Transterrestrial Musings  


Amazon Honor System Click Here to Pay

Space
Alan Boyle (MSNBC)
Space Politics (Jeff Foust)
Space Transport News (Clark Lindsey)
NASA Watch
NASA Space Flight
Hobby Space
A Voyage To Arcturus (Jay Manifold)
Dispatches From The Final Frontier (Michael Belfiore)
Personal Spaceflight (Jeff Foust)
Mars Blog
The Flame Trench (Florida Today)
Space Cynic
Rocket Forge (Michael Mealing)
COTS Watch (Michael Mealing)
Curmudgeon's Corner (Mark Whittington)
Selenian Boondocks
Tales of the Heliosphere
Out Of The Cradle
Space For Commerce (Brian Dunbar)
True Anomaly
Kevin Parkin
The Speculist (Phil Bowermaster)
Spacecraft (Chris Hall)
Space Pragmatism (Dan Schrimpsher)
Eternal Golden Braid (Fred Kiesche)
Carried Away (Dan Schmelzer)
Laughing Wolf (C. Blake Powers)
Chair Force Engineer (Air Force Procurement)
Spacearium
Saturn Follies
JesusPhreaks (Scott Bell)
Journoblogs
The Ombudsgod
Cut On The Bias (Susanna Cornett)
Joanne Jacobs


Site designed by


Powered by
Movable Type
Biting Commentary about Infinity, and Beyond!

« Launch Permits | Main | Joshing Bush's Space Policy »

Where No Wimp Has Gone Before

I was going to comment on this idiocy from Patrick Stewart, but a) it wasn't anything new--he's been spouting the same nonsense for years, and b) Lileks already did so more than adequately (as usual).

It's tough to top Lileks when it comes to screeds, and I'm not saying that T. L. James does it, but he's definitely (as Marlon Brando would say) a "contendah":

The obvious flaw in such an argument (or its best feature, if you're the one making it) is that the perfection used as a standard here is impossible. To overcome the usually-cited social, economic, and other problems would require either orders of magnitude more money than is available -- let alone what could be applied by diverting what pittance the government spends on space each year -- or a complete overhaul of human nature to remove the innate flaws, behaviors, tendencies, instincts, or whatever it may be at their root.

Another only slightly less transparent flaw/feature is that no matter how many of the typically-cited problems an all-out spare-no-expense global effort might succeed in resolving, the people making the argument today would be undeterred from finding other victims who need saving or problems that need fixing before we can even think about going into space.

In that vein, I'd point out that Jonah Goldberg made a similar dumb commentary a couple weeks ago on CNN. Rather than saying that we had to wait until all social problems were solved on earth, and every puppy had a home and no child went hungry to bed, he said that we couldn't afford to send people to Mars until we'd finished the "war on terror" (the one that he himself has said was misnamed, not being a fan of a war on a tactic). It seems that everyone, even Star Trek fans, thinks that every want on earth has a higher priority than moving us into the cosmos.

But as Thomas, and countless others, including myself, have pointed out, the amount of money spent on space is so trivial, so miniscule in the context of mankind's other problems, and the ability to solve the space problem with money so much more amenable, compared to them, that the notion that we must wait for them to be solved before tackling that one is ludicrous. While I don't think that money spent on NASA, per se, is well spent, the notion that we could somehow transfer the NASA budget to some other more worthy cause and somehow thereby solve it is, simply, equally ludicrous.

There are various classes of problems, and saying that we must wait to conquer space until we've solved all the ills, social and miltary, on earth is equivalent to saying that we shouldn't have settled the Americas until we had indisputable peace and prosperity in Europe. Does anyone think that, under those conditions, there would be any significant population here?

Posted by Rand Simberg at February 05, 2004 10:55 PM
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.transterrestrial.com/mt-diagnostics.cgi/2095

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference this post from Transterrestrial Musings.
Actor's inequity
Excerpt: (Rand inspires) NY POST: Patrick Stewart Opposes Star Treks "I would like to see us get this place right first before we have the arrogance to put significantly flawed civilizations out onto other planets," Stewart said. Fine. I agree. The...
Weblog: Amish Tech Support
Tracked: February 6, 2004 01:55 AM
Actor's inequity
Excerpt: (Rand inspires) NY POST: Patrick Stewart Opposes Star Treks "I would like to see us get this place right first before we have the arrogance to put significantly flawed civilizations out onto other planets," Stewart said. Fine. I agree. The...
Weblog: Amish Tech Support
Tracked: February 6, 2004 01:56 AM
Boldly Sitting On Our Asses
Excerpt: That's what Captain Picard...well, the actor who plays him, anyway, would have us do instead of exploring space. I was...
Weblog: The Eleven Day Empire
Tracked: February 7, 2004 08:33 AM
Comments

Once again, i must quote what Paul Blay posted over at s.s.p:

"Hey Jo!"

"Yes, Fred?"

"I've discovered the cure for cancer!"

"Well, Gee. That's nice an'all - just a pity that an asteroid the size of Australia is
about to hit Earth."

Posted by kert at February 6, 2004 02:13 AM

"Oh. So you saw it first then."

