Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Problems in Thinking about Humans and Space
spacedaily.com ^ | Mathew Faulk

Posted on 10/13/2003 8:57:57 AM PDT by RightWhale

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/oped-03zzk.html

The Problems in Thinking about Humans and Space

by Mathew Faulk, Los Angeles - Oct 13, 2003

What are the philosophical and social implications of human space involvement? What does it mean that humans have the ability to venture out into the cosmos, have come to manifest a society that extends into space? What does this say about humans and reality? Humanity, in some respect, has come to extend beyond the world or planet from which humanity itself arose, and from which the world view that is unique to this worldly existence arose. There is an aspect of human society that is beginning to flow out beyond this planet in both physical existence and in thinking, and both in manners unique to this era.

In physical existence humans have now come to explore reality beyond the earth, into space and the surrounding cosmos. We have embarked upon the journey of space exploration, exploring reality beyond the terrestrial. This is manifest in, and manifests the presence of, people in space and social behaviors that extend beyond only a worldly end or intention. There are now substantial aspects of human life that are being directly confronted with this phenomenon. Human society must contend with, move out into keeping within the mind the consciousness of, the universe beyond the planet and the activity going on there.

From asteroids, to nuclear accidents, to spy satellites, to random chunks of debris (old solid rocket boosters) falling into the middle of some African farm; we must go about our daily lives having consciously to consider and think about space beyond the planet, and in a manner unique to our times. Space, so far as it is presenting itself today, is therefore a new form of human related phenomena, one specifically lacking in any serious philosophical contemplation or address by both philosophers and everyone else involved, as it stands in contemporary form.

It is time we look seriously into space exploration and what exactly this activity means for human existence and experience, for human existence and experience have now expanded into encompassing more directly this domain. But the human person has always looked to the heavens: in astrology, astronomy, maritime navigation, Newton's calculus, Galileo's heavenly revolution, Aristotle, Plato, Chinese Zodiac and on. The stars have always been within our view. However, we are now interacting with them, are entering into that space, in a manner that none before have. There are actually people in space as we speak, continually orbiting this globe within several small cylindrical modules known as the International Space Station, and since 1998.

People have actually landed on the moon, and probes are drifting towards and circling other worlds, even landing on their terra-firma. These are the things of fairy tales and mythology, people on the moon, and traveling vast distances to reach barren but beautiful red, gray lands. These are only recently even the things of fantasy, where before such ideas and sights would be seen as super-human or even godly. Nor is outer space the only domain of space exploration newly breaking free in fresh forms. We have peered into reality as much as we have looked out at it. On the micro, extending to the quantum level, there is an equal amount of universe, space in which we are now directly engaged in a rather unique manner. In some respect, on every level we seem to be expanding. But there are problems as well, practical implications and dilemmas, not only theory and curiosity. Ethical and religious issues, environmental concerns, political and economic issues, aspects extending into the very basis of human existence are now beginning to come directly to the fore. One of these basis to be explored philosophically, is the very manner in which we view space and space exploration, how we actually conceptualize it in our minds, those of us directly involved, and those not. For those involved there are goals, desires, dreams, economical, political, control, and power interests. We all want to do something, and something in space, but also something unique to us and our agendas.

This is the main problem facing the human person today, and especially within space exploration. Some want military might and secret supremacy, some want to explore and venture, others see a platform from which to gaze and study more accurately and freely, groups advocate economic freedom and feeding the globe, while racing in sporty new flying contraptions might enthuse another, or some might desire simply to look and experience it, then come to reflection and action in existence from it. But how to do anything with so many ideas and views, where everyone has something to say and a solution, or a critique and warning? We have so many differing and conflicting interests to get us off the ground that we can never get enough momentum going in any one direction, with enough force, actually to get off the ground in a really sufficient manner. So what are we going to do folks? If we want to go to space, and bring to fruition the benefits there-from, spread the potential and possibility to those who would, then we need to come together and do something, actually do it, rather than pulling strings, talking, or letting things go hoping something will come, or just watching something manifest itself.

There is no better way to do this than dialogue, communication, community building. Those of who are interested in going and doing must come together to go and do, because our task is of a kind in which there must be community involvement. But again, how to get so many differences connected and working together? Perhaps looking at some positives will help us gain a vector. There are certainly a lot of us here talking about it, websites, papers, articles, communities, industries, news flashes etc. So there is already a large infrastructure there. But it seems that everyone is arguing and talking, debating, unhappy with the way things are, the way things are being done, unsatisfied with what we have from where we have been and what we know.

