The Stumbling Space Program and Loss of Vision

(Solaris Forum archive - topic created by Leostaris 22 September, 2002)

I'd like to resume discussion about the vision problems current with the real-life space program as a new topic so as to split it off from the discussion of Soderbergh's film that was begun in the topic about Lem's story with elements of Tarkovsky's film.

This is a worthwhile and large subject that merits its own thread yet is fully relevant to Lem's ideas about space exploration as expressed in Solaris and his other novels. I don't have anything specific to add at the moment but I would invite anyone else to take up the baton if they so desire and I will jump in later. Any takers?

- posted 22 September 2002 04:30 AM by Leostaris

Comments

[Baloyne]

Glimmung, I would like to comment on your article and also on Maven's response. But another time, since your prior post made a strong impression.

I do not think modern humans could exist without mystery. If human sexuality produced human intelligence (see Sex, IQ & ET: How We Got Big Brains by Seth Shostak) and the development of language led to the development of large societies and sophisticated tool-use (see Gene Study Explains Chatty Humans, Speechless Apes by Kate Wong), what about mystery? Neanderthals had rituals for the dead and a primitive bear-cult - even before we were fully human in the modern sense, the mysterious commanded our attention.

Yet the curiosity of Neanderthals paled in comparison to that of the newcomers from the south who expanded into their territory and eventually replaced them. These newcomers, who became our ancestors, were more verbal, technological and adaptable. Restless, questing folk. This need to strive to be better, to have more, to know more, to be more - it's a kind of hunger. More negatively and, sadly, often accurately, it can also be characterized as something akin to lust or greed. The rapacious aspect of human activity - 'progress' - cannot be denied. And yet on the positive side it sometimes drives humans to awesome heroic deeds. On a list of the latter one could include Christ, Siddhartha, Socrates, K'ung-fu-tzu, Imhotep, Vercingetorix, Mozart, Galileo, Joan of Arc, Michelangelo, da Vinci, Eiffel, Winston Churchill, Gandhi, and Martin Luther King. And if the names of the earliest great Polynesian navigators who bravely explored the great and unknown Pacific are now forgotten, we can remember names like Drake, Hudson, Shackleton, Earhart, Yeager, Gagarin, and Armstrong.

I think you are right that the mysterious has compelled us from the beginning, and that this compulsion is something evolution refined in our nature. And you are surely also right that to a large extent the fact humans are social animals causes us to desire an Other, be it God or ET. Especially now at the beginning of the twenty-first century, when humans know even Earth, Moon and Sun will one day perish. If there are other beings living on worlds about other stars, then there are places beyond our Sun where perhaps we may be able to make homes for ourselves in some distant millennium. Not only does SETI address our fear or being alone, but also our fear of death.

Science may confront the mysterious universe differently from religion. It may, like religion, have its own dogma, but in science dogma not only can eventually be overturned but inevitably must be. Believers in ufology take part in a modern cult that is on its way to becoming a religion (I'm thinking of the Raelians). Science and religion are siblings, and since SETI conducts itself by the rules of science, religion might be the uncle very set in his ways and SETI the charming and playful neice.

Are we alone? I am fairly certain we are not. One argument I would cite derives from Wheeler's participatory principle of quantum mechanics (an argument to be saved for another post). Another is the metallicity argument at the root of the Galactic Habitable Zone hypothesis. There are others, of course, such as the biological argument stemming from recent research on primitive life and extremophiles. Science for the most part points to the existence of other life elsewhere. The biggest argument against, as always, is the 'silent universe.' Lem has offered many explanations for this silence without resorting to hundreds of billions of galaxies containing septillions of barren Earths.

But even if we are alone, what of it? Each of us is alone. Even a twin greets the world alone at his or her birth. Each of us leaves the world alone. And yet none of us is alone. The world of this generation is the only world we will ever know. But we know also that other generations of humans, going back perhaps 200 millennia, have each known a different world. And more shall come after. (Perhaps in such a profound discussion, Done Too Soon seems inappropriate, but I think it echoes the sentiment.) And if some day our species should become extinct on this planet, other creatures may well succeed us, possibly derived from we 'primitive' homo sapiens. Yet our imprint will be around for a long time - mass, energy and, yes, information, are all conserved in this universe.

Each of us has only his or her own life, only the Earth of this age. And we are all blessed - or cursed - to enjoy this unique time and place that no others before us or after us can ever know. That is our privilege or punishment, depending upon how one chooses to see these things.

I want, by the way, to second the words of Mondrian5. Your post goes very deep and has gotten me thinking about ultimates. Seems like a good place to close with yet another quote from my favorite Lem novel.

[Lauger explained:]"A man craves ultimate truths. Every mortal mind, I think, is that way. But what is ultimate truth? It's the end of the road, where there is no more mystery, no more hope. And no more questions to ask, since all the answers have been given. But there is no such place.

"The Universe is a labyrinth made of labyrinths. Each leads to another...."

-posted 06 October 2002 08:00 PM

[Baloyne]

--Space Program Atrophy--

Maven - and Glimmung - space is a not-always-private obsession of mine. But rather than cite articles and sources, as I usually prefer to do, here is my personal view.

Just today I watched a program on the Science Channel about the pre-Columbian North American high civilization of the Mississippians. The Mississippians are better known as the Mound Builders, and their civilization is known today by its apex: Cahokia. This is the mound city located roughly where St. Louis is today.

There is a lesson in the story of the Mississippians and Cahokia that was not missed by the researchers interviewed for the program. More on that shortly.

Cahokia did not use the limestone blocks available to the builders of the monuments of Giza. But, like those who erected the greatest buildings ever constructed, their original model was the mound. And, also like those great builders, they carried the mound design as far as their materials allowed. That the mounds of Cakokia are the North American equivalent of Giza's great structures is not too much of an exaggeration.

But Cahokia consumed resources at an impressive pace. The environment of outlying areas under its control eventually suffered the effects of the continual drain on renewable resources. Cahokia could no longer sustain itself. A culture which once honored women and gave them a powerful voice, as it floundered and in desperation became solely about maintaining its waning power, increasingly disenfranchised many of its members in order to support its ever more ruthless elite. And descended into brutal enforcement of its declining authority. After 400 years, the great center failed.

This story has, as everyone knows, has run its course many times before. And will again. This was the lesson the researchers took from their study of this fascinating lost civilization. Sumerians, Egyptians, Mayans, Romans - all suffered the fate of Cahokia. Sometimes the monuments remain. Once upon a time, the sun never set on the British Empire.

How long will the American Era last? Maybe centuries, even a millennium. Some have argued the peak occurred in the middle of the last century, beginning with the World Wars and ending with Armstrong setting foot on the Moon.

Perhaps America, like its ultimate ancestor Rome, will decline and recover many times before at last bowing to the inevitable renunciation of its ambition to dominate the world. In which case NASA may yet recover some of its lost glory, and venture again beyond Earth-orbit - to the Moon, to the asteroids, to Mars.

If not, then it will be the newer players, such as China, Japan, India and Europe, who will do what America can no longer do.

At the apex of Roman power, Augustus consolidated power in the office of the emperor and set the empire's borders. He decreed Rome should not expand beyond them. Knowing full well where the real power in Rome lay, he reasoned the legions needed to be kept far from the center of power at the empire's margins. The resources and technologies available in that age set limits on travel and communication, and therefore also upon government. A larger empire would inevitably split into two or more empires, and that could be dangerous. The legions could not therefore be located too far from home. That Rome one day did break into two empires only affirms the wisdom of Augustus.

Perhaps in a world where America is the reigning superpower the borders have been set at Earth-orbit. The resources and technologies of the age render space extremely expensive and difficult to access. The real purpose of the Space Race, of NASA and Apollo, and of U.S. Space Command and Rumsfeld's NMD can be summed up in one word: control. From the high ground of orbit all places can be watched all the time. From orbit, weapons launched from the surface can quickly reach any point on the globe.

The Moon may be America's equivalent of the Rhine. There is no need to go beyond it. The activity of running the world can be confined to cis-lunar space. For now.

My apologies if this sounds too cynical, but those are my two cents. It was never about the heavens above, but very much about what's going on down below.

-posted 07 October 2002 07:30 PM

[dimarec]

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Baloyne:
This story has, as everyone knows, has run its course many times before. And will again.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Baloyne!

In your last post you have touched a theme that is of big interest to myself. So I can not but respond and everyone, accept my apologies for stepping off the topic, please.

Baloyne, your post indicates your interest to problems of human history, particularly to laws of its evolution. Having reached the outer space and the greatest advance in technology, people have known very little about the nature of their own history. There are many questions, all historians can not answer for sure even now. Why does history have a cyclic character? Why had all great civilizations of Past (you mentioned) fallen? What were the drives for new ones to arise? Can there be an eternal prosperity for a human society of any sort? Etc.

A few years ago I got acquainted with works of the great russian historian/philosopher Lev Gumilev. Before he died in 1990, he was not well known neither in the USSR (for he did not ever conduct the official soviet concepts), nor world-wide. He gave us the excellent concept of the ETHNOGENESIS, that, being unusual and innovatory, is absolutely non-contradictional in itself, at my opinion. I recommend you very much to find out (if it is possible) in a library or on web one of his works “Ethnogenesis and the Biosphere of Earth” or “An End and a New Beginning”, where the general lines of his concept are put out. You won’t regret! Here are the links, I found on russian web, that allow you to read Chapter 5 of “Ethnogenesis…” and get some information on his other works:

http://artiom.home.mindspring.com/gumilev/ch5.htm

http://gumilevica.kulichki.net/english.html

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/5010020106/qid%3D1034235663/sr%3D11-1/ref%3Dsr%5F11%5F1/104-4559683-5600726

As I said Gumilev’s theory astonished me with its internal non-contradictional wholeness, being confirmed by the numerous examples of human civilization periods. I am not going to give a Gumilev’s theory rendering here, but my own thought is that his concept for ethnic evolution is a particular case of a more common law for a human society of any level – from a single human to the whole mankind. It tells us why first there is birth, then energetic youth (stage of raise or getting power in terms of a society), then powerful maturity (stage of prosperity and power, that seems eternal for dwellers of that era) and then gradual decay. This law is that of the life itself – the manifestation of the thermodynamics principle – the eternal struggle between energy and enthropia.

I hope my post will be of some use for you.Thank you for kind words, you addressed to me in one of your previous posts on this topic and for links on SETI you provided.

-posted 08 October 2002 04:55 PM

[Glimmung]

Just a note - both Amazon and Alibris show what are purportedly English versions of Ethnogenesis and the Biosphere available used from $30 to $45.

An Amazon "reviewer" suggested that experiencing this book is one of those events which will cleanly divide your life into "before" and "after" periods...

Sounds intriguing - many thanks, Dimarec! I would say that the considerations you and Baloyne have raised here are not off-topic at all.

If America succumbs to the historically recurrent, cyclical inertia of empire, growing ever more conservative, concerned solely with maintaining the prerogatives of an ever-narrowing elite, what may be a nearly unique window for exploration, from a technology and resource standpoint, may be lost.

Perhaps an Asian or European confederation will succeed where America appears, more and more, to be failing. Though I fear that the "fortress America" which seems to be the unspoken goal of the current Administration will brook no other significant presence in space, though desiring none themselves beyond a weapons platform.

Realizing of course, that we have by no means settled the question of whether such exploration is necessary, possible or desirable... though those of us posting here would seem to agree that it a good thing, for practical, phychological, and philosophical reasons.

-posted 09 October 2002 01:22 PM

[Baloyne]

Dimarec - and Glimmung - I can only hope the SETI links I shared have proven somewhat useful. An obvious and completely shameless attempt to tie together most of those links follows. : )

My own belief is that nothing is proven by a negative; i.e., there is a large fallacy inherent in the thinking that, because we have not found a signal from ETI, there must therefore not be any advanced civilizations. What we perceive as a 'silent universe' may in fact be anything but silent - we merely lack the ears to hear and the knowledge to understand. Whatever silence there may actually be, civilizations almost certainly exist in either case. Communicating with others living about distant stars is not easy, but rather awesomely difficult.

This is one of the reasons I appreciate Lem so much. He avoids the short-cut and refuses the easy road, rejecting the cliches of science fiction which are so readily transferred to our notions of SETI. Lem affirms again and again why contact is difficult and borders on the impossible. In that connection, Radio Leakage: Is anybody listening? by Brian von Konsky and Intragalactically Speaking by George Swenson, Jr., are excellent sources. Besides, as Andrew LePage points out in his Where They Could Hide: 'Although the cutting edge of technology has made SETI ever more powerful, we have explored only a mere fraction of the possibilities.'

Edward O. Wilson's The Bottleneck (from his The Future of Life) and Michael Shermer's Why ET Hasn't Called both remind us of what should by now be obvious: civilizations don't last forever. Randy Udall perhaps expresses this most succinctly in Dan Whipple's Blue Planet: The end is near when he says very simply, 'We're the oil tribe.' Oil drives the American-dominated world economy. Any restriction on the availability of oil is also a restriction on American power. Oil will need to be replaced by something else in a matter of decades. This century will therefore probably be the last in which America reigns supreme.

Our inclination is, as much as possible, to subtract cultural and political factors from our considerations of space-travel and SETI. This allows for less heated and more civilized discussions, relatively free of agendas and bias. But it is a delusion. The biases and agendas remain, toned down somewhat, subtly and less offensively expressed, but inevitable all the same. That our reflections on the future of humanity in space revolve so much around America's space program clearly illustrates why this must be so. And that is why rare commentary, such as that by David Darling in his Life Everywhere: The Maverick Science of Astrobiology, is necessary even if it is also painful. He reveals the religious conservative agenda driving the push for the 'Rare Earths Hypothesis.'

Because the political aspects of these big questions are unavoidable, articles like Doug Vakoch's Will ET Be Hostile? Alienated People Are More Likely to Say 'Yes' are worth our consideration. To ignore this side of the debate can be foolish and short-sighted. Alexander Zaitsev does not ignore them and advocates an altruistic approach. From Astronomer Speaks Up For ET by Morris Jones: 'I think that the SETI Institute policy is not a scientific viewpoint, but a "sectarian" position.'

Dimarec, I read chapter 5 of Lev Gumilev's "Ethnogenesis and the Biosphere" with great interest. And amazement. He has captured and organized something I have only dimly glimpsed in the past. That cultures follow a cyclical pattern of development was, of course, known to me. But the reasons behind why this must be I have never truly understood. I think Gumilev has done a fine job - his grasp of the nuances of history impressed me very much.

Glimmung, I believe space exploration is not only 'necessary, possible or desirable,' but something human beings must and will do. Why? Because Gumilev's concept of 'drive' and history is relevant. Drive may depart American culture, but the torch will be passed to some other, just as you suggest. Space will beckon, and beckon irresistibly.

-posted 10 October 2002 11:23 AM

[Leostaris]

One comment re the previous post. Regarding the rare earths hypothesis being religiously driven (fundamentalist Christianity being the religion?). It seems to me odd and contradictory that such religionists would contend Earth-type planets and civilizations being rare or even unique in the whole universe would be a situation that supports evidence for a Christian-fundamentalist type creationist God. It seems to me an infinitely creative and benign God that puts life at the top of His (Its) creative agenda would have been far more apt to fill up the universe with life. There may indeed be millions of Earth-like planets throughout the universe, a few maybe even with, or once had, or will have, life as intelligent (?) as humanity. But compared to the total volume and mass of the universe, the amount of matter and energy constituting such life is paltry indeed, tantamount to finding a few microbes on a few grains of sand or soil within the whole volume of Earth. Indeed, even within our own solar system life is rare. And look at the Earth itself. Think of how massive and huge in volume the Earth is compared to the thin skin of the biosphere. An all-wise and benevolent, life-favoring God, I would think, would have made the Earth hollow and capable of supporting life throughout its volume. Then we wouldn't need to worry about excessive population until our numbers reached a few trillion or even quadrillions!

I haven't had time to read all your excellent posts on this topic yet, much less comment on any of them. I am more than gratified that I stimulated this subject. Keep up the good work. You are all adding a wonderful dimension to my staid life.

-posted 11 October 2002 05:31 AM

[Glimmung]

Baloyne,

Once again you have posted comments sparkling with the informed, focused relevance I have come to expect...

Now that our home computer is up and running, I hope to be able to devote an evening to exploring the many intriguing links you have provided. I should refrain from too much more commentary until I've done this.

However, I will briefly revisit a concern I expressed earlier, which seems relevant to the Conservative/Rare Earths topic. Our conservatives believe (or profess to believe) in a judgemental, punitive deity whom they are sure smiles upon their various predations. Since their model is one whereby people only do what's "right" out of fear of punishment, a firm belief in the absence of possibly superior and judgemental Others is necessary.

Recommended reading: the first half of A Case of Conscience by James Blish. A horrifyingly prescient story of the actions directed toward aliens by religious conservatives and resource extractors. I can give this no higher praise than describing it as "Lem-like"...

The path which unites clear, honest expression of opinion with due consideration for others is a narrow one. I think this forum is up to the challenge, to the extent there turn out to be any substantive areas of disagreement. I doubt that you and I will find much to disagree about. :^)

-posted 11 October 2002 11:26 AM

[Baloyne]

Glimmung,

Your description of the religious conservative perspective intrigued me when I first read it yesterday. Now I've had time to sleep on it and can respond.

Not only do I agree with your analysis, but I am impressed. You have cut straight to the heart of things with your mention of fear of punishment. It is true that, as children, we are sometimes persuaded to do the moral thing at least partly out of fear of punishment. Yet we often already know what the right thing, or wrong thing, to do is in a given situation. The punishment usually serves as negative reinforcement for a morality already defined and understood. In other words, a parent does not normally punish an infant - the infant would not understand and the punishment would be nothing more than an exercise in cruelty.

Upon reaching adulthood, one hopes it is no longer necessary to send someone to his or her room, or deprive that individual of favorite privileges, in order to encourage him or her to act morally. But of course there are exceptions, which in turn require a system of courts and jails.

Does the power of authority alone safeguard morality? The religious conservative believes so, and therefore supports leadership that is authoritarian and anti-democratic in character. Along with the harshest punishments that are possible; i.e., capital punishment.

Many years ago I attended a Catholic university, where I was required to take a course in religion. I was in for a surprise. The priest teaching the course was, if anything, the opposite of conservative. He brought to the attention of the class the existence of religious liberals - not as organized or vocal as their conservative brethren, but very much among us. It was a pleasure to learn from someone at once so honest and so informed.

That powerful and judgmental Others might exist who do not subscribe to Christian conservative notions of what is good and what isn't must be an unpleasant prospect indeed. Though I never discussed it with my professor, I am sure he would not feel threatened by the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence. I do know he did not feel threatened by the existence of other faiths in which he found much to admire. He had chosen the faith that suited him best, but made it clear he did not feel this automatically made all other faiths somehow wrong or inferior.

Long ago I read Blish's A Case of Conscience, but the memory is very faded these days. As I recall it was part of his Blish's three-part masterwork which he called 'After Such Knowledge.' The pieces themselves were unrelated except, I believe, by theme. I think the first was called Dr. Mirabilis. The next was his amazing Black Easter/Day After Judgment tale, and the third, of course, the novel you have cited.

If I can find A Case of Conscience I will take your advice and give it a second read.

Regarding scope in this forum for disagreement on political agendas, I believe you are right. In fact, I was anticipating a spirited response to comments made earlier on this thread. But no heated replies were forthcoming. It does me no credit to admit this, but I was almost disappointed. : )

Going back to the original topic, some relevant material currently on the Web:

Manned Mars mission 'will happen' by Helen Briggs

NASA Reveals New Plan for the Moon, Mars & Outward by Leonard David

Can Groundbreaker Find A Path To Martian Life? by Bruce Moomaw

China Pushes Space Station Timeline Out 25 Years by Wei Long

The first item is the most pessimistic, with the commander of Apollo 15 putting men on Mars either in the 22nd or 23rd centuries, or even further out. The second offers a general outline of NASA's post-ISS plan. Neither Mars nor the Moon will be immediately in NASA's sights; NASA will instead be looking toward the L-points as places to gradually assemble the infrastructure for platforms from which missions to more distant destinations will one day be launched.

The third article targets robotic Mars sample-return for 15 years from now. But where will humans be? The final article reveals China backing away from its once-ambitious timeline for manned space exploration. The Chinese space station, if it happens at all, is a quarter century away. China will not be putting pressure on NASA and its partners to race it to the Moon for many decades.

Now for some encouraging news. If reaching orbit suddenly became easier and cheaper, the pace might pick up some. The surprising thing is that there is a real chance this could happen:

Experimental jet 'a success'

Looks something like a smaller version of this (Japanese version, not yet successfully flown) -

Race to launch first "spaceplane hots up

NASA Developing Hypersonic Tech; Flight Vehicles Only Decades Away

-posted 14 October 2002 09:09 AM

[Glimmung2]

Baloyne,

Getting a bit tense over there. Care to step into the conservatory? : ) Of course, you did say you were almost disappointed at the lack of heated response to some of your earlier postings ... but I'm guessing this wasn't the sort of heat you had in mind.

I figured we needed to get this thread going again, since recent events have almost certainly advanced the timeline for ecological collapse or debilitating war. And since our High Command intends to increase military spending by 100 billion or so a year, while shoveling more money towards those who already have the most, we can kiss NASA exploration budgets goodbye (unless there's a perceived military advantage.)

Hope I'm wrong. I'm just really depressed these days. I need a good movie to go to. I go back and forth every hour or so about whether there's going to be one the middle of next week. :)

I've just finished my first reading of Solaris in about ten years. I can feel the movie's possibilities so keenly, and am so apprehensive. Yet, a skilled director could make a superb movie concentrating on the "love" story, not in the cliche'd manner of Ghost, but in Lem's spirit whereby no easy answers are given, and some things remain beyond our comprehension, and we are, each of us, an inscrutable mixture of hero and fool.

When strife breaks out even among the small subset of those with the intellect , open-mindedness, and heart to love Solaris and Lem, how can we keep hope for the planet's wider future? How can we avoid the technosphere being twisted to become the means of implementing Orwell's eternal "boot in our face"? As our government claims the right, and searches for the means, of knowing everything about us while erecting ever-increasing barriers to our ability to know anything about it? As we come to resemble a Phildickian dystopia?

Both Lem and Dick ask: what is sentience, and how do we recognize it? What are our duties towards it, and, by extension, each other? How much trust should we place in scientific and bureaucratic systems?

As excellent a movie as Blade Runner is, it does not reflect the depths to be found in the novel (a helpful thing to keep in mind as we await Soderberg's movie.) The novel's setting is a postwar Earth, underpopoulated, stripped of biodiversity - hence, replicant technology. And it hints at the possibility that Deckard is also a replicant.

If you knew that he was, does that change his ethical status? How is he different from Rheya? They are both constructs, unable to remember or define their origins. And yet, can you or I remember ours?

What exactly is Sartorius' crime, if his actions were directed at a thing, an artifact, not a sentient being?

If he believes it is a being, though it is not, of what is he guilty?

If he believes it is not a being, and is mistaken, of what is he guilty?

Which crime is worse?

The person in the first scenario has done no direct harm, but through no virtue of his own.

At the very least, the person in the second scenario is guilty of gross recklessness.

This relates to my beliefs about the rights of nonhuman species. Many carve out special rights due to humans because they have "souls". I say, "prove to me that we have souls. Then, prove to me that animals do not." (citation of scripture is not proof.) If one cannot do this, then I would hope, on reflection, one might decide to give benefit of the doubt more broadly.

To dogs. To whales. To replicants. To Visitors. To oceans...

Though I normally cringe at Trek-ian parables, I fondly recall Picard's challenge to the scientist who wished to dissect Data, who was only an artifact, after all. "You ask me to prove that Data is sentient. First, prove that I am sentient."

If Gaia excludes the technoshpere, and if Teilhard's nooshpere excludes nonhuman species, I believe both concepts fall short of the awesome possibilities that are open to us - and I believe both Lem and Dick might agree. It was Dick, btw, who first introduced me to the noosphere concept.

If only we can stop acting like primates with overdeveloped brains and dangerous toys. Looking for reasons to draw boundaries within which "we" have rights "they" don't have. Our tribe. Our village. Our nation. Our team. Our religion. Our party. Our species.

Our aesthetic judgements :)

I'm with Maven. Tarkovsky was alternately turgid and brilliant - bless him. Most movies are neither of these things.

As usual, i've just rambled, counting on others to provide context and clarity, and provide possible answers to my musings. :) I'd make a lousy screenwriter. Though I did bring the post full circle!

We did have a lovely view of the Leonid shower out here. I hope some of you had the same opportunity.

-posted 23 November 2002 01:27 AM

[Leostaris]

Just a short post. I had a great view of the Leonids. Some amazing fireballs. It awes me that this vast universe which need care for us no more than we do for a single bacterium can send visitors to us which evoke such passionate feelings about beauty and grandeur. The universe, with or without a Creator, is itself intelligent, passionate, maybe even sentient, because it made us and we are intelligent, passionate and sentient.

-posted 23 November 2002 05:13 AM

[Baloyne]

Glimmung2, do I seem tense? Ah, if so then I have only managed to produce heat in myself, leaving everyone else a bit cold. At least it can't be said I never tried. : )

Regarding 'a perceived military advantage' in spaceflight, this is all too real. I was recently fortunate enough to hear Dr. Robert M. Bowman, Lt. Colonel, former director of Reagan's SDI program, give his We Really Want to Resurrect Star Wars?" lecture, where he laid it all bare. Though he is probably the foremost critic of Rumsfeld's 'Son of Star Wars,' aka NMD or National Missile Defense, you can find very little of his material in the mainstream media. The criticisms he and others have levelled against the militarization of space are getting barely any media attention at all; criticism of anything that claims to enhance American 'security' is extremely unpopular. You will, however, find those criticisms in Don Corrigan's excellent piece More reporting needed on 'Star Wars' hidden in the middle of St. Louis Journalism Review almost halfway down the page (sandwiched between two articles about radio: We're talking obscure here . . . by Frank Absher and Carney takes on more at KMOX by Lynn Venhaus). Just a small quote from that article:

Retired Rear Admiral Eugene J. Carroll Jr., vice president of the Center for Defense Information in Washington, D.C., argues that the Bush Administration's bogeyman of missile attacks from "rogue states" is a complete ruse....

Carroll insists that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld knows the "rogue state" argument is phony, but uses it as a pretense to militarize space and as a launching pad to a new, fourth branch of the military, the "Department of Space...."

In his lecture, Bowman pointed out military satellites and weapons platforms in orbit are 'sitting ducks.' Any enemy capable of launching an effective ICBM first strike against the U.S. - and there has only ever been one of these - would target these systems as part of its surprise attack. And they would be easy to hit. A lesser nation is never going to launch an ICBM against the U.S. (though a rival at equal power would not be out of the question; i.e., Pakistan might launch against India) since that would be suicide. In Corrigan's article Rear Admiral Eugene J. Carroll Jr. contends 'the least likely threat we face is from a third-rate nation developing an ICBM for delivery against the U.S....'

So what is the revival of SDI, under the new acronyms of NMD and ABM, really about, if not defense? Under Reagan, Richard Perle was the principal author of a document for the DoD titled Victory is Possible. It promoted a 'winnable' nuclear war scenario, in which the U.S. strikes first and then deflects part of any weak counter-blow from its devastated opponent, sustaining no more civilian casualties than '20 million American lives.' This was the genesis of Reagan's 'Star Wars' program of missile 'defense.' But it was never about defense. It was about the military acquiring the capability to go anywhere in the world the multinationals and banks might want it to go, to seize control of any resources desired, without restriction or fear of reprisal. Absolute military superiority. This was the gist of Bowman's lecture.

I recommend The Final Frontier: An Inevitable Military Battleground? by Colorado Springs Independent. Bill Sulzman, the man who runs Citizens for Peace, puts it very simply: '[U.S. Space Command's Long Range Plan is] not talking about protecting your borders. That's being the enforcement arm of the global economy...." Depleted uranium projectiles hurled from space can obliterate any target on the globe in much the same manner as a meteor, completely without warning, and that, says Bowman, is the real goal of Rumsfeld's scheme for the weaponization of space.

Sorry to hit you with all this, and so hard. As if you weren't depressed anough.... NASA, however, will be kept in its supporting role with respect to the Long Range Plan and other DoD ambitions for space. So NASA's Orbital Space Plane may very well get built (and the X-33 may one day re-emerge as a 'space bomber'), and ISS will provide valuable lessons on how to build large and complex space platforms.

Your worries that the technosphere will be 'twisted to become the means of implementing Orwell's eternal "boot in our face"' certainly seem justified.

As for your analysis of the questions Blade Runner raises, I think you're entirely correct that the movie does not do justice to the depths plumbed by the novel. Regarding the moral problems you've posed, I must answer that intent is very important. Is there a distinction between murder and manslaughter?

Because biotech and nanotech seem on the verge of bringing about a more intimate merger of man and machine, of technosphere and biosphere (genetically modified crops, for example), I don't think Gaia can exclude the technosphere. And I suspect that the unique adaptations of humans - sophisticated tool-use and language - will be migrating out into the biosphere as we continue our tinkering. If so, the noosphere should inevitably include nonhumans.

You and I both know the craving for power and the willingness to engage in conflict are not traits exclusive to humans. Unfortunate side-effects of the instincts for self-preservation and reproduction. It's everywhere, not just in the school or the work-place, but also out on the savannah and in the jungle.

Can Earth-life ever expect to evolve to a point where it can dispense with its destructive impulses? Given the history of our planet so far - and the history we are in the midst of making right now - I would normally answer 'No.' But because you have gotten me to ask that question in the context of a discussion about Lem, my mind is open to all the possibilities. Could Earth ever enter a state of 'sociolysis,' such as Lem describes in Fiasco or one day develop into an organism that could call Solaris kin? If so, then perhaps peace on Earth is possible. Though I notice Lem incorporated violence and destruction into the processes of his Solaris, and all mimoids, symmetriads and assymetriads end in ruin.

Leo, your post is short but beautiful. I have often felt as you do, that all this beauty is a precious gift the universe seems to deliver without any effort. And thought, as you have, that if there should not turn out to be any gods then they are unnecessary anyway, since what you say cannot be disputed: we are part of that in the universe which is aware and able to appreciate such beauty.

(By the way, I turned up the following while searching unsuccessfully for traces of Victory is Possible on the Web: Star Wars Inc. The Men and Money Behind Space Weaponry by Edward Ericson, Jr.)

-posted 23 November 2002 10:03 AM

[Glimmung2]

:^( :^( :^(

-posted 01 February 2003 11:32 AM

[Leostaris]

I mourn the deaths of the space shuttle astronauts today, as do we all I'm sure. I am grateful to them for their contributions to science. They gave the ultimate sacrifice. May they rest in peace.

-posted 01 February 2003 03:28 PM

There is a special - very detailed - report one the Florida Today's web-site on the future of human space exploration: http://www.floridatoday.com/columbia/futurespace/spaceflightindex.htm It is worth to check, being very relevant to the topic (and to my most recent comment on another section of the forum.)

[viragpali]

There is a special - very detailed - report on the Florida Today's web-site on the future of human space exploration: http://www.floridatoday.com/columbia/futurespace/spaceflightindex.htm It is worth to check, being very relevant to the topic (and to my most recent comment on another section of the forum.)

P.s..: Sorry, I did not include the username for this post

[Glimmung]

Thanks for the link, viragpali. There's a lot of information there - I'll explore when I have a couple spare hours...

[viragpali]

Future space exploration without NASA: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/moon_vision_031209.html