I wonder if the Congressman would comment on what I see as a fallacy in this oft-repeated refrain by many on Capital Hill, that cutting defense is somehow the moral equivalent of betraying the troops… If all of that defense money (more than the rest of the world combined, and somewhere short of 10 times as much as the nearest competitor, China) is really going to the troops, then why do we have homeless veterans, Mr. Congressman? Why are there veterans who can’t find jobs or get medical and psychological care?

Because that money is not going to the troops. It is going to defense contractors, among the largest and richest corporations in the world, and ones who have both parties of our government by the balls. They are entities with a vested financial interest in perpetual war, and have enormous lobbying power. It would appear that the Congressman is suggesting that, if defense expenditures were to be cut (say, to a modest, barebones 4-5 times the nearest world competitor), that not only would we continue to have homeless and jobless veterans, but that their pay and benefits while in service might be cut, or we might have to conscript from the general populace, instead of slashing it from our outlays to these massive corporations.

Who is really betraying the troops?

This has led to much protest, especially from the more operationally-focused NASA centers such as Kennedy Space Center and Johnson Space Center, with whom I certainly sympathize. The most ardent of human space flight proponents have gone so far as to claim that American dominance in space has ended, and that NASA has lost its primary purpose. Why, they ask, are we not driving full steam ahead to establish permanent human bases on the moon?

The desire is, in summary, that human space flight should be a goal in and of itself, and that the agency’s purpose is to technically implement this goal. In this respect, the President is often negatively compared to President Kennedy, who, as we all fondly remember, set a very clear goal and deadline for landing on the moon. If Kennedy could set such a clear goal and fund NASA appropriately, the result of which was clearly a boost for American image and technological advancement, then why should the current President do any differently?

I propose that this perspective is… not wrong, but limited.

Let this sink in: NASA is not a technical agency. It is, fundamentally, a political agency that happens to use technical people… and always has been.

The goal of the Apollo program was not “land on the moon by the end of this de-cayde”, despite that phrase being the one central to Kennedy’s famous speech. The moon landing wasn’t actually the ultimate point; the goal was really “beat the Russians by whatever means necessary”. Though an incredible amount of technical advancement resulted directly and indirectly from the fact that we went to the moon, it was only a means to a political end.

NASA was and is but one piece in a very complicated game the U.S. Government is always playing.

One could say the same about the International Space Station… post-cold-war, the political goal is unifying a fragmented world of emerging powers that was no longer polarized between USA-USSR. NASA heeded the call and banded together with 15 other nations, some of which were not necessarily friendly to the United States, on the collaborative challenge of what was possibly the most complex construction job in the history of our species. The kind of diplomacy and bridge building is something the State Department can’t even get close to. It certainly is nice that the world gets it for research now, and I do hope that we get as much research out of it as practical, but… that wasn’t the point.

“Establish a permanent human presence on the moon” is not a political goal. It’s a technical one. Something like “beat the Russians” IS a political goal, out of which “land humans on the moon” merely follows. What is the political reason to establish a permanent human presence on the moon or Mars? While I personally agree that it’s a good idea, I think it would be difficult to make a serious political case for why the American public or U.S. government should care enough to justify the cost in the present environment. They cared a lot about beating the Russians… by whatever means. I see no such strong, passionate political or social motivation for… well, anything these days really. Do people really care anymore? If not, should they? If they should but don’t, how do we address that?

Saying “the public should believe in human space flight” or “the administration needs to value the space program” are empty statements, and dangerously insular. Instead, I believe our energy would be better spent to 1. frame human space exploration (e.g., “land on the moon first”) in terms of a broad national goal that does not actually explicitly require it (e.g. “beat the Russians”), and then 2. make the case for why human space exploration is the best means to that end.