Therefore, the ability to do what we desire in space, the very things that it seems we should be able to do, extend far beyond what is actually done. There is an infrastructure capable, and people willing, but it is simply not being utilized to its fullest ability. There needs to be a revolution, then, specifically within those areas involved in utilizing the ability we have, in allowing those people who want to, to come together and work together. There needs to be a forum. But this too may be short sighted. Perhaps the ability does not exist, perhaps space is still too far off and we are still too far underdeveloped to even consider actually entertaining any real thought of humans in space or venturing into that domain, not for exploration, not for science, not for humanity, not for anything. Perhaps we are dreaming beyond our means, and need to face up to the facts: humans as they stand today are incapable of really going to space, they just don't have it in them, or perhaps aren't quite up to the challenge.

Is this the answer; is this what we are left with? Should we just let it go, settle and be content, accept that our dreams and something we see as wonderful and beautiful will never happen, is actually not beautiful, or even a possibility? Should we simply accept our incapability, or should we believe in the ability and work to actually exercise it? There are also those issues against space exploration, therefore bringing forth ethical concerns. Perhaps space exploration is wrong, it is the wrong track, and we are lost in such an attempt. There are social issues that we should be able to resolve before even considering space exploration, feeding people for example. Or perhaps space exploration is only a western venture, only something the western, specifically white world, does, and imposes it upon everyone else.

Which side to take, what is the real state of reality? These are all areas in which philosophy itself generally dwells, and does offer much help, scientific, cultural, aesthetic, political, economical, and social. So why isn't philosophy more directly involved in space exploration? Because no one believes that philosophy can help, or they are afraid. This however, is wrong. Space is a new environment, a new place, and so new political, scientific, environmental, social, economical activities, foundations, are needed. Perhaps things not thought of before, and perhaps a few of these other areas will fade into obscurity, like economics or perhaps politics.

But generally speaking, any and all activity in any of these areas in the world, our economic systems, social systems, political systems, environmental systems etc., all originate from and are directly based and built upon philosophy and philosophical systems. Rather, where these foundations are established is in philosophy. Therefore, because space is a new area, needing new systems and approaches, thinking to establish how to maneuver and exist within this domain, is needed, what are primarily activities historically entertained and dealt with by philosophers. But where does this lead us, or rather, leave us? As is already demonstrable, philosophy is specifically and traditionally used to dealing with all of these issues in mass, as a profession, conducting professional research in these areas, and producing actual solutions. And as is observable in political systems, organizational systems, scientific and mathematical systems etc., those deemed as successful are as such to some extent due to their philosophy, but so too for those seen as not successful.

Therefore, philosophy is one of those basic areas that lies as the foundation to a successful project. Rather, a successful group is as such due to its adherence and unity in a common philosophical foundation; or philosophy plays a direct role in every aspect of any human activity, and perhaps mostly that activity of space exploration or human space involvement. It is therefore a good solid philosophical foundation, or the lack thereof, that stands as the basis for many of the problems within space exploration. This leaves those involved, the media, the industry, the government, in the need of create a place for philosophers at this table and at this time; this will take an active attempt to include philosophers and philosophy.

But what about space, what about the problems facing us today, getting there, the Orbital Space Plane, nuclear propulsion, weapons and military space? Can I, or philosophy, begin to offer anything here? Perhaps, for these are certainly areas not strange to philosophy in general. The philosophy of technology, for example, deals directly with technological development and therefore does have something to say even about these technological problems facing us currently. For instance, what should the primary focus be in designing and developing human space involvement technology or specifically human space transport systems: economics, politics, human life, safety? Take the newly proposed Orbital Space Place, now entering its second stage of evaluation.

Given the recent shuttle tragedy and other space mishaps, perhaps the initial and primary focus should only be on simply being able to successfully transport humans within the space environment safely, reliably, and successfully, before any cargo, scientific, or economic concerns should even enter the picture. After all, space exploration is a human activity, without humans it would not exist. Humans and the human person should therefore be the central focus when considering any topic related to this endeavor.

Considering the space plane, depending on the focus, the overall design will change, for example whether to build a system using wings like planes and the shuttle, or a capsule. In the even that a focus is needed on first being able to successfully transport humans in space reliably and safely, then it seems that the basic design of any system should revolve around and evolve from those technologies with the greatest success in this area. To date, this seems to be a capsule based design, where first and foremost the capsule should be built to sustain the greatest of possible abuse and still maintain a safe environment for humans, only when this is achieved should the system be expanded to incorporate cargo and other platforms. And only upon these criteria should such a project be awarded to a contractor, the one who ensures this single aspect, safe, reliable, and successful human space transport.

But even this area becomes delicate, with many nuances involved. For instance, what about private companies, and regulations for this domain, like those groups now competing for the x-prize? There is currently a rather large hullabaloo concerning the regulating body, and the actually regulating legislature for this new industry of private human space transport companies. Without due political and social philosophical grounding and support, this effort will only snowball. What should the basis and focus of regulation be, and what should the limits be? Where should the domain of regulation end and begin? If safety is the main concern, at what point do we say "ok, this system is safe enough?" If safety regulations do not accept some kind of risk, new systems and new ways for approaching human space flight, and space access, experimental craft, will be stifled.

No system is absolutely risk free, or absolutely safe, there must be a limit. Regulation and legislation must consider this. There also must be enough room in regulation and legislative philosophy to allow for private start ups and entrepreneurial expansion, the development of high risk but potentially large pay off technology. The exploration of technologies that might initially be unsafe and risky, but that might potentially provide in development the highest level of safety and reliability (nuclear or high density energy and propulsion sources fall into this area). There are also issues concerning international law, or space ownership and extraterrestrial property. When someone else to land on the moon, say China, what happens if they make claim on that body? Should people even be allowed to own property in space? Should governments and nations be allowed to expand into claiming as a part of their nations, extraterrestrial domains? What happens if a country breaks international law concerning space, how should such laws be enforced? What happens if someone breaks a law in space and no one else is there to enforce it? Should there even be law in space? (Perhaps not, it is conceivable that laws should only apply to human settlements, organizations and structures, not to space or other worlds themselves).

These are all issues that we are going to have to face, and very quickly. We need to begin supporting and funding people to research these areas, to provide a framework and foundation from which to approach and solve these problems, to begin a tradition and establish the foundation from which standards and quid pro quo can be established. For example, if human freedom and trying to allow people to maximize their potential or develop in their own unique way is the goal, then we should not see space as a resource, but as a home, not as something to posses, but as something to share and participate in. As well space should be open to every individual, if her or she chose to live and pursue that form of life.

But space and existing in space is not necessarily married with any certain type of culture or technique of approach, with any certain type of lifestyle or any specific way of living. As there were many different maritime cultures, and methods for approaching transportation over sea, space too may be approached from differing methods and cultures, techniques. The differences between the Russian and U.S. space industry attests to this, both having pinnacle successes, and both having greatly different philosophical foundations and approaches to their explorations and ventures beyond the stratosphere. No one culture or way of approaching space is therefore the right way, or has the right to dominate over others. Space is nothing to fight over or compete with philosophically, but something that may help in uniting and expanding individuals and groups.

As was stated in the earlier half of this paper, there is hardly a culture known that has not in some respect been involved in space, that has not looked at the stars and pondered, that has not developed some cultural relation to the heavens. Space is a common experience that all human cultures and societies can and do share in. Like food and eating, or physical function, humans also share the common sky, look at stars, and have a cultural tradition somewhere revolving around and dealing with space. Perhaps now we are more able to start looking into these commonalities. Perhaps humans will not unite down here on earth, but will do so in space, after we get off this rock, yet to return and establish or begin a new area in human existence. Moreover, we live in a global world, yet only a handful of people have actually ever seen it, the globe. The global community is, therefore, not yet a village. There are still far off lands, and peoples who are not oriented to a global humanity. This is because we are not yet acting like a fully global humanity. We do not have the right perspective; we have not yet established a common philosophical tradition to unite us, and perhaps we never will or never should. Perhaps there will always be peoples not involved in space.

If so, then they should not be forced to get involved: those countries entering into that domain should not force it upon those who are not and do not. Space offers us this, however, the ability to begin developing a truly global philosophy, one that takes into account a global humanity, and one exercised by the global humanity, in their common goal and involvement in space. But, because space is now reaching the point of directly involving all of us, through communications, economics, military, international relations, and perhaps soon, transportation and energy, we are now faced with addressing space in our philosophies and bringing philosophy into space, whether we like it or nor, and whether we want to or not. And though no group or nation should force space upon others, space might be forcing itself upon us.

In our ever-growing attention to the fragility of our existence, that there are phenomena and activities so humungous and colossal that were we any where near them, or were we to drift in their vicinity, we would be no more; therefore, we must face and develop a philosophy of space, as a priority, as the human activity capable and steeped in a tradition of dealing with these issues, albeit, the single domain particularly oriented to doing just this.


TOPICS: Extended News; Foreign Affairs; Government; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: philosophy; property; rights; space
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-33 next last
A philosophy of space? Private property rights in space? Neo-confucianism in space?
1 posted on 10/13/2003 8:57:57 AM PDT by RightWhale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: All
Hi mom!
2 posted on 10/13/2003 9:00:43 AM PDT by Support Free Republic (Your support keeps Free Republic going strong!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
Private property in space? HELL YES!

There is nothing about exploring space that should be any different than the exploration of earth. Space law is likely to be an extension of Martime Law.

Beyond that, there are two technologies that have to be developed before any significant move into space will occur:

1) Completely self-contained space envorinment. Once set up, no more water, air or nutrients required. Ideally there would be one unit for each person who goes up and that will stay with them until they decide to sell it and return to earth, or it otherwise passes into another space dweller's possession. Of course, more practical in the near term, easier to develop and thus more likely in the near term will be self contained multi-person units owned and operated by corporations, consortiums or (shudder)communes.

and 2)Cheap earth to orbit tranportation. This is coming soon I suspect.

3 posted on 10/13/2003 9:08:01 AM PDT by BenLurkin (Socialism is Slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
Speaking of private property in space: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1000282/posts 8^)
4 posted on 10/13/2003 9:20:01 AM PDT by BenLurkin (Socialism is Slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin
According to the UN Treaty on Outer Space we already have property rights to the stuff we launch. It is rights to celestial resources that we lack.
5 posted on 10/13/2003 9:23:34 AM PDT by RightWhale (Repeal the Law of the Excluded Middle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
Hmmm . . . could get interesting if ever there is a resource out there worth fighting over.
6 posted on 10/13/2003 9:27:49 AM PDT by BenLurkin (Socialism is Slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin
How about the assumed small pool of water at the lunar pole? The only water on the moon would be of incalculable value. How about a carbonaceous chondritic asteroid--mudball? How much is it worth? The maritime law will be less important than the law of the desert. Fights will occur over ownership of oases.
7 posted on 10/13/2003 9:35:56 AM PDT by RightWhale (Repeal the Law of the Excluded Middle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
bump
8 posted on 10/13/2003 9:39:17 AM PDT by BenLurkin (Socialism is Slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
Space, so far as it is presenting itself today, is therefore a new form of human related phenomena, one specifically lacking in any serious philosophical contemplation or address by both philosophers and everyone else involved, as it stands in contemporary form.

Where has this guy been? There is a huge body of work dating from Jules Verne that explores the relation of humans and space. Perhaps because it doesn't appear in some philisophical journal it can't be taken seriously.

Therefore, philosophy is one of those basic areas that lies as the foundation to a successful project. ... It is therefore a good solid philosophical foundation, or the lack thereof, that stands as the basis for many of the problems within space exploration. This leaves those involved, the media, the industry, the government, in the need of create a place for philosophers at this table and at this time; this will take an active attempt to include philosophers and philosophy.

This sounds like a recipe for nothing ever happening. The expansion of humans into space will be messy, like any other human endeavor. We don't need a commitee to make it tidy beforehand. Let the Chinese establish communism on the moon, let the X-Prize entrepenuers make a buck selling space rides, let the military build space warships, let's strip mine the asteroids without filing an environmental impact statement!

Jeez, philosphers!

9 posted on 10/13/2003 9:43:45 AM PDT by Dan Cooper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
read later
10 posted on 10/13/2003 9:50:07 AM PDT by LiteKeeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dan Cooper; betty boop
I didn't note any pure philosophy in this article at first glance. Maybe one of the special practical philosophy disciplines such as ethics could get a lot of exercise during the development of space resources.
11 posted on 10/13/2003 9:50:46 AM PDT by RightWhale (Repeal the Law of the Excluded Middle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
A philosophy of space?

Gee, what a coincidence! A philosopher decides we need a philosophy of space. Why didn't I think of that?

There are only two philosophies that matter, and they apply everywhere. One is that individuals should be responsible for their own lives, and the other is that all rights and responsibilities are collective. One can invent any number of shades and combinations of those two extremes, but in the end all those 'philosophies' only espouse a particular balance between them. If we want a 'new' philosophy for space, it should be to reduce the reliance on collective action and let the pendulum swing back toward indivldual initiative. If there had been a NASA when Wilbur and Orville were tinkering, we'd still be walking. Oh, silly me. There was a NASA-equivalent back then. Good ol' Langley and his government-subsidized approach notable for creating the first splashdown - in the Potomac.