Posted by McGehee at February 6, 2004 05:09 AM

"Ludicrous" is the perfect word. It is simply amazing that people have no sense of perspective. Even the most inflated figures for costs are insignificant compared to the resources that are waiting for us. Looking back, the arguments against human colonization are going to look so silly that they will be ever forgotten except for the occasional reminder that some person once said that the Earth is all we will ever need.

Woes to the legacy of that person!

Posted by ken anthony at February 6, 2004 05:51 AM

Hear-hear. Those who decry space exploration always trot out the "it would be better to spend X on eliminting poverty and injustice and cheating boyfriends/etc than on space projects" line. As you rightly say, to suspend exploration of space until an infinite number of issues are cleared up means, in effect, to kill space exploration entirely.

Man would never have walked from the caves had we followed the sort of stringent test required by the space naysayers. By all means let us guard against foolish projects and waste. But space exploration is not just a good thing, it may also, particularly given the way things are going, be a crucial exit route if the earth is ever seriously threatened.

Posted by Johnathan Pearce at February 6, 2004 06:14 AM

I guess Captain Picard is so glad Zephram Cochrane waited untill mankind achieved perfection before developing warp drive. Wait a minuite, he developed it a few years after a nucler exchange during WWIII if I remember trek lore correctly? By that reasoning, Patric Stewart should give his earnings from ST:First Contact to the poor and hungry so as not to give the wrong impression as one of a hypocritical Scotsman(Frenchman).

Posted by Mike Puckett at February 6, 2004 07:25 AM

Every year billions of dollars are pissed away on froufrou "entertainment" like movies and TV shows while millions go hungry. We should shut down the entertainment industry and spend the money on feeding the starving millions. It's the humane thing to do.

Posted by Andrew Case at February 6, 2004 08:16 AM

The people who demand the entire budget so that social problems can be solved (as if they were an engineering problem) have had 30 years to demonstrate that their approach has some merit. They've failed.

That people like Marshall keep trotting them out is just another example of the intellectual bankrupcy of the reactionary Left.

Posted by Raoul Ortega at February 6, 2004 10:15 AM

To expound on Mike's comments, according to "Trek Lore", it took a Third World War (which detroyed almost all major cities) as well as "first contact" with an alien species, to even START to bring about social change on the order of what these critics talk about. And even then, according to the story line, it took the production of a space craft that could break the "warp barrier" to attract the alien species in the first place. The new "Enterprise" series runs with the story that all of the "vast social change" that is discussed in the Original Series and TNG took hundreds of years to come about once we learned that we were "not alone" in the universe.

Either way, as has been mentioned, with the relative pittance that is spent on space now, can it hurt to try and make some advances that might some day bring about the kind of change that these people are looking for?

Posted by John at February 6, 2004 10:20 AM

Yes, getting hit by an asteroid kinda renders everything else moot, wouldn't it? Lucifer's Hammer should be required reading in the public schools.

Posted by David Mercer at February 6, 2004 10:22 AM

Does anyone think that, under those conditions, there would be any significant population here?

Maybe, maybe not. Who knows what the natives might have accomplished if they'd been left alone for 500 years? Besides, even if there were no significant population here today, would that necessarily be a bad thing?

I'm not arguing against the larger point (I agree that going into space is a good thing), just trying to point out that the settlement of the Americas analogy may not make the most effective argument.

Posted by Ron Garret at February 6, 2004 10:50 AM

Founding of the Americas works fine, Ron. Just substitute "Siberia" for "Europe"...

Posted by Rand Simberg at February 6, 2004 10:56 AM

I'll add, since Rand was too polite to do so, that old farts like us have been around long enough to see just how far the goalposts have been moved in the past 35 years.

An American family living at the poverty line today is noticeably better off than one at the median income during the Apollo era. Better fed, better clothed, better housed, better personal transportation, far better personal telecommunication, and in possession of conveniences, including access to medical care, hardly imaginable in the 1960s.

At the poverty line. If we could grab one of the predecessors of these social parasites, the ones bitching about the cost of Apollo in 1969, and show them, not the cutting-edge technology, but the ubiquitous technology of 2004 -- typical of any lower-middle-class household -- they'd think we'd achieved Utopia.

They'd think our problems had either been wiped out or were so near to complete solution as to be entirely unthreatened by "spending money in space." And they'd give space development a blank check.

Posted by Jay Manifold at February 6, 2004 12:08 PM

But that's just the point--these people wish that Western expansion had never happened either. They won't be satisfied with the state of human progress on earth until it has rolled back to zero--i.e, the complete and utter annhilation of civilization.

Posted by Tom Merkle at February 6, 2004 01:01 PM

Well I feel like EVERYONE missed the obvious here!! Who would have reported anything said about the production elements or the acting done in a Shakespearean play if the reviewer was Neil Armstrong or Jim Lovell. Why nobody that's who, because Misters Armstrong and Lovell are no more qualified theater critics, than Mr Stewart is a qualified NASA or space critic.

Mr Stewart gets to air his opinion, quite simply, because he WAS Captain Piccard, and actors say the public confuses them with the characters they play. It seems Mr Stewart has a problem seperating his fact from his fiction.

Posted by Steve at February 6, 2004 01:29 PM

There's also the issue that although NASA doesn't necessarily spend its dollars on space exploration as well as we'd like, (and most of us have ideas on how to improve that, some of which might even work), transferring those dollars to, say, Department of Education to improve the education of children is probably even less likely to result in achieving the supposed aim of the expenditure.

Posted by Jim Bennett at February 6, 2004 02:51 PM

Stewart has demonstrated precisely why I always thought Kirk was a better starship Captain. :)

Posted by B.Brewer at February 6, 2004 03:29 PM

What's sad is that this argument, along with the "Moon versus Mars" argument and the "Robot versus Man" argument go back as far as I can remember. Here?s a few more arguments on this issue:

o It is dangerous to leave all your eggs in one basket. The universe could have a surprise for us, and technological developments could lead to things more dangerous than nuclear bombs.

o We may be living on borrowed time ? we can?t assume that moving into space can just be put off for a few decades for our kids to do it. Something could happen that would close the door forever.

o New technologies and new science can help people on earth. We don?t know how to make a really good closed cycle life support system. We?ll need that to live in space permanently. Ecological engineering (designing ecologies) is likely to become an important profession in space ? and on earth. Also, the need to move faster or cheaper in space will push research on fusion reactors and superstrong materials. There?s many more bits along these lines. As for science ? it is hard to learn new science when you don?t bother to look (and let?s not forget that this is one of the key purposes of the fictional Enterprise.)

o Resources ? energy can be beamed down to earth. Materials can be mined from asteroids and be used to create things in orbital factories that cannot be made on earth.

o New ways of thinking, new kinds of societies, open frontiers. Existing societies tend to get more and more bureaucratic . Space gives us a chance to try new things. Most people on earth think essentially two dimensionally and barely understand there is a vast universe out there. Just knowing there is a frontier could be a wonderful psychological boost.

Posted by VR at February 6, 2004 03:37 PM

VR: are you saying such arguments are as cliched and threadbare as the "wait until we're perfect" argument and its siblings? Or are you suggesting these themes be promoted more vigorously to counter the anti-space exploration critcisms?

Posted by T.L. James at February 6, 2004 07:46 PM

Ortega wrote:
> The people who demand the entire budget so that
> social problems can be solved (as if they were
> an engineering problem) have had 30 years to
> demonstrate that their approach has some merit.
> They've failed.


Manifold says:
> An American family living at the poverty line
> today is noticeably better off than one at the
> median income during the Apollo era. Better
> fed, better clothed, better housed, better
> personal transportation, far better personal
> telecommunication, and in possession of
> conveniences, including access to medical care,
> hardly imaginable in the 1960s.


Raul -- if America's poor indeed are better off today than they were in the 1960s, how can you say Medicaid/Medicare etc. has been a "failure?"
---
Besides, would you argue that government funded manned space exploration (Shuttle, Space Station) has been a success? If so, why?


MARCU$

Posted by Marcus Lindroos at February 7, 2004 08:41 AM

if America's poor indeed are better off today than they were in the 1960s, how can you say Medicaid/Medicare etc. has been a "failure?"

Because they had nothing to do with it. It's been the advancing standard of living that has achieved this -- "a rising tide lifts all boats."

Posted by McGehee at February 7, 2004 10:05 AM

>> if America's poor indeed are better off today
>> than they were in the 1960s, how can you say
>> Medicaid/Medicare etc. has been a "failure?"

> Because they had nothing to do with it.


Okay, so we have poor, sick and unemployed people receiving foodstamps, housing, clothing etc.. Where do they get it from, if not from social programs?


> It's
> been the advancing standard of living that has
> achieved this -- "a rising tide lifts all
> boats."


I don't dispute the fact that advancing standard of living is a major factor both in the U.S. as well as over here in Western Europe -- but you can't totally dismiss the role played by the state in all of this.

MARCU$

Posted by Marcus Lindroos at February 7, 2004 12:08 PM

They get it from social programs, but that's not relevant--even if they didn't, Jay's point would remain valid. Poor people in 2004 would still live better than middle-class people from earlier eras.

Posted by Rand Simberg at February 7, 2004 12:51 PM

There's yet another error in Patrick Stewart's rationale.

Stewart: "[Space exploration] would take up so many resources, which I personally feel should be directed at our own planet."

Lileks: "Making movies takes up many resources which could be directed at our own planet."

James Lileks is comparing apples and oranges - a government program with, ahem, free enterprise. This reveals Stewart's ultimate error: his assumption that space travel will always remain a government program, that commercial space industry beyond a handful of satellite applications cannot be achieved.

In one sense, filmmaking is not frivolous; it expands economic activity, thus expanding the world's supply of jobs and wealth. Government space programs do the opposite; they remove funds from private commerce to be spent on space endeavors that earn no income. No wonder Stewart thinks that way - Star Trek follows the latter blueprint.

Posted by Alan K. Henderson at February 7, 2004 03:36 PM


Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments: