What could possibly go wrong?

Economic Ramifications

Economists around the world boast about the superiority of competition in economic models while routinely couching explanations of any negative impacts in flowery language such as externalities. However, the burdens of negative externalities caused by industrial activities rarely, if ever, fall upon the infractors. Rather, those costs are passed along to the consumer or to the environment itself. An example would be the introduction of pop tabs in the 1950s and the discovery of the subsequent accumulation of those tabs on the ocean floor. But, what would a negative externality look like in space?

Let’s say that sometime in the future, a space-mining company decides to haul an asteroid rich in precious metals to Earth orbit. But, someone miscalculated. Even with all the fail-safes in place, something goes horribly awry and the craft is unable to maneuver the asteroid into a proper orbit. Instead, the craft and a 0.5 km wide asteroid are now on an unpredicted collision course with Earth. Negative externality? Sure. You can’t feel the effects of that one if everyone’s dead!

Now let’s say that the orbital insertion was a success and mining operations have begun. If the company starts delivering hundreds or thousands of tons of, say, platinum, what happens to the value per ounce down on the surface? What about the Earth-based mining workers? Where is the improvement of competitiveness and what happens to the economy itself with a massive influx of previously rare metals from a single entity? Perhaps artificial scarcity will continue to be a thing and drive profits like in the diamond industry today. Of course this leads to the possibility that a particular company or government will monopolize certain aspects of space and refuse to share proprietary information.

The Apollo program is a perfect example of how one massive but successful first mission--the first to land on the Moon--can immediately elevate an entity to a global superpower even after several other firsts were achieved by others. It is not, however, an example of improved competitiveness, although at first glance it seems to be. Racing to gain the ultimate upper hand in space because we’re already threatening each other with nuclear weapons isn’t an improvement by any stretch of the word. What is gained? What is lost? What is overlooked? And does it matter? Carl Sagan was one of the most insightful thinkers in modern times. In his book Pale Blue Dot, he had this to say: “For me, the most ironic token of that moment in history is the plaque signed by President Richard M. Nixon that Apollo 11 took to the moon. It reads, ‘We came in peace for all Mankind.’ As the United States was dropping seven and a half megatons of conventional explosives on small nations in Southeast Asia, we congratulated ourselves on our humanity. We would harm no one on a lifeless rock.”  

Rebuttal

            After being awarded the Special Fundamental Physics Prize, Stephen Hawking wrote, “No one undertakes research in physics with the intention of winning a prize. It is the joy of discovering something no one knew before.” But, I would argue that this concept isn’t exclusive to physics. The drive to explore for the sake of discovery has been foundational to the proliferation of humankind across the globe. But some would go so far as to say that competition is part of something called human nature. Competition might have been relevant to homo sapiens on the plains of Africa tens of thousands of years ago but today the concept is simply a contrivance of inefficient socioeconomic values. Why? Two reasons: First, when people talk about the idea of human nature, almost 100% of the time what they are really talking about is human behavior. But conflating these terms is dangerous considering that, when someone is deemed to be a certain way by nature, it becomes almost nonchalant to simply dismiss them as irreparable and/or dehumanize them. Second, competition is driven by scarcity. That is, the more scarce a product or resource, the higher its value and the more people and companies that need those products and resources will compete for them. But, we have developed technology to a point of automation and have effectively made scarcity obsolete. We’ve even created synthetic materials to reduce the use and waste of natural resources. And if an asteroid is towed to Earth and mined, the massive influx of materials, by this very same market logic, would drive the prices so low that competition might not be viable. So I disagree with the premise that we are inherently competitive. Competitive values are taught.

            Whereas our current economic model is based upon competition with pockets of cooperation, I advocate an inversion in that we could instead base our economic model on cooperation with pockets of competition. If our underlying goal is to share information, discoveries, and technology while becoming a space-faring global civilization, then a cooperative ideology is a prerequisite. Again, it is asinine to continue believing the lie that the only way for us to not kill each other is to threaten mutual destruction. This is a petty, immature mindset of which we should be ashamed for wanting to spread into space. As Carl Sagan famously stated in his book Cosmos, “We are like butterflies that flutter for a day and think it is forever.”

Final Presentation: Economics in the 21st Century

Good Afternoon, Everyone! The title of this presentation is 'Economics in the 21st Century'.

     You might be wondering why I chose to talk about economics in a class about space. Well, we’ve spent the past 15 weeks examining the history and possible future of space missions. And one of the recurring themes has been the massive budgets those missions require. Some missions alone have stretched into several billion dollars; but that was before private companies like Blue Origin and Space X were permitted to enter a sort of new space race. With promises to cut the transportation costs to space to a fraction of today’s roughly $10,000 per pound, and with ambitious ideas to mine asteroids for an abundance of useful metals, an economic model thriving on scarcity, yet promoting growth—arguably today’s Market model—inevitably faces an uncertain future. But, instead of examining this model within the context of traditional economic jargon—GDP, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Consumer Price Index, and many, many others—I’m going to present a comparison of the current Market model to a new model.

     Let’s start with the basics. What's the point of an economy? To economize, of course! At its very core, an economy should seek to avoid waste everywhere possible. So, can we say that our current market economy avoids waste, well, anywhere? Unfortunately, the answer is no. In fact, there is entire industry that profits from waste so it can be confidently stated, and without exaggeration, that waste is good for the market economy. The more waste we produce the better; for, it means someone will have a job. This is just one example of many that seems to indicate that a Market economy is really just an anti-economy. But, there is an alternative that actually lives up to its name and appears capable of solving most of the problems that manifest as a result of market economics: A Resource Based Economy. Throughout this brief exercise, I will be examining a few specific topics within the context of each model while asking the following questions: How does each model address the issue? And, Which model is more economical?

     First, let’s talk about human interrelations. In an RBE, the relationships people build with one another tend to be focused on collaboration and the sharing of ideas and resources. There is an understanding that we are on this planet as a single species among millions and must work together to reduce waste and reduce suffering. An environment is maintained where everyone is raised to their highest potential while machine automation provides strategic access to the necessities of life to everyone on the planet. On the other hand, in a market economy, people tend to be far more individualistic and geared toward maximizing their self-interest, constantly buying more products, or "gaining the upper hand" when it comes to everything from job positions to basic opinions about irrelevant, inconsequential topics. "As long as I take care of my own..." you'll hear people repeat. "Pull yourself up by the bootstraps" is another favorite. It sounds harsh and unrealistic but at the foundational level, the truth is: if you don't serve an adequate function in this market economy, you might as well die because you're on your own unless someone is feeling generous.

     Next, what about growth? An RBE recognizes the Earth as a finite system that can generally be thought of as being closed. In other words, what's here is what we've got and we should do our best to preserve all of it. That means developing alternative resources, recycling, and designing products for maximum lifetimes so that overall consumption goes down. In stark contrast, a market economy is situated firmly on the ideas of infinite growth and constant turnover. Products are mass produced irrespective of raw resource supply--many of which find their way into landfills not long after. But as long as we increase consumption, we can measure the health of the economy in terms of GDP and turn a blind eye to any negative externalities. As an example, if a group of us became stranded on an island with limited resources, would we want to implement a system that tries to use up those resources as quickly as possible or would preservation be the critical component for our survival?

     What about Property? In an RBE, people would have strategic access to the necessities of life. Open source sharing of ideas and products is much more efficient and much less wasteful. Does it make any sense to claim that everyone on the planet wants or needs one of everything ever produced? Of course not! As well, does it make any sense to buy a car to then have it sit for 50% or more of the time wasting its functional utility in a parking lot? The idea of property is ultimately a contrivance as none of the crap we accumulate throughout our lives goes with us when we die. In other words, everything is transient--even our bodies. Accumulating vast amounts of wealth and resources while restricting others' access to those resources for profit is seen as counter to responsible resource management. But this is exactly what a market economy demands and rewards. The metric for success tends to be measured in terms of purchasing power; the more property you have, the more applause you are supposed to receive. If you can patent an idea or copyright a certain work, you can restrict others' access to those ideas and works to generate profit. Again, this is more an anti-economy than anything. But, how would we address the production and distribution of resources with an emphasis on strategic access?

     The technology that has been developed over the course of the past century is mind-boggling. We are currently capable of automating a majority of industries in existence today. A Resource Based Economy thrives on automation, replacing human labor in as many sectors as quickly as possible. The idea is to free humans from drudgery and dangerous jobs so they can pursue self-fulfillment in life. What does that mean? Think about all the things you've been interested in throughout your life but were told not to pursue because they wouldn't make you money, or a living, or were unrealistic or out of reach according to someone else. If you're asking the question, What would people do in such a system of access? I'll simply throw it right back to you: What would YOU do if you didn't have to clock into the dictatorship 40 hours or more a week? Are YOU going to sit around and do nothing? Anyway, in terms of getting goods to people, equal distribution certainly doesn't make sense for any system because people don't have equal needs or wants. Rather, through the use of strategic access centers, people could have all the fundamental goods and services available to them in an efficient, equitable system. No debt, no barter, no trade; simply access. Automated delivery systems could be in place to maximize efficiency. Conversely, a Market economy relies on the classical ideas of labor for income and supply & demand to produce and distribute goods. We've even allowed ourselves to be convinced by the 18th century economist Adam Smith that there is some sort of "invisible hand" that waves away our economic woes. So, we mass produce inferior goods in the hopes of manufacturing public interest through strategic marketing and then hire people to sit in a chair driving this crap all over the world in planes, trains, and trucks--a pointless exercise outside the context of labor for income. Nevertheless, regardless of the brand, the products are inferior the moment they are produced because optimal design, production, and distribution are stifled in every stage of the process by something called cost efficiency. In a nutshell, in order to make a product and remain competitive, companies must cut costs along every step of the way. This inevitably reduces the quality of every single product on the market, increasing the amount of waste as products break down and are thrown away. An anti-economy indeed!

     In fact, here is a chart detailing the inverse relationship between manufacturing employment and manufacturing production from 1947 to 2011. As we can see, it was around the year 2000 when manufacturing employment sharply declined as more companies began automating processes. In a much longer presentation, I would further examine the ramifications of this phenomenon but I want to bring this full circle and talk about space.

     Jacque Fresco, the developer of the Resource Based Economic model, spent the majority of his time focused on ways to improve the standard of living on the surface of Earth. But it is remarkably easy to see how extending this value system into space is simply a matter of scaling. While we still have much to explore on Earth and in the oceans, the infinitude of space presents boundless opportunities for exploration and learning. With a framework of collaboration and open source sharing of ideas, the costs and risks of going into space could be drastically reduced in a matter of years. The discoveries made and technologies developed would be implemented in society as quickly as possible to benefit all instead of hoarding secrets in the name of strategic advantage. If, for example, we decided to mine asteroids in an RBE, the goal would be to promote resource and land preservation on the surface; not simply supplement mining operations there. The idea is that there are NO final frontiers and there will always be something to discover and learn. But, what about our market model?

     We've learned this semester that the space race of the 50s and 60s was essentially the result of the United States competing with the Soviets for global military superiority. These governments spent many billions of dollars in the hopes of proving that they were the ultimate leaders of the world. In the end, the US won and first landed boots on the Moon July 20th, 1969. Unfortunately, we seem to have gotten distracted because the last boots to step on the Moon were just 3 years later in 1972. We've been busy pointing arsenals of nuclear weapons at each other. Luckily, over the course of the past decade and a half, there has been a resurgence of interest in becoming a space-faring civilization. But, we're still using an antiquated market model. While companies such as Space X are vowing to permanently reduce production and flight costs, we've managed to completely avoid discussing the very real economic ramifications of such actions. And asteroid mining? How in the world would an economic model thriving on scarcity deal with trillions of dollars worth of product being introduced at once? Quite simply, it can't. Automation puts people out of jobs in this model.

     So, in conclusion, as we swiftly move into the full swing of the Digital Age, we must prepare ourselves for a transition into a new economic model--one that uses 21st century ideas to tackle our 21st century problems. We must develop new methods of production and distribution, provide strategic access to goods and services, and raise the standard of living for every human on the planet. Anything less will simply be the same cycle of exploitative methods we've been using for thousands of years. With that, I leave you with two quotes from the man himself, Jacque Fresco: "If we are genuinely concerned about the environment and the fellow human beings, and want to end territorial disputes, war, crime, poverty, hunger, and the other problems that confront us today, the intelligent use of science and technology are the tools with which to achieve a new direction--one that will serve all people, not just a select few." And, finally, "If you think we can't change the world, it just means you're not one of those that will." Thank you!