I'm not holding my breath. The government bureaucrats 'own' space in a way that would prevent any meaningful commercial exploitation of it, except in the ways that have already been done (communications satellites, etc.). Can you imagine what would happen if an investor group got together to develop a mission to snag a nickel-iron asteroid and bring it back to earth? In real terms it wouldn't cost any more than developing the (first) Alaskan oilfields and pipeline, and the return on investment would be about 50:1 (neglecting the drop in steel prices that would result from that much ore hitting the market - a manageable problem, as the deBeers crowd has demonstrated). Yet if they tried, the UN would demand the value of the asteroid as 'the common heritage of all mankind' and the enviro-wackos would fill their panties at the idea of that massive rock moving toward the Earth. Only government can fight government, and only the U.S. government has a chance against the UN and the other one-world government sycophants.

And right now, the U.S. governemnt, at least on space matters, is so dominated by NASA that we'll never make the transition from money-sink (a fair definition of any government-bureacracy run project) to money-source.
12 posted on 10/13/2003 9:51:55 AM PDT by Gorjus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dan Cooper
I meant to say, let the Chinese try to establish communism on the moon ;}
13 posted on 10/13/2003 9:57:36 AM PDT by Dan Cooper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
Well, maybe neo-Confucianism or some modern Chinese variant.

If we let Beijing take the "high ground" as it has announced it plans to do, any high-falutin "philosophy of space" will be dictated by the guys with the weapons, strategic position and power as always. This reminds me of the mental masturbation indulged in by Carl Sagan and the Planetary Society. They were much more interested in creating planetary "human-free" zones than in getting us there. I confess I could only stomach about 3 paragraphs of the article before looking for a barf bag. Several generations of SF writers have devoted themselves to the "philosophy of space." Maybe Faulk should start there.
14 posted on 10/13/2003 10:05:15 AM PDT by Bernard Marx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gorjus
Philosophy is more than ethics, but the problem of development of our space resources would be resolved overnight if the 1967 UN Outer Space Treaty were withdrawn from and Congress or the President created a Land Office to register private claims to celestial resources. Wouldn't cost more than hiring a clerk to run the land office.
15 posted on 10/13/2003 10:07:05 AM PDT by RightWhale (Repeal the Law of the Excluded Middle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Gorjus
A philosopher decides we need a philosophy of space.

It won't be written by committee. A philosopher, if any are left at this late date, would entomb himself in his study with his logical investigations and emerge some time later with a finished work ready for publication.

16 posted on 10/13/2003 10:11:21 AM PDT by RightWhale (Repeal the Law of the Excluded Middle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Bernard Marx
maybe neo-Confucianism

Might be the ticket to conquering the stars. A galaxy of competent clerks and bureaucrats.

17 posted on 10/13/2003 10:15:08 AM PDT by RightWhale (Repeal the Law of the Excluded Middle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
development of our space resources would be resolved overnight if the 1967 UN Outer Space Treaty were withdrawn from, and . . . register private claims to . . . resources.

Would that it were so! But I'm afraid you're wrong on both points. First off, a piece of paper (the UN Treaty), while certainly an impediment and something that should be torn up, is only a small part of the total problem. The whole concept that government must 'run' any space program will keep it from being profitable, regardless of the UN treaty.

And I have often stated that in our current society the most egregiously violated provision in the Bill of Rights is the 'takings' clause of the 5th Amendment. Title to private property means less than nothing to the bureaucrats. That's where they go hunting for money, not any sort of protection to one's own economic value.
18 posted on 10/13/2003 10:38:05 AM PDT by Gorjus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Gorjus
That's where the land office comes in. Granted, it does not confer complete ownership rights, but it's way ahead of no rights.
19 posted on 10/13/2003 10:41:05 AM PDT by RightWhale (Repeal the Law of the Excluded Middle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
. . . emerge some time later with a finished work ready for publication.

And this matters because . . . ?

The problem of man's role in space will not be resolved by an essay, no matter how scholarly it is written. There either needs to be a military advantage (or credible claim to one, as in the space race to the moon) or an economic advantage - or mankind will gradually withdraw, at least any manned involement. Unless you believe your philosopher will discover a military advantage to the use of space - one that's not already obvious - his/her essay won't really make any difference in what real people do. (Action based on economic advantage is even less likely to be swayed by a philosopher's essay. That takes credible return-on-investment calculations that are based on math, not philosophy.)
20 posted on 10/13/2003 10:46:21 AM PDT by Gorjus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-33 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson