Showing posts with label space. Show all posts
Showing posts with label space. Show all posts

My Proposal for NASA




With the recent success and popularity of NASA’s Curiosity rover’s landing on Mars on August 6, 2012, I feel like this is a good time to put forth an argument for the advocation of NASA’s potential and usefulness. Because NASA inspires; not only does it inspire, but there are so many so-called “trickle-down” technologies which are in existence because of the direct result of NASA research and ingenuity. Among these are advances in artificial limb technologies, improved radial tires, video enhancing and analysis systems for both law-enforcement and military applications, firefighting equipment for more light-weight breathing apparatuses, radio communications, what is now called “memory foam”, enriched baby food, water purification systems, and of course some of the most obvious technological benefits such as satellite communications and GPS, many of which are so widely used and relied upon today in our world that it’s hard to imagine them not having been developed in the first place.

I understand that one of the biggest (and most reasonable) concerns over space travel is, to put simply, cost. Among many things, certainly of great particular concern, especially these days, is the cost of the fuel. Not only is it wildly expensive (a single Shuttle launch reportedly cost about 1.1 billion dollars), but the fuel could presumably be used elsewhere. And that's fair enough, for sure; I don't think anyone could argue the validity of that concern. However, I strongly believe that the cost is justified.

So because of the admittedly immense cost of space travel endeavors as they are today, and of my sympathy with the associated concerns, I'd like to propose a gesture not totally unlike the "moments of silence" which have long been observed to pay tribute to various tragedies.

The Space Shuttle reportedly consumed three and a half million pounds of fuel per launch. This is definitely a lot of fuel… staggering, in a way, to think that this is for a single launch. However, in one day in the United States there is an estimated two and a half billion pounds of gasoline consumed. Simplifying the math will lead you to a ratio between the two, which shows that a single Shuttle launch is equivalent to just barely over two minutes of U.S. gasoline consumption:

       2,500,000,000,000 lbs / 1440 minutes   =   1,736,111.111 lbs/minute (fuel consumed per minute)
       3,500,000 lbs / 1,736,111.111 lbs/minute   =   2.016 minutes, or 121 seconds

So I propose that on some appointed day, probably on the day of a launch, to maximize the symbolism, every American operating a gasoline-consuming vehicle pulls over and shuts off said vehicle (safely, of course) and observes a moment of admiration for a mere two minutes and one second. Those measly 121 seconds represented the entire cost of fuel for the launch. Once two minutes and one second have passed, everyone will resume their day with a profound sensation of accomplishment resting in their hearts, warming their souls, renewing their faith in the power of human potential. Because in that brief period of time the entire fuel consumption of the launch was not being guzzled away by the citizens of the entire nation. In a vague sort of way it’s almost as if we paid for it entirely.

And I realize that this is ridiculously absurd. But I like the idea behind it, the gesture itself, the implications of what two minutes of us not aimlessly driving ourselves around can amount to. Of course the cumulative effort and cooperation of every single American is pretty much as far-fetched a thing to hope for as can be imagined, not to mention the fact that no money would actually be "saved" by this gesture; most people are still going to resume their drive and use up the same amount of fuel they would have anyway. Also, the Shuttle is now phased out of use completely, so the analogy is somewhat weakened by that. But the numbers could easily be manipulated to account for whatever newer vehicle is used, once they get developed. It won’t likely be too much different, although they will hopefully be more efficient and less demanding.

Speaking of collective effort, I have another proposal, one I am much more serious about. I believe it to be much more practical and, granted, probably at least as much more controversial. If every American adult was made to pay a sort of "NASA tax" of ten dollars each year, this would amount to about 2.5 billion dollars (estimates of the adult population of the United States is about 250 million). For perspective, the estimated cost of the Voyager program, perhaps the most important of any non-human mission so far, was about one billion dollars. Many have been cheaper, and some will definitely be more expensive. Of course the Apollo and Shuttle programs were exceedingly expensive. But space exploration involving human astronauts will always be much more expensive than robotic alternatives, and I think both should be pursued simultaneously and cooperatively. For more perspective, the 2012 budget for NASA is 17.8 billion dollars, slightly less than half of one percent of the national budget. This direct contribution from the public would increase the budget by about 14%, nudging the total over twenty billion—higher than it’s been, adjusted for inflation, since 1969, the year we first landed on the moon.

Also worth noting, the entire cost of the brand new (and so far wildly successful) Curiosity rover’s mission to Mars is said to be approximately 2.5 billion dollars—precisely the amount this action would revenue each year.

What is ten dollars to any one person, really? Certainly for any "average" American this is a measly amount of money--though I would not want to advocate any dismissal of the value of money when the issue might actually be quite serious. But how often does one of us go out to eat and spend close to, or more than, ten dollars? Or buy six sodas over time, or one movie ticket, or one CD or DVD, or 1/6 of an XBox game? I could lose ten dollars out of a hole in my pocket and it would have no lasting effect, if I even noticed it missing at all, and I’m not rich by any reasonable measure. Of course there must be exceptions to this generalization… I don't doubt there are people and families that are in legitimate need of absolutely any ten dollars they can get. In these cases, for situations truly this severe, I would not press the issue personally. Assuming this policy was ever actually adopted, I imagine it would take at least some effort of will for most people to come to terms with the justifications of the mandatory "NASA tax." But I would hope that in most cases it would not be much of a struggle, ideally none at all. Maybe most people would actually grow to appreciate the investment. And, of course, using the word “tax” in advocating this idea is probably going to stir some resentment, but I don’t know of a better way to execute such a plan if it could ever actually be adopted as a whole. I mean, we pay taxes every day, on virtually everything that we ever purchase, whether it’s a measly candy bar or a new TV or a car. Taxes are necessary for our economy’s continued growth, budget and success. The simple term should not infuriate, it should inspire dreams for what such small percentages of our earnings can initiate and progress with the help of our direct influence. This is a beautiful opportunity.

Even if a quarter of all American adults--62,500,000 people--truly cannot afford to contribute or just outright refuse to participate because they can't find the necessary minute shred of compassion within their blackened hearts, somehow legally filtered out of the “taxation”, then the same 2.5 billion dollars could be accumulated from $13.33 per person. Not so much of a change; or, if kept at $10 per, then the sum would still be a respectable 1.88 billion dollars and it would still benefit enormously.

Or this could be implemented as one dollar a month, or fifty cents biweekly, automatically taken out of your paycheck (whichever applies). We could even go less extreme and have each American adult invest one dollar at the end of the year. Just one dollar from each of 250 million people makes quite a sum even still (250 million dollars). Even one pitiful penny from each of us will supply them with 2.5 million dollars at the end of a year. Or we could add to the nation-wide tax revenue even a fraction of a percent, say one tenth of one percent, to all taxable purchases. I don’t know what that would amount to, but surely it would be an appreciable amount over the course of a year. If your area’s tax rate is, say, 8.75 percent, it would simply become 8.85 percent, and would hardly even be noticeable. There are any numbers of variations for such a policy to be implemented, any wide range of possible contributions, investments, from the people of such a promising nation to put forth. Each of them would provide such a benefit to NASA, or even another yet-to-be-established space program. I am somewhat surprised and disappointed that something like this hasn't already been adapted, but to be fair, the funding received by NASA from the government already is pretty much a portion of the taxes already being collected by the general public, and even this much gets its own share of controversy.

So one could argue that we are all already paying taxes, and, well, where do you think the money going to NASA already is coming from? But the point is, the money is there, in each of our possessions. I’m trying to suggest that we appreciate that NASA is an investment of government spending, not a “special case”, and deserves more than whatever they decide to allocate each year from the collection of public taxes alone. NASA would still be given what the federal budget deems worthy, valuable of course in its own right, but and then some, as an extra contribution from the general public who so deeply wallow in the returns of this investment aggregated over all the years it’s been utilized.

One could also argue why NASA? Why not an organization ready to clean up the atmosphere, or the oceans, or the forests, or the roads, or the education system, or whichever one of countless organizations with countless goals in mind? These are all also admirable goals, and very important, for sure. I do not mean to demean the value of any other charity or organization. Indeed, I would encourage donations wherever they can be given! Nothing is stopping anyone from contributing to any of these; anyone with extra generosity can invest to their heart’s content. I am simply advocating the addition of a small amount of money, to be carefully determined, into the tax system specifically for the nation's space exploration budget, and specifically for NASA, and not at the mercy of yearly budget cuts and not factored into what the government decides to fund of its own accord. I think this should be an independent contribution on top of what is deemed worthy of NASA’s federal budget. I argue that the investment into NASA exceeds virtually all other possibilities of organizations and charities of similar “scope”/”endeavors”. I argue that this extra contribution is in all of our best interests. Because in this age, in the twenty-first century, it seems obvious that the benefits of discoveries and advancements are mostly all going to be showered down from the frontiers of engineering and scientific innovations, and we need to keep that off-world frontier burgeoning, because that is the realm from which so much of what we cannot even anticipate is in all likelihood going to come from and work to make this world a better place for all its inhabitants.

With so large a population any amount of contribution, matched by all, so miniscule in each individual case, amounts to incredible quantities. And, especially in this case, with incredible quantities comes incredible discoveries. Another option for NASA’s benefit is for them to host some sort of annual Kickstarter-like fundraiser. This way the contributions would not be mandatory, and would not be defined by a standard, but could be absolutely anything a contributor might be willing to put forth… and, like most Kickstarters make use of, enticing rewards could be offered to stimulate the generosity. With a high enough investment perhaps one could even be rewarded a tour of a NASA facility, or the witnessing of a launch, or even a trip into orbit around the planet!

I just think that the implications of what is out there to be found and studied, the knowledge to gain, the unexplored worlds to really see for the first time, and the potential for our expansion and survival, are paramount in importance. The Earth's atmosphere is pretty much represented by the simple coat of lacquer on a standard globe. That's it, all which separates us here on the surface from everything out there ready to explore and discover... the frontiers of our thoughts are out there just out of our reach! Ready to be stumbled upon, ready to expand our knowledge of the universe and of ourselves and of this lonely planet we inhabit so fruitfully. And the effect on our culture is perhaps most impactful of all… because after we first went mankind to the moon, after we first saw photos of the entire sphere of Earth, so small and fragile suspended up there in the utterly black sky, the entire world was forever changed. We saw the implementation of so many new laws and organizations with renewed effort to clean up the planet, more efficiently manage our resources, and interact with each other not as a world divided by colorfully painted borders on the surface of a globe, but as one continuous, commonly inhabited and shared borderless planet. Because you can’t actually tell where one nation ends and the other begins, it’s completely arbitrary and meaningless when viewed upon at a distance great enough to actually observe large portions of the surface of the Earth with a single sweeping glance. There are no borders. And we finally saw this in its entirety when those first photos from sufficient distance were published. We began to truly understand that we are all one, we are all together, we are all striving to survive and make the best for ourselves on this enormous, bountiful world. But we need help to keep on advancing and improving the quality of life the world over… and it seems like NASA is one of, if not the prime candidates to continue to advance this frontier of discovery and innovation to continue this trend we’ve been so privileged to be a part of.

So let’s put forth a way in which we can not only keep those discoveries coming, but we can actually feel like we have been a part of their fruition by direct contributions, whether mandatory (but hopefully appreciable) or by generous voluntary contributions alone. As incredible and profoundly impactful as those fleetingly brief years were during the Apollo era, who can even imagine what newer insights and discoveries and cultural overcomings are idly awaiting our efforts to uncover? We need to go and find them. We need to keep dreaming about tomorrow and ever-expanding the frontiers of our thoughts and desires, and I can’t think of a better way to achieve this than to let the NASA organization keep doing its thing, of course managed and controlled for the best of all interests. It is absolutely incredible what they have managed to provide for the world so far in their fifty-year-plus history to date.

As Neil deGrasse Tyson so beautifully puts it, “We went to the moon, and we discovered Earth. I claim we discovered Earth for the first time.”

And you cannot put a price on that.

Posted by Unknown | at 6:58 PM | 3 comments

This Long, Awkward Silence

(October 23rd, 2011)



Remember that ultra-generic question we used to toss around as kids, “Do you believe in aliens?” Have you ever really stopped to wonder what this simple question is implying? On the physical surface there is no reason not to “believe in aliens.” The existence of aliens would not violate any known physical laws, as opposed to the existence of the subject of another similar ultra-generic question, say, of ghosts. Of course, I’m sure the question as most people pose it is not only suggesting the existence of extraterrestrial life in any form, but of intelligent extraterrestrials. I have come to the realization over the years that the meaning, based on the form of the question itself, of whether or not one “believes” in the existence of “aliens” comes up rather short when all things are considered—because there are actual observations that could be made, statistics to consider, and models to analyze, none of which intrinsically contradict the idea. In fact it is, arguably, rather logical to assume at least the possibility that such a case is, indeed, the case, and always has been—and always will be. So far this long, awkward silence returning all of our efforts has yet to provide us with any hard evidence. But some extraterrestrial civilization out there somewhere in the cosmos, going about its existence, entirely unknown to us (so far), does not defy anything fundamental, whereas the existence of ghosts would definitely raise some serious questions.

Of course, I understand that the same thing could be said of the existence of ghosts… an actual observation could very well be made at some point, and their reality could very well be proven physically. But when, as of this moment (and as far as I know), there is absolutely no shred of evidence to suggest that such a thing could be real without interfering with the demonstrable physical laws which make such intricate, beautiful sense of the world (emphasis on the word “evidence,” because no number of eyewitness accounts, no matter how powerful or convincing, necessarily means anything), then it really dwindles the amount of effort worth putting forth to entertain the notion (never to zero of course). I don’t mean to get in depth into this argument, but just on the surface of the idea I find it wildly difficult to imagine just a few of the factors involved in the considerations of the existence of ghosts—perhaps most of all, aside from what seems to be an all-too-convenient lack of demonstrable evidence, is the problem of how rare the “sightings” are, when one considers how many people have ever lived and how many such “souls” should be roaming around practically every square inch of the planet if the idea held any meaning. Most alleged cases of hauntings seem to stem from some troubled spirit that lingers on because of some “unfinished business” or some other physical tie to a certain location. And most of these hauntings seem to infect old buildings, which makes “sense” because of the simple age of the place, and the number of people who lived there throughout its history, and perhaps because of individual cases of particularly brutal situations during the time span of the “tortured soul’s” life.

But the very same argument raises questions because vast numbers of people presumably lived over practically every inhabited square inch of the planet throughout all of its history, and unless ghosts are naturally confined to the physical walls of the very same buildings they were living within, and only become “trapped” within them IF they died within such walls, then I don’t see a reason why there aren’t the very same troubled spirits wandering among every single person’s yard, or driveway, or just along the streets and fields everywhere. Unless ghosts did not start becoming spiritually attached to locations until the start of humanity’s building construction, and just happen to disappear if the building is demolished, and/or naturally disappear after some bizarre length of time, then they should be all over the place. I’m sure that many “troubled souls” have died on the very physical spot where my house resides, somewhere close to where I am actually sitting right now, but this particular building doesn’t (as far as I know) have a troubled history of its own, and so apparently this is why it’s not haunted. Or maybe it’s just not haunted simply because I think the idea is bogus. But that’s another problem… ghosts should not only exist while the people who are around to potentially witness their orneriness “believe” in them. If they truly exist they should make their mark regardless of location, or the presence of a building’s structure, or the belief of the people who are around (unless one would argue that the spirits can somehow sense whether or not a person is prone to believe in such things, and only suggest their own presence when this is the case). There are clearly very many logical issues associated with this idea, and this is all the space that I will devote to the argument in this particular writing.

Very similar arguments could be made of the practically countless alleged UFO sightings from all over the world. Just like other “supernatural” events, UFOs should not only present themselves to believers, or to people who are conveniently in the middle of nowhere or in some other way have no means to provide demonstrable evidence in the wake of the event. Unless the aliens are carefully choosing who to appear to, and have all of the necessary skills to make sure that no credible evidence is ever able to be provided, then there should be plenty of legitimate cases. This also assumes the government isn’t actually interfering with any such potentially legitimate case, and working to cover them up from the rest of the world that way. But this seems just as incredible as the overly-convenient lack of proof from the former explanation. People seem to be not only so eager to proclaim our government’s lack of organization and ability to work together and overall effectiveness, but simultaneously seem just as willing to believe that they could so completely cover up all demonstrable evidence of any number of extraterrestrial visitations (not to mention any other governments which would have to be in on it). I for one do not see how both of these realities could be. It could, of course, actually be the correct explanation, but… wow.

Clearly the belief—more specifically, the demonstration which would finally confirm such a belief—in the existence of aliens hinges pretty much entirely on the advancements of technology which will enable us to at last be able to detect their existence. Either that or such an alien presence would have to make their existence known to us. But again, this is not fundamentally the same as saying that some other “paranormal” entity needs only to be detected or make its presence known to us, because (again) an alien intelligence making its presence known to us would not question our understanding of the physical laws of the Universe, but only perhaps would question our understanding of the statistics we’ve applied to this event’s likelihood. We’re not asking for our basic understanding of the Universe to be shaken here, but only for a confirmation that would finally put the endless arguments to rest. We would go from thinking well it’s very, very, very unlikely that any extraterrestrial civilization is going to demonstrate their existence for us to witness to well an extraterrestrial civilization just demonstrated their existence for us to witness. And in the wake of such a monumental discovery nothing held sacred to our cherished understanding of the physical Universe needs to be drastically altered. (Well, unless they used a wormhole to get to us—that would question quite a few things, but would hopefully answer just as many!)

You can find life teeming in practically any place you might care to look, just about absolutely anywhere on this planet. Life is flourishing in the deepest depths of the oceans, in the highest reaches of the atmosphere, in puddles of radioactive waste, in volcanoes, in isolated conditions buried under perpetual ice, in harsh laboratory conditions, in practically all of the places we humans would hardly ever dream of exploring and who knows how many other places. Life has conquered just about every single niche that this lone planet has to offer, and yet we still have not uncovered any substantial evidence that life has ever existed anywhere else in the Universe. To me this idea is one of the most provoking of all in the considerations of life existing elsewhere, that you could go out into your own backyard with a spoon and scoop up a small sample of soil and find millions of organisms thriving within. But we can’t do the same thing anywhere else without getting ourselves out there. Robotic probes are a reasonable, respectable second, but with so much data exchange and mechanical processes occurring over so many thousands upon thousands of miles, efficiency and reliability suffer.

There are some dangerous areas within this idea, though. Of course the tiny microscopic organisms you would observe thriving within a spoonful of backyard soil are a huge long shot from the sorts of highly intelligent extraterrestrial beings which we most hope to discover (not that simple organisms would not be a monumental discovery in its own right), but the principle behind the idea is no less incredible—that life seems to be abundant where the conditions for life are favorable. But we also happen to live on the only known world where conditions for life (as we know them) are abundantly favorable. Mars, for example, is a vague possibility, but its atmosphere is so negligible and it’s so cold except for some fleeting periods, under certain conditions, where local temperatures can actually reach room temperature. Saturn’s moon Titan, and quite a few other moons of the gas giants are potential locations where liquid water might be sloshing around underneath icy exteriors, but we have yet to actually confirm any of them. And so the wild abundance of life on Earth is not necessarily enough of an argument for the necessary existence of life elsewhere, because we do not yet know that such conditions are even remotely likely anywhere else. Fleetingly warm temperatures are not enough, apparently, from what we can tell at this moment.

There are certain conditions which are pretty much universally accepted as being necessary to the development of life in any complexity, which include (to point out just a few major ones) the existence of liquid water, reasonable temperatures, substantial atmosphere and sufficient makeup of it, plenty of organic chemicals as building blocks and nutrients, and radiation protection. Many of these issues seem to require the presence of a given planet in its host star’s habitable zone, which is the range in which the planet would not be too close to or too far from the star to prohibit these conditions to exist. The range is rather small given the extreme distances that planets seem likely to exist in. In our own solar system, for example, both Mars and Venus are at the “edges” of the sun’s hypothetical habitable zone, although as I understand things Mars is somewhat better situated (without even considering the ridiculously harsh conditions unique to Venus). Even so, it seems to be too far away and other variables such as planetary mass, magnetic fields and geological activity also factor into the considerations and Mars has very little atmosphere, a negligible magnetic field, and little if any geological activity.

Clearly, the conditions for life to thrive (as we know them) are rather severe if the other bodies of our own solar system are any indication. The big emphasis, though, is on “as we know them” because there is, understandably, a lot to debate and ponder on how life might thrive under entirely different circumstances. And so the argument is wildly complicated and thus so is the search for potentially thriving environments.

There is an equation, developed by Frank Drake in the ‘60s, which attempts to address, logically, the likelihood of any number of extraterrestrial civilizations which presently exist. Although understandably very controversial, the equation undoubtedly stirs many interesting arguments for various possibilities and is important even if for these thoughtful reasons alone. The famous equation is:

 N = R* x fp x ne x fe x fi x fc x L


Where “N” represents the number of extraterrestrial civilizations capable of communicating, “R*” represents the average rate of star formation per year in our galaxy, “fp” represents the fraction of these stars that have developed planets, “ne” represents the average number of such planets that can potentially support life, “fl” represents the fraction of such planets that actually do develop life, “fi” represents the fraction of such planets that actually develop intelligent life (civilizations), “fc” represents the fraction of such civilizations that develop detectable signs of their existence into space, and “L” represents the length of time that such civilizations release such detectable signals (in other words, how long until they either destroy themselves or simply stop broadcasting signals). It is most definitely worth noting that all of these, except perhaps the very first variable, are entirely hypothetical. At this point it’s all guesswork. And this is why the thought-provoking nature of this idea remains the most relevant quality of all.

According to the “Drake Equation” Wikipedia article as of this writing, the most current estimates (for whatever that’s worth) are that “R*” (the rate of star formation of our galaxy per year) has a value of 7, “fp” (the fraction of such stars that have developed planets) is .5, “ne” (the average number of such planets that can potentially support life) is 2, “fl” (the fraction of such planets that actually do develop life) is .33, “fi” (the fraction of such planets that actually develop intelligent life) is .01, “fc” (the fraction of such civilizations that develop detectable signs of their existence into space) is .01, and “L” (the length of time that such civilizations release detectable signals) is 10,000 years. Based on all of these assumptions, the value of “N” (the number of extraterrestrial civilizations capable of communicating) is 2.31, which suggests that, at this point in time (or any other when these variables are still relevant), there are 2 civilizations capable of communicating their existence out into the cosmos.

Because of its controversy, there is very much debate over how reasonable these particular variables actually are, especially when considering such factors as how often life might re-arise on a planet before finally establishing “intelligence,” and how many planets might be influenced by an outside intelligence (such as seeding, a hypothesis which is not entirely overlooked for our own beginnings, or perhaps a case in which a developing civilization is visited and warned about the dangers of making itself known to all others). Such theories add quite a bit of complication to such an all-encompassing equation, but the general idea (successively calculating the rate of star formation, the rate of planetary formation, the rate of development of simple life, the rate of development of intelligent life, and the rate of the fall of intelligent life) still stands strong as a foundation for trying to predict such likelihoods. There are any numbers of other assumptions which could be made which would throw out just about any reasonably-attempted guess at most of these variables.

And so, any person attempting to assign a set of reasonable values to these parameters could potentially get anywhere within a wildly enormous range of conclusions, anywhere from (not limited to) the pessimistic view of only 0.000065 communicable civilizations to the optimistic view of 20,000 communicable civilizations. The worst case scenarios seem to suggest that we are, almost without a doubt, the ONLY intelligent beings in the Universe, while the more optimistic scenarios seem to suggest that we  are likely just one of many, many thousands (or more!) of such intelligent civilizations. You can input your own assumptions into each of these variables and, hopefully, have some interesting thought processes into why this result may or may not be the likely case when all things are considered.

Such complications lead my thoughts (as I hope they lead yours, as well) toward another very wide-encompassing argument, popularly known as the “Fermi Paradox” which is the apparent contradiction between the high probability for, and the lack of evidence of, extraterrestrial civilizations. As is made clear by the (more optimistic) various possible inputs for the Drake Equation, many combinations suggest that there should be a great many, if not only a few, other intelligent civilizations out there in the Universe. Yet we have absolutely no evidence for a single one, and so this “paradox” (more of a contradiction) seems to need explaining, for which there are many, many proposed explanations to explain this long, awkward silence that we have become so accustomed to and so apprehensive of. There are many arguments centered on this "Fermi Paradox" idea, which I hope my sharing might help to refine any reader’s own thoughts on the variables of the Drake equation just as they have my own. Some of these arguments I'd considered long and hard even before first encountering it but now have considered much longer and harder, along with plenty of fascinating and thoughtful new arguments, which include the following:


--No other civilizations have arisen.

This is obviously the most wide-ranging and optimism-halting assumption of all… because if no other civilizations have ever risen, and we are the only ones who have ever pondered our own existence and the vastness of the cosmos we are part of, then of course we are going to come up short in all of our searches, forever. There really isn’t much else to say about this argument, because it is so all-powerful and, by definition, we won’t ever actually truly know this to be the case. We will forever search, and forever come up disappointingly empty. Personally, I do not “believe” this to be the case, although observable evidence does not yet rule it out. It is simply me believing. Belief is so valuable in such a case, where hard evidence seems always just out of reach, because perseverance in our search could very well spell the difference between eventual contact and the halting of all such efforts altogether—which at times does not seem so far from happening with all the budget cuts and program cancellations. But such a belief should never get in the way if we ever do come across evidence that we truly are the only ones (if that’s even possible). Believing is only reasonable amidst such abundant uncertainty, which might very well always be the case… but there are other possibilities which could explain why this long, awkward silence is the case even if we really never find anything.


 --Few, if any, other civilizations currently exist.

This theory at least allows for the possible existence of other intelligent civilizations, although it assumes that they are so few and far between that none of them will likely ever become aware of any of the others because of the vast distances and time delays between them. Perhaps there is, at this very moment, another intelligent civilization five thousand light years away—it will take five thousand years for any possible signals to reach us. Even if, against all odds, they were at a comparable technological level with us five thousand years ago, any signals they might have emanated out into space at the time would just now be reaching us and even then we would only recognize them if they were unique enough to be recognized amidst all of the background noises of various naturally-occurring signals coming at us from all over the sky. Even in this most optimistic case—even if we did pick up such a signal, and were able to verify its celestial origin, and were overjoyed that they seem to be technologically similar to us, we would have to accept that it’s a five thousand year-old signal and very, very likely no longer represents the status of the civilization it originated from. A lot will happen in five thousand years—they might not even exist anymore, or they might be totally unrecognizable from the signal they sent out so long ago. Such a case is very likely only reasonable for contact if the civilization was close enough to us (say, a couple dozen light years at most) to still be relevant at the time of acquisition, or if they just simply hadn’t developed further and were still comparatively technological from that point in time (which does not seems likely in the slightest). But, still, any detection at all would prove the point that a civilization did exist, at the very least. Perhaps that simple knowledge is all we can reasonably hope for…


 --It is the nature of intelligent life to destroy itself.

This is perhaps the most depressing of all of the theories suggesting why we have had no observational evidence of, or contact with, an extraterrestrial civilization. Admittedly,  much of the concern over this idea stems from the Cold War days, when it was very much a legitimate fear that a couple world powers would overindulge their paranoia and set off a chain reaction of nuclear detonations which would, very likely, result in the self-extinguishing of our species. And so it’s only one small leap forward to consider the idea that other civilizations might have run into similar troubles, since by our own experience (the only case we have to evaluate) it seems that technological development goes hand-in-hand with the development of ever-more destructive weaponry, and so any such developed civilization is likely to have dealt with similar issues amongst themselves. I sincerely hope that this needs not always be the case, but of course with only one example to learn from there isn’t really any demonstrable reason to believe that any other species would necessarily act differently. But I certainly hope that another might have developed just slightly differently enough to have either never developed such savage weaponry or, at least, never have come to even the slightest provocation of even considering utilizing it. I like to hope that we humans are past this phase ourselves, and the sum of our nuclear arsenals will forever remain nothing more than deterrence from actual usage. If this is likely the same case everywhere, then so be it. Overcoming such a global trial should definitely help to instill a sense of oneness, of the vast benefits that species-wide cooperation should aspire to. At least it should help to develop the appreciations of life, and cooperation, and perhaps is just a typical stepping stone in a civilization’s evolution among itself, and in the end fosters so much more devotion to goodwill and acceptance while never actually bringing about the widespread destruction that we ourselves have feared for so long. In such a case, the fact that a civilization still survives long after its own such Cold War age will hopefully suggest that they have come to peaceful terms with themselves and are that much more ready to spread their influence out into the wild unknown where it could perhaps meet up with other such burgeoning intelligences and achieve the truly cooperative beauty that only our greatest science fiction writers have dreamed of.


 --It is the nature of intelligent life to destroy others.

This theory is somewhat similar to the previous one, although suggests the disturbing possibility that another intelligent civilization would use its technological prowess not only to develop powerful weaponry, but to use such weaponry to eliminate other “competing” civilizations (probably only after moving past the self-destructive phase touched on above). I hope that this theory can be discounted on the grounds that it’s either not relevant or, if it ever turns out to be relevant, we won’t be (or wouldn’t have been) around much longer to consider its implications. Personally I don’t like the idea of advanced, space-faring civilizations taking a liking to wiping out each other. I think they would be much more appreciative to what each other has to offer, intellectually and resource-wise, and in working together to achieve higher goals than each could aspire to individually. But this is, of course, hopeful thinking—I have no demonstrable reason to proclaim this to be true. I just like to think that civilizations which are in all likelihood vastly more advanced than we are would not concern themselves with destructive tendencies. Depressingly, the nature of civilizations to wipe each other out is not so far-flung from the nature of our own race while establishing new terrains even on our own planet, and it goes without saying that any space-faring civilization has technological powers we can still only dream of. So let’s just hope and pray that this particular argument does not actually hold any actual reality, because otherwise the wonders of the Universe are not places which are in our best interests to investigate.


--Human beings were created alone.

This is, clearly, primarily a religious point of view, for which it should not be discounted entirely—because, all things considered equal, demonstrable evidence has yet (if ever) to suggest that we were not created as “special” beings. But I like to stress, even in line with (admittedly not particularly literal) biblical considerations, we could have been created, here in our solar system with all of our uniqueness, apart from any number of other extraterrestrial beings who may even have “special conditions” themselves in which they are showered with praise and admiration of their own but have, perhaps like us, no physical means to ever communicate with another due to mere distances and/or any of these other theories. (I realize that this argument contradicts the initial premise of having been “created alone” but I’m considering “alone” as meaning that we will forever remain ignorant of any number of other created beings.) If we will never become aware of any others, what’s the difference?

But even so there is that possibility that we were created entirely alone in this vast Universe and as Carl Sagan liked to say, “Isn’t that an awful waste of space?”

But of course, turned around, the same idea could be said as something like “Isn’t that a wonderfully beautiful use of space?” Look at all of the wild imaginations and daydreams and inspirations that are brought about simply from looking up into the sky and being curious. There is a place in my heart that appreciates that all of this wonder could possibly be ours, and only ours, to appreciate. If there is a person alive who is not at least occasionally, when their eyes and their curious minds are allowed to wander, completely awestruck by the considerations of the beauty and vastness and potentials of the Universe all around us, then I would be genuinely surprised to say the least. But I really do hope, with all of the might that I wish the sheer force of my will could possibly hope to extend, that such wonder is much more widespread and able to be shared between unimaginably different civilizations—both individually and cooperatively…


--It is the nature of intelligent life to remain silent.

What if there are intelligent civilizations all over the place out there in the vast reaches of the Universe, but they just don’t broadcast their existence in any powerful way? Such a consideration is so wide-reaching in its implications because it could mean that any numbers of extraterrestrial civilizations are out there and yet we might very well never, ever be made aware of their presence. There is a potentially infinite number of reasons for such behavior, but the most reasonable to me seem to be that such communication is all but fruitless considering the ridiculous distances and time frames involved in such attempts at communication; the expensive nature of continuously trying to make such broadcasts, both in resources and time; the possibility that any given civilization knows of some danger it would bring on itself by such a broadcast (such as another civilization receiving it and invading) or just chooses to remain silent by this mere possibility alone; or perhaps because they simply don’t trust any potential recipients to return their efforts in kind. Another civilization may be reluctant for one or any combination of these reasons, and more, and so the simple lack of evidence is therefore called into question—as Carl Sagan liked to popularize, “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” Never, ever receiving a communication is not necessarily proof, indeed not even powerful evidence, that there are no intelligent civilizations out there to communicate. It may simply just mean that they are not communicating.

--They choose not to interact with us.

But perhaps our efforts so far have not proved fruitless, and our presence is indeed known to at least one other intelligent civilization (or maybe not by our own efforts, but by observations of our planet’s atmosphere, or by some other unknown method). It could very well be that these civilizations, however many there might be, are willingly choosing not to interact with us, for any number of reasons—the ones that most readily come to mind are the possibilities that they have somehow observed our lifestyles, and have deemed us unworthy of relations perhaps either because of “childishness” or outright “barbarism” on our part, or maybe because we happen to be in a period of development in which it is best not to intervene in any way, maybe either by “common sense” or by some galactic code of conduct. Perhaps we have not yet proven that we are “mature” enough not only to handle the implications of extraterrestrial communications but to handle the responsibilities of some sort of “friendship” or “collaboration” that might be desired of us. This does not seem like much of a stretch of the imagination, given the current state of the world (not to sound like the generic pessimist proclaiming that we are doing everything wrong—I do like to think that we, as a species, have many admirable traits which would actually help to impress another civilization if they were indeed observing our nature).

I can’t say I really blame them for being apprehensive, if such is the case, but I hope that, if it is, they might soon see enough “good” in us to at least realize that a simple communication, or even some helpful assistance, could be of great use to us. I believe we still yet have every reason and every chance to aspire to any level of greatness that any of these supposed extraterrestrial civilizations could respect and seek (or accept) friendly relations with. But then again I do not know their mind, and I am of course only arguing the best attempt at a logically emotion-fueled consideration of why no contact has so far been made. No single person can ever hope to speak for the entire human race, and if the actions of powers anywhere around the globe are painting us in a ghastly light then there really isn’t much hope other than the furthering collective efforts of the people who actually can make the global improvements that might deem us worthy of contact. If I could I would rise up and lead humanity out of its unnecessary internal struggles toward such a bright future, not just because it might increase our favor in the eyes of some potential extraterrestrial contact, but because it would provide us with unimaginable benefits amongst ourselves regardless.

--Communication is impossible, for technical reasons and/or due to problems of scale.

Even assuming that there is a generous collection of intelligent civilizations out there going about their entirely alien existences, the average space between them would still be astronomical—the average distance between 1,000 civilizations inside our galaxy would be 10,000 light years. In some respects, 1,000 civilizations seem so incredibly few considering the unimaginable vastness of just our own galaxy and all of the stars, and in turn all of the potential planets. But then again 1,000 civilizations like us (or quite possibly much more advanced) also seems incredibly many considering all of the arguments centered around the remarkably rare conditions for which such highly evolved life is apparently required to come about. And 10,000 years (the time it would require for speed-of-light transmissions to reach across such a distance) is a long, long time when one really considers how far we have come in the same amount of time—10,000 years ago we had nothing even remotely close to any technology that could broadcast our existence. Indeed, we have only had such technology for roughly (very roughly) 100 years. And already we are moving away from the technologies that readily broadcast their signals into space—presumably the first transmissions which would be possible for an extraterrestrial civilization to detect would be some television broadcasts in the 1930s or so, and of course all other such signals in the following years, but today most television signals are sent through cables at the surface and much, much less so through broadcast technology.

Unless yet-to-be technologies are discovered and implemented soon, much of the evidence of our existence due to freely broadcast transmissions are no longer relevant. And if we assume that another technologically advanced civilization follows anything close to our own habits, theirs will not last so long either. Of course, this argument does not include any deliberately broadcast signals, such as those that are sent out by the METI program, and so there is always some glimmer of hope. But considering all of the opposition to such an apparently expensive and time-consuming operation, such a program might not be around much longer in any wide-reaching capacity. Unless we expect such an extraterrestrial civilization to continue actively and aggressively attempting to make contact, even where we ourselves have halted much of the same attempts, then any such broadcasts are arguably very likely to be as short-lived as our own might soon turn out to have been. And 100 years, on any cosmic time frame, is not very long at all…

--It is too expensive to spread physically throughout the galaxy.

In all honesty, this one here seems to be the most realistic of all in my own mind. We have only been to the moon (as astronauts), aside from Earth orbit, and that was WILDLY expensive. Even today, with so much more knowledge and experience, the same program would still be ridiculously expensive (perhaps even more so, as I imagine the technologies and safety requirements involved would be much more aggressive). Even the best traditional chemical rockets take years upon years to get just to the outer solar system—to date, the fastest spacecraft (Earth-relative) we’ve ever sent out into space, the New Horizons mission on its way to Pluto, is going to take nine years to reach its destination, and that’s actually only a fraction of the true extent of our solar system (the Oort Cloud, the supposed “true” boundary of our solar system, is assumed to extend as far as a full light-year from the Sun). This craft, New Horizons, was left with an Earth-relative velocity of roughly 36,000 miles per hour (oh, how I wish we Americans would adopt the Metric System), although it has since slowed slightly to its current velocity of 35,000 miles per hour. This (unmanned) mission cost an estimated 650 million dollars over the life of its (as-yet-unfinished) journey, all things considered. Although not to trivialize the mission in any way (I have enormous respect for it), this is, again, an unmanned mission sent to study one faraway object (and, of course, other objects in its vicinity, such as a few moons).

It goes without saying that, with current technology and economics, any long-reaching mission (manned or not) is expensive pretty much beyond all hope of reason. Arguably, we could send such a probe, with a similar velocity, toward a faraway star that has potentially high hopes of being populated, but even accepting all costs and difficulties associated with such a few such prospects it would take years and years to even arrive there. Even New Horizons would take well over 70,000 years to reach even the nearest star (or star system), Alpha Centauri. And we don’t even have good reason to believe that this destination is even a decent choice in finding extraterrestrials.

It seems painfully obvious that unless some fundamental breakthrough in space-faring technology is discovered there will never be a realistic way to reach even our closest interstellar neighborhoods, but of course we could go ahead and send a New Horizons-like probe towards Alpha Centauri and hope for a return on our investments roughly 150,000 years from now. So it follows that some extraterrestrial civilization out there would have to have developed some ridiculously efficient method of interstellar travel to be able to come anywhere near us; either that or the idea of civilizations spreading progressively throughout the galaxy, over generation after generation, gradually increasing the area of their influence, would have to be taking place in order for them to come anywhere close to another. And maybe this really has been happening over eons. Maybe our current methods at communication attempts just aren’t effective enough to pick up any signals from such civilizations, for any of the above reasons. Maybe they’ve expanded all the way to Alpha Centauri already. Maybe they’ve been closely monitoring us for eons. Maybe they even have probes of their own carefully hidden within the asteroid belt, or in the shadows of the moon’s craters, where we’re never likely going to notice them. Maybe they’ll be upon us soon.

Or maybe there aren’t any out there.

Whatever the case, I for one will never stop imagining, letting my curious mind wander and dreaming of the day when another civilization is brought into contact with us and unimaginable secrets of life, the Universe, and everything are readily shared with us, happily provided so that we can emerge out of these tragic depths of greed and poverty and self-destruction and truly set out to make use of the vastness of the Universe as we have every reason to desire and acquire. So our resources are dwindling… every resource here on this planet is undoubtedly found on others (probably very near to us!). So there is conflict between and within all of these arbitrary boundaries we’ve established all over our planet… branching out into space, utilizing the collective efforts of (practically) all powers in order to do so, is pretty much the most significant, meaningful cooperation I can imagine. I deeply believe that such accomplishments would do so much to help unify us. And if we actually do encounter intelligence out there, or even simple microscopic life, then our existence, relevant to us, full of so many ethical and national boundaries and conflicts of interests though it might be, will be demonstrably that much more powerful. It will mean that much more to be human, to be part of a single collection of similar beings, no matter how different any two of us appear to be. In the face of a new discovery of extraterrestrial life, the two most demonstrably different people on the planet will in relation appear to be practically no different at all. If that possibility doesn’t stir the most deeply-cherished feelings of belonging and collective-worth in a person, then I don’t think they truly understand the implications… or they just literally don’t care in the slightest. But I’d prefer not to even consider the latter as a possibility, unless I’m just completely wrong about human nature… in which case I guess I’d prefer to just continue being completely wrong.

It just seems like such an awfully large amount of space for one single intelligent race to develop into. But of course such a belief doesn’t necessarily prove anything… this very well could be the case for any combination of the reasons I’ve touched on. But I really do hope that we, as our own race, unified whether or not any of us believe that to be the case in light of all of these complicated circumstances, keep on searching. This long, awkward silence will either continue forever, in which case we will become more and more sensitive to our apparently-unique position of intelligence in the Universe, or we will discover something, and whether or not we ever actually make physical contact, we will know, at long last, that we are not alone, and humanity thus has every reason to appreciate all of our traits which might prove to be unique to us still, even when existence itself is no longer.

And if contact is at long last made with another civilization and this long, awkward silence is finally broken, then who knows, maybe we could even teach them a thing or two about life, the Universe, and everything.

Posted by Unknown | at 11:06 PM | 0 comments

Mankind Belongs In Space



There was this awesome show that aired in late 2009 called Defying Gravity. In the show's opening scene the main character, Maddux Donner, reflects on his father's unpleasant opinion of space travel and of his son's involvement in it. His father sneeringly says "Space travel is a fool's game. Man is sixty percent water. They eat, sleep, defecate, can't follow directions, and explode like piñatas when exposed to the vacuum of space."  And while all of this may be true (though exposure to vacuum is not well documented, and theories run rampant), it suggests nothing of all the wonders and glories that are also involved. There is so much that mankind can bring into space, and not all of it is tangible or immediately obvious to the general public judging the practicality from their homes on the surface of Earth.

As far as we know, there is absolutely no life out there in space. By "space" I mean anything beyond the atmosphere of our lone planet, including the atmospheres of other planets (and moons, and protoplanets, and asteroids, and everything). There is nothing, no biology, no little creatures, no algae or bacteria or plant life, certainly no consciousness. As far as we know. For us, sitting here on the pedestal of our flourishing planet, evidence is everything (as it should be). Ignorance may be bliss, as we relish in the beliefs that we are truly and utterly privileged and unique, but knowledge is power, profound in its usefulness to further understand and truly demonstrate that our beliefs are in fact true, or able to be made more true. We will never ever know, fully and unquestionably, whether we truly are alone in the universe unless another intelligence makes itself known to us or we go and stumble upon it ourselves. And if this never happens, if we are never contacted and we never discover for ourselves another life form, we still won't truly know the answer, but we will be that much more positioned to glorify ourselves for our exceptional situation--because what is the difference, when all things that are demonstrably meaningful to us are considered, if we are not alone but will never have the opportunity to discover this, or are actually, truly, utterly unique in the vast expanses of the universe? In the face of any amount of accumulating lack of evidence, the answer cannot ever possibly be known. We can only ever feel more and more secure, perhaps prideful. But never certain. We can only get an answer by going out there and having the chance to find it.

What if there is, or was, life on Mars even, so near to us, scarce as it could turn out to be, which won't ever be discovered without a trained human eye having a look around? I often imagine a (fanciful, yes) scene where the astronauts step out of their landing vehicle on the surface of Mars, perhaps after touching down in one of the many vast craters. One of them walks over to the rim of the crater and begins chipping away with some hand tool or just overturning rocks right there on the surface. I can imagine them finding, as unlikely as it may be (but who knows) the fossilized remnants of life that was once active on the planet or, somehow, against all odds, something currently living. It's wild, but it's not impossible. It could be living, or had lived, right there, thriving within the sheltering rocks and sediments of the planet.

Finding actual active life would be so much more dramatic, of course. But a single fossil find would be no less in its implications. It would mean that life came about elsewhere, at some time. There are theories which present the possibility of either Earth or Mars "seeding" the other, or being "seeded" from the same outside source long ago. In this case there wouldn't necessarily have been independent spawning of life, given the same beginnings. However, the evolution over the eons would undoubtedly have taken very different paths, on such incredibly different worlds, and whatever forms of life this other turned out to be would provide extremely valuable, unprecedented knowledge--second only to truly unique, independent life forms. We would have unimaginably vast potential for insight and discovery through just one other example of life taking hold, whether it thrived or died out.

Pure scientific insight aside, the discovery would be incredible still. While there is a certain romance in the thought that life on Earth really is all there is, and that humans are the only true intelligence, the additional knowledge would be priceless and powerful. Whether the discovery would be nothing but ancient fossils, or simple microbial life, or complex life forms like our own, the full implications are certainly beyond my imagination. It is extremely difficult to imagine how one would react to something so meaningful. But I know that it would be astounding. The foundations of so many beliefs would be shaken to their cores, hopefully constructively. The world could never be the same again.

The argument that space exploration really is justifiable, but not by humans in the flesh, is certainly powerful. There are many dangers and concerns, including but not limited to those expressed by Donner's father at the opening of the series. Even if humans don't "explode like pinatas" in the vacuum of space, they certainly don't handle it well. And so many feel like remote robotic exploration is the only justifiable means by which to scout out the galactic neighborhood. This has its benefits, of course--primarily the lack of personal danger to any potential astronaut. But machines have their own unique shortcomings, for all the usefulness they may also provide.

Robots on the surface of a world, like there have been for many years, are so limited in what they can accomplish. They are limited to their design and initial programming, and perhaps whatever updates may be applied over time. They have some amount of "thinking" they are capable of, to deal with some situations they may be faced with. But they can only deal with what their designers had the foresight to allow for, and maybe some sort of limited "situation analysis." But this is all very strict, very short-sighted in the scope of all that may occur out there so many millions of miles away. They can't reason like a person, a certain remarkable glint in the corner of their vision won't catch their own attention and lead them over. Their controllers may notice an anomaly in their surroundings when they eventually receive and filter through the data transmitted back, but not the machine itself. They certainly won't have that certain feeling in their gut pointing them to what could lead to an unexpected discovery or an avoidance of disaster. They are machines, in the end, and can only act as machines no matter how much data manipulation is programmed into their design.

Even the newest machine that is being built to better explore the surface of Mars, NASA's Curiosity rover,  is not fully equipped to detect the presence of life (although it is being designed to analyze various components of the soil and atmosphere and can determine potential "habitability"). At best, as I understand things, positive results will hint at the effects of biological activity (but still a very strong indication that is has been, or even could still be, inhabited). But a human could conceivably find unquestionable evidence on the very first day of exploration. Still quite a stretch, but enormously more likely than a remotely controlled machine doing so. A human could look around, apply critical thinking, rationalize a good spot to start chipping away, and happen upon one of the greatest discoveries of all time--all without having to wait on instructions to travel the space between the two worlds, and without the bickering of engineers and operators debating on the specific actions to employ at each step of the mission. The speed of light becomes quite a burden when handling communications between people/machines many millions of miles separated.

None of this is to say that the machines are not a valuable tool in space exploration. Some jobs really are much better suited for unmanned spacecraft. Flyby photography, atmosphere analysis and surface mapping of worlds, among many others, are all probably much better suited for machines. This sort of technical thing can be very accurately, and much more cheaply, achieved without human presence and the dangers involved. I think both will always be crucial. But I think we need to think long and hard about the benefits, and the consequences, of a stronger human presence in space. There is certainly plenty of potential for humans in space that machines simply cannot provide. I think the most important of these is our consciousness, our ability to think, reason and appreciate, and to adapt spontaneously to unforeseen circumstances. Adaptation is an extremely useful thing, especially in such dangerous and inexperienced terrain.

I often hear opposition to the danger to human lives in manned spaceflight. Of course there have been various tragedies over the years, witnessed by countless people. And these people who were lost had family and friends, and of course the rest of their potential lives ahead of them. I will never mean to downplay the loss that occurred at each of these disasters. But they knew the risks they were involved with. They must have come to terms with the possibility of disaster. They must have felt that the possibilities were more worthwhile. There must be a great number of people who will always be willing to take the risk. I myself am one… I can only imagine how many others would be even more devoted if given the chance. There are risks involved in everything--some much greater than others, of course, and some much more rewarding. The rewards often outrank the risks, or else there would be no challengers so willing to give their devotions to any task.

When humanity was first designing the ships that they would sail across the seas and oceans, were they not faced with a similar predicament? From the smallest, simplest raft to the grandest cruiser there has been progress in design, construction, efficiency, and our understanding of how to master the art of them. I am sure it was not an easy road through the years. How expensive must it have been for the first large-scale ships to be designed, built, populated and set to sea? How much risk was put on each life while the skills involved were still being refined? How many ships, whether full of people or not, were met with disaster? How many people were making similar arguments of the dangers of sea travel and the uselessness of what would be found on the other side of the ocean (if anything)?

Of course caution is always a very good idea. Careful consideration should always be applied to unfamiliar terrain. But what would have happened if we had all but dropped the exploration of the oceans in the face of such concerns? Perhaps most of the planet would have still become populated, eventually, but certainly much more slowly and with much more difficulty. Wouldn't maps have been much less accurate? Our understanding of geology much more hindered and incomplete? And each civilization left largely on their own for much longer periods of time? Maybe some would even argue that this would have been better. I wholeheartedly disagree.

Just as most people would probably agree that a world without ocean travel, or air travel, is almost incomprehensible in sustaining the resources and communication and trading habits of today, so a generation of the future might find it unimaginable that space travel was once not a commonplace, fruitful endeavor. As our planet's resources and available land dwindle, the potential that off-world settlements offer seems more and more like a useful possibility. Confined here on this lone planet of all the vast reaches of space, mankind has only the limited resources and surface area provided with which to sustain itself. It might only take a single catastrophe, brought upon ourselves or delivered by the inexorable movements of the mighty celestial bodies, to wipe us and all we've ever known completely out of existence.

We bring opportunity into space. We bring hope into space. We bring consciousness into space. We bring awe, reverence, and understanding to things that would otherwise never have a set of probing eyes fall on them. Virtually every rock on every world in the solar system is being illuminated by the sun every single (relative) day, but unless we bring ourselves to them it's almost as if they don't exist. They certainly won't ever be of any significance otherwise. They just sit there, undisturbed, unobserved. The microbes that could be squirming around somewhere out there, providing us with potentially one of the most significant discoveries imaginable, won't ever make their presence known to us. We must go out there and find them ourselves. And even if we find nothing biological--not a single trace of life that ever lived outside Earth, in decades or centuries of meticulous exploration--then we will be that much more reaffirmed in the significance of our own existences. Life will be demonstrably that much more precious! It's a win-win, for us. We either find something or we don't, but either way we learn. We understand our place in the universe more deeply. We gain respect for life either because it's resilient and adaptable enough to have come about elsewhere, or because our position is so apparently unique that we have this priceless opportunity to relish for ourselves.

As Maddux Donner so beautifully says at the end of Defying Gravity's first episode, after much consideration of his father's harsh words:

"My old man is right, about every single item except the initial premise. Man(kind) belongs in space, because of exactly what he brings into the void."

Posted by Unknown | at 3:20 PM | 0 comments

Wanderings of a Curious Mind

(Originally written March 24, 2010)

Nostalgia is defined in the Merriam-Webster dictionary as "a wistful or excessively sentimental yearning for return to or of some past period or irrecoverable condition." I think it's interesting that nothing of "happiness" is mentioned, although I think in most cases it would naturally apply. I find myself, however, with this certain longing for almost any given point of my past. Of course, the best-remembered times are the ones I have most nostalgia for. Yet there are certainly time periods that I know were rather unpleasant and I long for them anyway. There must be reasons for this so that it makes sense. For instance, I know for a fact that I was unhappy during my 7th and 8th grade years. Possibly more unhappy than I've ever been, save for one other time. We moved for the third time in three years before my 7th grade year, and I was lucky to recognize one person at the school. I was horrendously shy and awkward, and at home I didn't really do much except play video games, read, and write. Thank goodness my siblings and I have always been close (save for a few brief issues). Yet when I think back to this time period there is an undeniable longing for it. Of course, a significant part of this must be for the memory of my dad, regardless of how unhappy everything else seemed. But still… I have always been able to see him since, however rarely, and I was not blind to the "problems" at home. There must be more.

The other obvious low-point I hinted at was immediately following our final move, away from Cheyenne and the wonderful friends that helped to finally peel the thick, broken shell from my insecure, timid self. I still shudder at the thought of where I'd be now if things had happened differently. And the ones most immediately responsible surely know who they are. So my family moved, and there was no sign that things would have otherwise changed in the foreseeable future. It tore me up. I was terrified of the thought that I might never make such friends again. In some ways, of course, I was right, but I managed to hold on to enough confidence to make a feeble attempt once school started here in Belton. And thankfully it did not take long at all. Otherwise I'd have been in deep trouble. The point is, I even have a certain longing for this time. This summer, the summer of 2004, whose memory I swore I'd curse for all time, I can't help but… miss. This is a pitifully feeble longing compared to the rest, mind you, but it's there.

Almost as far back as I can remember I lived in a situation which, upon reflection now, I would not be totally against somehow returning to. I do not seem to have this sense of nostalgia for my very early life, however. I have quite a few memories of the ages of three and four, and I certainly have no yearning for them back. The emotion seems to kick in around, roughly, the age of ten. I think this must be a result of the developing personality and perceptions of the world which provide a powerful, deeper sense of our views of the past, possibly even more powerful than the specific good experiences themselves.

Unless I am an anomaly, it seems we are in a sense wired for this yearning of the past. Perhaps this is due to a comfort we find in what is familiar to us. Obviously the past is familiar, simply because we remember living it. Maybe this subconsciously seems like an easier, safer life for us. Certainly at the time, especially for me during my junior high years, they were neither comfortable nor easy. But looking back today I would know exactly what to expect and, as evidenced by my life today, I made it out alright. So there is a sense of security in the past which we can't really get from the present, and especially not from the future. Is this a driving force behind this "nostalgia?"

This isn't to say that the more positively regarded past isn't responsible for nostalgia, or that it's equally responsible. It is most definitely to blame for the much more powerful nostalgic urges. I still have reminiscences of my last years in Cheyenne (2002-2004) that brings my emotional mind to its knees. Into a puddle of tears. It is by far the most extreme longing of all. I'd rip a wormhole with my bare hands in the space/time continuum right here in front of me now if I had the means to navigate myself properly through it.

I'd rather say instead, therefore, that nostalgia is "an excessively sentimental yearning for times past not necessarily because they were so great, but simply because they are gone."



---------------
The sun is about 390 times farther from the earth than the moon is, and its diameter is about 400 times as large as the moon's, and this ratio is what makes a solar eclipse possible. They appear almost the same size in the sky, and on those occasional meetings, the moon can completely block the sunlight. This beautiful occurrence (which I'd love to actually witness) is due to a pretty extreme "coincidence." If the earth were somewhat farther away from the sun, or closer to it, the ratio would be different. Similarly, if the moon were slightly larger or smaller, or closer or farther, the ratio would be different. If the sun were either smaller or larger, the ratio would be different. In any of these cases an eclipse would be much less interesting, because if the moon appeared much larger it would easily block everything, including the corona, and if the moon appeared much smaller it would only ever block a lame portion of the center of the sun. Still cool, but much less so.

This near-perfect set of coincidences boggles my mind. It could have been so many other ways. Some planets, like Venus, have no moons. Some planets, like Mars, have tiny moons which could never hope to rival the sun. But ours is large enough, and situated just right, to provide us this feast for the eyes. Of course, a coincidence (even one so mighty as this) may be just a coincidence--there's no way to tell, in this case, but I like to wonder whether this is a neat little perk incorporated into an intelligently designed Universe.



---------------
There is an interesting theory in physics called the many-worlds interpretation, which (to summarize rather simply) views reality as analogous to a many-branched tree where every possible outcome is realized. This is supposed to resolve all possible paradoxes, especially those concerning time travel, because there is supposedly an infinite number of universes--one for every possible outcome of every single event in history. So for every time you swallowed a blue pill instead of a red pill, there is an alternate universe where you actually swallowed the red pill. And every time you activate your time machine you are creating a new universe and are free to kill your grandfather without worrying about impossibilities. I guess, in a way, it just seems to come across as "too easy" a solution to all of these problems. Which doesn't prove its invalidity, sure, but to me casts serious doubt.

This theory has a major flaw, however, as I see it, simply because by definition it is utterly impossible to verify. If there is an alternate universe where I woke up this morning ten minutes later than I did in this one, when is that ever going to matter? Can it ever have any relevance whatsoever? So arguably, only if a way to tap into some kind of energy source or… something between them is ever discovered will this actually be of any significance. But it's an interesting thought, at least.



---------------
Time travel, by the way, is such a headache. When considering the grandfather's paradox (that is, traveling back in time and somehow preventing your grandfather from ever meeting your grandmother) the only logical conclusion that seems acceptable to me is that it's simply impossible to travel back in time. However, there is another theory I've come across called the Novikov self-consistency principle, which claims that "the only possible timelines are those which are entirely self-consistent, so that anything a time traveler does in the past must have been part of history all along." I imagine a peaceful scene, 100 million years in the past, with a group of dinosaurs calmly drinking from a stream. As I activate my time machine I suddenly emerge into existence in front of them, hurl a stick at the closest one, and then vanish back to my own time. I didn't change history because 100 million years ago on this single timeline I appeared out of nowhere, for whatever length of time I spent time traveling, and then vanished. Here in the present I disappeared for this same length of time, then returned. But an unchangeable past seems to deny the notion of free-will. So, again, it seems an unacceptable solution.

And the list goes on. Time travel is clearly a deeply considered idea. I've tried to look into the matter as far as I can with any easily accessible means, and while none of these theories can be undeniably disproven (or proven) at this point, they all seem pretty far-fetched from an intuitive sense.

Time travel into the future, however, (if you would call it that) clearly seems to be possible. From my understanding, time slows down relative to a quickly traveling object. As an object approaches the speed of light, its flow of time is likewise reduced. I once read this described in a very nice, simple way: we are moving through both space and time, simultaneously. But our "combined" speed through both is a sum of each, and they must keep the same ratio. So imagine a quadrant on a graph, with an x and y axis. The x axis is movement through time, and the y axis is movement through space. Anybody on Earth is traveling at, on a meaningful scale, next to no speed. So time is flowing at practically 100%. As an object (such as a spacecraft) gains velocity, it is moving faster through space and likewise slower through time. The implications of this are that if an object actually reached the speed of light, its relative flow of time would stop completely. And if this object's velocity surpassed the speed of light, its relative flow of time would reverse. The problem with this is that the energy required to accelerate an object of any mass to the speed of light is infinite, thus impossible. By any known means...

So if I stepped into a powerful spaceship and flew to the nearest star (4.2 light years away) and back, less time would have elapsed for me than for everyone else here on Earth (the precise details would depend on exactly how fast I was traveling at every point of the trip). I've come across and enjoy the term "time debt." So I may step out of the spaceship a mere one year older than when I had left, yet everyone who remained stationary here on Earth could be, say, twenty years older. But this is a wildly impractical method of "time travel" even if it is has been verified by all experiments. Very, very intriguing, though.



---------------
There are as many possibilities for the existence, location, definition, behavior, etc. of extraterrestrial life as our minds are capable of fantasizing. But there is a critical flaw in such runaway dreams. As far as has been made known to the public (choice of words to appease any Roswell "fans"), no extraterrestrial contact has ever been made. There has not even been strong evidence that any life whatsoever has ever existed outside Earth. Despite the profound disappointment this causes me, I'm glad the scientists are remaining skeptical. This is very, very important. If the claim is ever made, it needs to be beyond all doubt. Like in Independence Day.

"The apparent size and age of the universe suggest that many technologically advanced extraterrestrial civilizations ought to exist. However, this hypothesis seems inconsistent with the lack of observational evidence to support it." There is a term for this flaw in logic--the Fermi paradox.

There are many proposed reasons why this apparent fact may be true, some much more depressing (and some much more frightening) than others. There are a few that seem most reasonable to me. Any combination of these following propositions could explain the lack of extraterrestrial contact:

--No other civilizations have arisen. This is, simply, the proposal that life on Earth is utterly alone in the universe, and obviously is never going to encounter any other form of life. Very tragic, indeed.
--It is the nature of intelligent life to destroy itself. Perhaps it is an inevitable consequence of intelligent life to destroy itself either before or shortly following its rise to technological "superiority." Not an encouraging thought…
--It is the nature of intelligent life to destroy others. Yikes. We may not have had any contact with another race because, if we had, they would have obliterated us. If so, stay away, please.
--It is the nature of intelligent life to remain silent. Any civilization of significant intelligence may naturally choose not to make their presence known (perhaps to avoid some of the JERKS?). This is depressing because it means they could be around, anywhere, but this fact will never be made known. Which isn't much different to us than not existing in the first place, eh? Just come talk to us!!
--Communication is impossible due to problems of scale. What if there are any number of intelligent civilizations out there, but none of them happen to be within 200 light years from us? Or 1,000? It would take a ridiculous amount of time for any kind of communication to take place. 400 years for a round trip of light, and an unfathomable amount of time for physical travel by any conventional means. It's depressing, but at least accounts for their isolated existence. This seems to be one of the most likely scenarios to me. Everything beyond our solar system is just too far away.
--It is too expensive to spread physically throughout the galaxy. We've only been to our moon a small number of times, and it was wildly expensive (and dangerous). Unless some fundamental breakthrough occurs in the science of space travel, it doesn't seem at all likely that we'll ever have the ability to travel outside our own solar system. Our fastest spacecraft is taking 9 years to reach Pluto, and it cost like $650 million. And that was just a measuring instrument. No people to support. Going to Alpha Centauri, even by extremely generous estimates, would take 20,000 years and a godforsaken amount of money to implement. This is the other scenario that seems most reasonable to me. It may just be too difficult. Ugh. The disappointment this brings is not lessened by the thought that this means that, not only is it inconceivable, but it probably never will be any other way.

But I will never stop hoping and dreaming of the day we finally find something, or are found. Let's just hope any extraterrestrials advanced enough to contact us are fully capable of accepting our coexistence and are much further along in their "moral evolution" than we humans seem to be.

Posted by Unknown | at 12:51 AM | 0 comments

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)