You know, in the abstract you’d think that, wouldn’t you?

But be honest. Do you really think “humility” is a common trait of Modern Man?

Looking at American pop culture, it seems to me that the only lesson everybody took from the Moon landing is not the smallness of man, but rather that we possess the power of gods.

The impression I get of today’s average American is that he thinks anything can be solved via enough brute force …. i.e., heaping helpings of money spent on concocting shiny new gadgets and hiring new bureaucrats and other “public servants”.

I admit that this attitude is ironic and odd, given Armstrong’s “I didn’t feel like a giant… I felt very very small,” quote.

“In brief, we can do things that we don’t fully understand. And numerous scientific innovations seem to fit this[.]”

Sure, but this argument cuts every way. Millions starving is only possible if you have a population explosion, led by technological developments that decrease child mortality and increase crop yield, for example. Mass environmental degradation comes about through a similar cause. Technological developments that allow people to live longer can create much greater long-term care costs. These costs in turn can increase the tax burden on young couples, thereby decreasing the fertility rates (a trade-off in favor of the old instead of the young). And so on. Similarly, famine relief efforts can lead to dependency cycles or systemic corruption in the recipient country. So, this general point seems to apply to alternatives to space exploration spending, perhaps even more so.

Saying that going to Mars will turn us into an incoherent Babel filled with pride (when we’ve already sent multiple robots to Mars) is an odd argument. (Like David, I have a hard time knowing what to take seriously in Jason’s essay. I’m assuming he actually means something like he says on this point.) Having said that, I’m not particularly interested in sending humans to Mars, as I’ve stated before, so I’m not sure that I even want to argue the point.

On the general point related to space exploration, however, isn’t it arguable that astronomical exploration and discovery has served to reduce our pride more than increase it? No, we don’t exist in the center of the universe. No, we aren’t the only planet. And so on.

Cheers,

To the editor:

Monday’s editorial appropriately questions assumptions about the feasibility of interplanetary manned travel.

M. G. Lord’s “Are We Trapped on Earth?” in the June 2006 issue of Discover magazine shows that human travel to Mars may be impossible. And Mars is, of all non-lunar targets, the most plausible. But prolonged exposure during space flight to galactic cosmic rays and other forms of radiation could destroy astronauts’ brains and cause leukemia.

Successful Mars journeys may become possible, but due to the enormous distances involved combined with the impossibility (so far, anyway) of faster-than-light travel, it seems we may never go to the stars, despite the assumption of some that doing so is just a matter of time, technology, willpower, and money.

We may butt up, eventually, against stubborn records for everything from human height and longevity to sports records (e.g. running the mile). Although your grandchildren are taller than you, people can’t just keep getting taller and taller forever (the square-cube law). Svetlana Masterkova’s thirteen-year-old 4.12.56 record for women running the mile probably will be passed, but it is not possible that people will always be able eventually to beat the then-current record, on and on into the future, even if athletes are allowed to use performance-enhancing drugs and so on. Our economy is based on cheap, abundant oil. Perhaps we won’t find feasible alternatives that would permit us to continue as we have and even grow, and always to grow even more. (See Kunstler’s The Long Emergency.)

In fact, living with a sense of limitation may become basic to our thought-life in the future.

Absolutely, give me a shout if you’re in the Pacific Northwest sometime!

@Aaron,

First, I appreciate the back and forth on this. This debate impinges on another one I’m thinking about currently (related to international assistance), and I’m finding the discussion useful.

Context: $820M might sound like a lot, and so someone might be initially skeptical of the idea that it’s worthwhile. Once they start thinking about what things cost, however, that sense might change. Perhaps a better way to do this is to put in in $/person. So, $820M is about $2.50 per capita. As an intuitive question to gauge worth, you can ask: “Was the Mars Rover mission worth $2.50 for you?” This is similar to what you’re doing by asking whether NASA’s worth $20B, I think.

Ultimately, as you have pointed out, what matters isn’t whether it’s ‘a lot’ but rather whether its expected benefits equal or exceed the alternatives. (In fact, junk food expenditures might be highly worthwhile, as they give people a large amount of immediate pleasure. So, when hashed out, the comparison to junk food might actually backfire from a rhetorical perspective. :) )

Hedging spending: I think this sort of consideration would be part of the calculations the expected benefits calculations are looked at in (so, it might make sense in the way that diversifying a portfolio makes sense). However, I’m not trying to make that claim here – rather, I’m making the claim that a small amount of space exploration can have disproportionate benefits, mainly associated with point 1. above in my benefits list.

NASA’s budget: $18.6B = approx. $60 per capita. Do I think that NASA’s yearly exploration is worth $60 per capita? Yes. Do I think that Mars Rover’s $2.50 per capita was worth while? Yes!

I’ll try to get to the second point tomorrow, as it’s late and I’m off to bed.

I guess I’m getting hung up on all of this “context” talk. What exactly is the point of putting spending “in context” aside from showing that compared to other, more obviously wasteful, sorts of spending, space spending is a smaller amount? If that’s the point of the context, then the tu quoque charge stands. If not, I’d like to know what the point of the context is, in the first place.

The problem with the “util” talk is that there’s no guarantee that either the space spending or the earth spending will result in the kinds of gains you’re describing–that is, a greater gain than input. You seem to be saying that, in absence of determinate evidence of the efficacy of either space spending or earth spending, we should hedge our bets and pay for some degree of each.

This is one half of the core of the disagreement, I think. I see space research as producing a much smaller output for input, and you seem to think that it’s the other way around. Maybe in the end then, in absence of hard evidence, this part of the argument is a wash. However, I’m still pretty convinced, anecdotally I guess, that money spent on space research hasn’t had the kind of return on investment that money spent otherwise has (or would have had). I mean, NASA’s budget request for next year is $18.6 billion. Do you really think that NASA is going to return $20 billion to us? Or that people’s lives will be improved to the tune of $20 billion? And what’s more, that they’ve been doing that for the last 45 years? Admitted, satellites were a good call, but did they require somewhere around $800 billion (today’s dollars) of investment? Or does that one success justify years of unnameable successes–or at least, successes that have not returned on the investment?

The other half of the disagreement boils down to the last point in Dr Peters post, and this is one that we haven’t really discussed. This point is, basically, that human beings have a certain set of physical and mental capabilities and a certain set of understanding for what happens when we use those abilities. The problem is that, in so many instances, we prove that our capacity to understand the implications of our actions is smaller than our actual capacity for action. In brief, we can do things that we don’t fully understand. And numerous scientific innovations seem to fit this mold: pollution and the car, nuclear warfare and the atom bomb, soil compaction and the combine. This isn’t an attempt here to speak ill of science (or whatever); it’s an attempt to say that our lives might be markedly more improved if we could learn to behave with a little bit of humility and not act until we’ve a better grasp of the effects–cultural, physical, etc.–that our actions have.

Now, I can see the next question as something like this: “But the proof is in the pudding, isn’t it? Won’t our understanding (or lack thereof) always be born out before we act rather than after ? Fair point. I think what Berry and Dr Peters here are getting at is that the ability to handle ourselves at home suggests our ability to handle ourselves away from home. So, as long as we can’t take care of the lives and knowledge that are before us, it will prove impossible to make sense of the knowledge from arenas like space exploration, which are anything but before us. And this goes back to the question “If we can put a man on the moon, why can’t we do X?” which Dr Peters critiqued in his article. And Wendell Berry offers a similar answer that makes the point as clear as anyone can make it:

“[This question] construes the flight to the moon as an historical event of complete and coherent significance, when in fact it is a fragmentary event of very uncertain significance. Americans have gone to the moon as they came to the frontiers of the New World: with their minds very much upon getting there, very little upon what might be involved in staying there. I mean that, because of our history of waste and destruction here, we have no assurance that we can survive in America, much less on the moon.”

Berry’s point, and Dr Peters’ as well I think, is this: because we have treated the knowledge and places that we already possess with an almost unlivable degree of disrespect, why think that with more knowledge with and larger places we would behave any more responsibly? This is why it’s more important that we order our own house before trying to buy more trinkets for the china hutch: such ordering would suggest that we will be able to treat and use the knowledge gained from new experiences–such as Martian exploration–in a manner as responsible as we have treated the knowledge we already have.

First, Anthony, thank you for your comments. Yes, it would be good to talk over a beer sometime. I may or may not be able to convince you, but I’m sure it would be a good conversation.

Aaron, thank you for taking seriously what I said and I do appreciate thinking through in detail my post. I will try and respond to your points. First, you mention: “The problem here is that you’re using a universal condition of “sinfulness” to justify particular sinful actions.” Are you saying here that spending money to carry out space exploration is sinful? If your answer is yes, what kind of exploration is not sinful, and what criteria do you use to decide?

Second, as far as justifications for space exploration, I was trying to make multiple arguments in favor of it. Yes, one was theological. Another was practical. In regards to deep space exploration, I was not saying “deep space exploration justifies deep space exploration.” I was trying to make the point that space exploration is a large enterprise carried out by a large number of people and what one learns in one area (i.e., how do you build a spacecraft that can successfully orbit Mercury or fly to Pluto) always provides benefits to other areas (e.g., how do you make more reliable satellites for carrying out Earth orbiting missions that can directly allievate much suffering on Earth). Thus, when our society supports a seemingly frivolous activity such as exploring deep space or sending people into space, capabilities are being built up that enable other very practical activities to be carried out that otherwise couldn’t be done. And note, I am not saying that sending robots or people to the Moon are required, per se, to have good, functioning Earth orbiting satellites (as you seem to suggest I was saying). But I am saying that these more “exotic” missions (including human exploration), which tend to push the technological boundaries, and which tend to be quite exciting and thus attract very talented and motivated people, greatly expand our capabilities that the more “mundane” but practical missions don’t usually do. But these new capabilities then become available for use by the “practical”, so that they can be carried out with better reliability, precision, capability, etc. I have personally seen this played out often during my career.

Aaron, this also touches upon a point that you made to Theodore, where you said: “what if instead of sending engineers to the defense department OR to NASA, we sent them to the Land Institute in Kansas to finally figure out how to produce high-yield perennial crops, a feat which would surely change the face of the world.” This statement ignores the fact that in the real world scientists and engineers just don’t work this way. When one spends years learning how to do work in a particular area (e.g., building spaceflight instruments), such capabilities do not easily transfer into another area like crop engineering, not to mention that people tend to be excited and motivated to do one kind of work (say space science) and not others (crop engineering).

Again, thank you for engaging with my comments, as it is important to continually think through what one does (in my case work in space exploration) and why one does it.

“[Jason] never said that space exploration was wrong, per se. This whole argument is about Martian exploration”

Uh, no it isn’t. The ensuing discussion is about both manned Martian exploration and space exporation (and similar pursuits) in general. The textual evidence is pretty clear (certainly, I’ve been talking about both). The original piece by Jason makes arguments which reasonably bear on space exploration in general.

“Again, this is a tu quoque logical fallacy”

Since I think the word ‘again’ refers to you accusing me of using the same fallacy earlier, I’ll reiterate my response to your original accusation. The point of getting clear on what Americans spend on other things (like junk food) is to put the amounts of money being discussed into context. It isn’t a fallacy (at least not the one you are talking about). David himself explicitly says he is establishing a context when he mentions these numbers.

The argument proper (which is probably similar to the one I’ve made above) is that space exploration is worth while – and David says this (“a very small amount of spending for the large return (both practical and human) that is obtained”). “Large return” must be relative to something, i.e., what we could otherwise be spending it on.

Along these lines, I think that the real argument seems to come down to an analysis of benefits versus costs. I have started with the list of 1. to 4. above. There would have to be an expected benefits per dollar equation for space exploration and then other pursuits. It would also have to be marginal (i.e., adding $1B to $10B on disease research might not increase it’s utility by 10%).

First, simply because great art is a great faculty of mankind does not mean that there are not limitations on the resources deployed to create that art. Perfect example: St. Peter’s Basilica nearly bankrupted the Church, despite it’s being perhaps the most beautiful building in all of human creation. The pyramids are pretty impressive architectural feats as well, despite the fact that they were built on the backs of generations of slaves. My point is simply that the fact that a project is in some sense artistic (and surely, “space exploration” is not artistic in the way that St. Peter’s is) does not mean that it should be brought into existence.

Second, what if instead of sending engineers to the defense department OR to NASA, we sent them to the Land Institute in Kansas to finally figure out how to produce high-yield perennial crops, a feat which would surely change the face of the world.

Third, you’re not really trying to justify taking action in the real world because it worked in a book . Are you?

First, you offer a quasi-theological justification for space exploration. Fine. No one here is saying that space exploration, as such, is wrong. It’s spending money on space exploration when so many more pressing problems are, well, pressing on us right now.

Second, you claim that this spending counter argument is short-sighted on theological grounds, because, given the supposedly eternal nature of sin in the world, the conditional “If problems of greater import than space exploration exist, then we should not spend money on space exploration” is unmeetable. The fact that a conditional is unmeetable does not negate its soundness–that’s like saying, “Given the nature of sin, it’s impossible for me to behave perfectly, so I might as well not even try.” The problem here is that you’re using a universal condition of “sinfulness” to justify particular sinful actions; that is, you’re saying, “I can’t be perfect all of the time, so I can’t be perfect at any one time.” This is a quantifier shift, and it’s a logical fallacy.

Third, you finally get around to making a real argument for space exploration, but you’re really starting to straw man Dr. Peters, because, again, he never said that space exploration was wrong, per se. This whole argument is about Martian exploration, which is not the same as exploring satellite orbits–and for the record, it’s not at all clear to me how moon exploration was necessary for our discoveries with orbiting satellites. And even here your argument is weird, because you seem to be saying that space exploration–and manned exploration, in particular–has facilitated the development of deep space satellites, all of which is equivalent to saying, “Space exploration has facilitated better space exploration.” Well no kidding, but that’s no justification for deep space exploration in the first place.

Fourth, you argue that the amount of money spent on space exploration is only a small percentage of money that we waste elsewhere. Again, this is a tu quoque logical fallacy, and it doesn’t justify spending money on space exploration. That is, just because we waste money elsewhere doesn’t mean we should spend money on this.

Good post. Who knows, over a beer I just could be persuaded to supporting some manned missions instead of just robots from here on out. :)

Why? Because art is one of the greatest faculties of mankind and sending a man to mars is just as much art and creativity as it is exploration, engineering and science.

And besides… what if instead of paying the best and the brightest to engineer more weapons of mass destruction over in the National Defense Laboratories we had them building rocket ships with self sustaining biospheres in them.

Haven’t you guys read Contact? The whole world was unified in their attempt at building the space craft… could that really happen? I think so.

I have read this site for a while (and have enjoyed the various conversations), but do not comment due to a lack of time. However, based on the subject of this post, I feel compelled to say something in support of space exploration, both human and robotic. I have spent my entire career working in the space sciences; I was inspired to do this work by the Apollo program and experiencing, as a little child, the incredible fascination of a human actually walking on another planet. I am also a Christian, and believe that God, through Adam before the fall, has given humans the authority and the blessing to explore the wonderous creation that He has made for His own glory. Space exploration is part of that exploration, and even though its carried out for the most part by people that do not know or care to know God, when His creation is discovered and proclaimed, it always abounds to His glory.

Thus, when I read the post by Mr. Peters, I was hoping his strong negative tone was tongue in cheek and that he doesn’t truly think so negatively towards space exploration. However, in reading the various comments above, I’m thinking this negativity towards space exploration is the actual position of many here. As a Christian, and as a person involved in space science work, I consider such an attitude very short sighted. In particular, the comment “We can study space when we get all our problems sorted out here” is an example of such short sightedness. Those who are Christians, of course, know that the reason for all these problems is sin entered the world; further, these problems will never be gone until sin finally leaves, and that requires the return of our Lord Jesus. Thus, if we wait for all Earth’s problems to be solved before exploring, we will never explore (either in space or here on Earth). In addition, the short sightedness of the “wait ’till the problems are solved” attitude is shown by a multitude of practical blessings brought about by space exploration (and Tang is not one of them, which I understand was not invented by NASA). A whole book could be written about such blessings (and many probably have been), but even the ability to have Earth orbiting satellites that provide telecommunications services, and Earth imaging satellites that provide countries (especially poor countries) with information about land and crop use have greatly alleviated much suffering. The ability to successfully deploy such satellites in the extremely harsh environment of space has only been possible by the hard work (and sometimes failures) of people working in the space exploration area, including human exploration.

Finally, two more points that I only have time to briefly touch on: 1) Over the years, I have heard and read much about the “high cost” and “waste of money” for space exploration. Right now, the U.S. spends approximately one-half a percent of its budget for NASA (this number is probably not exactly correct, but it is close). At the height of the Apollo program (a couple of years prior to the Apollo 11 landing) it was closer to a few percent. Other nations’ space programs combined are about 10 to 20 percent of the NASA’s total. In the context of what we as a nation spend on most everything else (e.g., junk food), this is a very small amount of spending for the large return (both practical and human) that is obtained (again, if I had time, a discussion of these benefits could be greatly expanded upon). 2) The human vs. robots argument is a very familiar argument both in the general public, but even more so with space scientists. The comments above suggest there are no valid reasons to send humans into space and robots can always do anything worthwhile that is needed. However, if you listened in to such discussions with people who work in the area of space science, you find that there are good arguments on both sides (and often stated very strongly). I happen to think that if you agree space exploration is a good idea (which I briefly tried to support above), a mix of humans and robots is a good way to carry out such exploration. One final point regarding the Mars rovers, which were mentioned in comments above. They are truly a great achievement, have carried out incredible exploration science, and I personally know they have inspired many people to join and work hard in various fields of engineering and science. However, according to the project leader for these rovers, the sum total that all they accomplished in 5+ years on the Martian surface could have been carried out by humans in a little over a week. Thus, it does cost more to send humans into space, but humans are greatly more efficient and productive in the work of exploring.

Some people will find this result (no spending ever on space exploration) absurd, some won’t, obviously.

My response is that we should apportion some resources to malnutrition, disease, and so on, and some to things like space exploration. Which leads to …

2. The basic view is that a relatively small amount of money spent on space exploration ($820M is a small amount in the context we are discussing) can give large payoffs. For example (numbers illustrative):

$100B on disease and $0 on space exploration = 100 utils.
$95B on disease and $5B on space exploration = 110 utils.

where a “util” is some unit of utility.

What are the benefits of space exploration?
1. A sense of wonder, amazement, and similar emotions – which are important for human well-being. Exploring and a sense of growth are basic human needs.
2. Technological improvements that come with space exploration.
3. Potential scientific discoveries made through space exploration.
4. Potential discoveries of minerals or other natural resources that could have a significant benefit for humans.

3. Okay, that’s interesting. I think that there is a weak national responsibility, and an even weaker personal responsibility when it comes to international problems – because I think that moral duties are related to personal ties.

On the other hand… while I don’t endorse the Next Big Hubristic Space Boondoggle our technocrats will cook up for us, I’d also caution against condemning the adventurous/odyssey-ing impulse per se. Anybody who’s spent much time around children will have noticed the extent to which exploration is an inherent facet of our humanity.

I guess my POV here would be analogous to that of someone who opposes the military-industrial complex, Iraq invasion, etc. but who is not dogmatically pacifist.

My own vote would be for exploration of the oceans.

1. Again, the fact that solving other problems is difficult is not a reason to say that we should abandon the conditional–unless you’re assumption is that difficult conditions should be abandoned, which is simply absurd.

2. You’re response here isn’t really a response, as you say simply that apportioning these resources is important and reasonable. Given the worries about more important problems (as you would surely agree that debilitating diseases, et al, are more important problems than Martian soil composition), you haven’t really said why you think it’s nonetheless appropriate to not spend money on those larger problems and spend it on space exploration.

And on top of that, spending money is a disjunction. Should dollar 1 go to A, B, C…or N. Should dollar two, etc. This is how we are able to say that some things are wasteful and others necessary, because the money could be spent better.

3. I’m a college student, so additional income isn’t something I encounter in large bundles. But yeah, I’ve lent my shoulder (financially and otherwise) to the kinds of things you’re describing, even if I’d hardly describe myself in the terms I’m advocating for with space exploration spending. But on the other hand, spending $800 million isn’t quite the same as recycling newspapers or buying organic eggs, is it?

1. It is not like there is one pool of problems that is filled up once, and we can go about eliminating them until there are none left.

We are constantly creating new problems. If we never did any space exploration until all the problems in the world were solved, we would never do any space exploration in the foreseeable future.

For the first time in history, we have the computerization, transportation, and communication technologies which allow us to send robots (!) to other planets (!) (something only dreamed about for centuries) – and you are saying that we shouldn’t ever *start* to do *any* of it because there are still problems here on Earth?

2. “For surely, it’s at least as important to meet new people and read books and the rest as it is to keep one’s room clean, but surely space exploration is not nearly as important as addressing disorder on Earth, such as AIDS in Africa or peak oil production.”

This is where we disagree. Apportioning some of our resources to space exploration is, I think, important and reasonable.

Don’t ignore contagious disease problems (although AIDS would be low on my list due to high cost to low payout), or potential productivity problems – of course not – but also focus some of your resources on exploring and discovering. This is not an exclusive disjunction.

Finally,

3. Just curious: in your personal life, do you apportion all or a significant percentage of your extra resources (income, time) beyond your basic necessities to helping combat things like disease and malnutrition around the world? That is, you clearly think there are strong national obligations to address these things – where do you think personal obligations lie?