I think the majority of us are trying to do (2) before we do (1). That is, we are saying that human space exploration should be a goal in and of itself, starting from that as a given. That would work on me pretty easily; but for the majority of government and society, that is really not the case. Landing on the moon was but one tool in the box for a much much broader political goal that doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with human space exploration… we beat the Russians through all sorts of things, using all kinds of different methods, agencies, departments, ideas, etc.

Can we do that with starting a manned program for Mars now? I feel like most space advocates are saying “hey, we have a great solution here!”, a manned program which is good enough for us as a goal in and of itself, but without identifying clearly to those who need to know why anyone else should really care or what political problem it would be most effective at solving.

Because that’s why NASA actually exists. As an executive agency, its purpose is to implement the policy (all of it… national security, environment, energy, education, diplomacy, etc) of the President of the United States. Civilian air and space assets are simply the means by which it is authorized to do so… they are not the objective themselves.

Hypothetical example, for illustrative purposes (not advocacy).

Political goal: “Energy security and climate change demand that we research and develop alternative means of generating and transmitting energy in a clean, sustainable, and secure manner.”

Technical implementation: “Therefore NASA is directed to develop an orbital solar power station of X gigawatts generation capacity, associated delivery of energy to the ground (via beaming, space elevator cable or what have you), and all associated construction, supply, operational, and logistical considerations. NASA will work with the USAF to design and implement the most appropriate means of securing this national asset from foreign attack or influence, while maintaining its essentially civil nature.”

Note that the political component is totally independent of air and space. An air and space solution is proposed that addresses a much broader political problem, for which many possible solutions may be available.

Now… in those terms: Why establish a permanent human presence on the moon or Mars? Why continue independent government access to the ISS (whose initial primary purpose was to partner with emerging nations on a challenging project in a post-Soviet world, not to do research)? Why send humans to explore the solar system when robots are much more cost effective?

Let me re-emphasize: I love all of these things. I simply think we as a space advocate community are neglecting to put them into the one framework that will actually make them practical: political. The strong contempt that we nerds feel towards the political should not blind us to the real meaning behind the oft-quoted phrase: “No bucks, no Buck Rogers.”

If we can’t put it in those terms, it won’t happen, and that’s the hard truth as I see it.

Modern technology (such as, among many others, this blog) has given the power of mass communication to pretty much anyone with an internet connection. While the benefits to this are many (consider the social impact of human rights organizations in Iran or China, as just one example), it also means that anyone looking for bonafide content is going to have to wade through a whole lot of crap, generated by people that any responsible content editor probably would have laughed at or outright slapped just a couple of decades ago.

Not only does the average person not have the time to sift through and verify every source in the new information economy, but the profusion of user generated content has led to an expectation that information should be free. The consequences of the first condition are that, indeed, perhaps on the whole our collective intelligence is dropping due to an almost necessary trust in unverified and unvetted sources (such as this one). Of the second condition, the consequences could be far direr.

From the perspective of the Creator of Genuine Content, be it an artist, journalist, writer, or purveyor of a particular geek culture, the modern world comes with three very nasty problems: 1) How does one reach the end user with a genuine product through the sea of commercialized crap and punditry? 2) How does one convince the layman end user, once reached, that the genuine content in question is actually preferable to the probably more entertaining crap and punditry? And finally, 3) How does one make any sort of living doing so, when the sea of crap is most likely free, promoting a product, or invisibly paid for in what was once private information?

In making small talk once with a  journalist/photographer from a local paper, while waiting on an interview with my theatre company, I asked how that particular individual had ended up at that particular news organization. “I went to journalism school,” he replied dryly, and added, “which was of course a waste of time, because I obviously should have been busy creating an extreme personality and pissing people off instead. Would have been better for my career.” I laughed at the sarcasm, but the point was soundly taken.  Where does the professional fit into the future of professional content? Recent efforts by certain online news sources to make users pay for content have largely just created annoyed users. Is the future of content to pay for everything indirectly through subconscious marketing and the data mining of private information?

As an amateur photographer, I know how hard it is to sell prints when anyone can get a stock image or graphical representation of basically anything for cheap or free on the web. When the relatively low cost of a modern SLR means that any middle class gadget nut can own semi-pro equipment without so much as cracking open a basic introduction to photographic technique, one would think the differences in artistic and creative talent would become more and more important as a differentiator. But when the masses don’t know how to appreciate the art, and moreover can’t be bothered to learn, the differences between amateur and pro are blurred. And if society slowly ceases to care about the difference, does that make the knowledge irrelevant?  Does it confine the “genuine” art to an isolated, individual experience?

As a theatre producer, I know how hard it is to convince the public to spend a few of their arts and entertainment dollars on the experimental stage, when modern movies (and, actually, many modern musicals) provide sensory overload and instantly understandable sequences of events which pass for plotlines. Film and television, while capable of striking visual effect and profound emotional impact, are in the general case providing a passive experience. Theatre is active, and requires thought and study in the moment of perception; therefore theatre, in general, requires more work from its audiences than the screen. And so it is often cast aside as boring by a new generation hungry for instantaneous gratification — for entertainment, in other words, not art. How will theatre, and the belief that art should make a people seriously think about themselves, survive in a world that seems loath to even have a voice conversation anymore?

Artistic talent and creative intellect are not dead.  In fact, they may be thriving underground during times such as these, when large current of social change are moving and conflicts rage both militarily and culturally.  But we live in an age where the purveyors of such content must actively find new ways of reaching society with what they produce, and doing so in a manner that is sustainable with respect to their ability to continue producing. And above all, they must stay relevant and engaging; or the Idiocracy we fear will indeed be closer than we think.

Back to the shirt – thousands of years ago people hunted not with bows, arrows, spears, or any other implement, but by running down animals until they collapsed from exhaustion. This is reflected all over the human body: legs that act as springs to recover energy from each stride, posterior muscles that eliminate the need for a tail to maintain balance, and crucially: sweat glands that allow efficient heat rejection for long periods of time. Running truly is in our genome and while not the fastest of creatures, man is truly the king of endurance. This ancient need for running is reflected in modern times by widespread recreational running.

Taking a larger view, there is far more in our current society influenced by our prehistoric past than an affinity for destroying our knees. The early need to understand our surroundings has exploded into the manifold fields of science and philosophy, while the advantage in mastering our surroundings has blossomed into engineering. The picture isn’t all rosy though, mankind as we know it evolved in a set of circumstances very different than those today and we are left coping with a society we made for ourselves, but for which we are not made. This is particularly evident in the changing social connections we have. Where we evolved in a time of small tightly-knit groups our connections have exploded in the past hundred years (my writing here a prime example), a social change that biology simply can’t keep up with.

I’ll leave it there for now, lest I write about too many topics at once (plus I need to do some more research), but I’ll try to periodically update my ramblings on how early human history shapes and challenges us today.

Hmm, there appears to have been a mix of some actual science and philosophical musings here, so I’ll attempt some references for the science…

-Running: Here’s an article about human adaptations for running, I know I’ve run across a more technical paper about it, but don’t recall where.

-Some thoughts on the limitations of human evolution were conjured up after reading some of John Hawks’ writings on trends in human evolution (he’s a paleoanthropologist at UW Madison), getting from that article to some thoughts here is a couple of jumps which I’ll probably devote a post to later.

But the point is it got me thinking.  What follows is probably a very Nalin-esque ramble. Sorry, my mind wanders and I just sort of woke up and started writing this. So it’s probably not the most organized thing you’ve read.  But anyway, so I was thinking.

About not just the loss of true Otaku/Nerditude, but the apparent loss of our willpower as a society to do anything creative that requires effort. Maybe it’s just the depressing economic times, or that we still haven’t emerged from the pain and confusion of the last decade… the twenty-oughts felt like a giant hangover from the party that was the nineteen-nineties.

And now that the headache is starting to fade and we’ve collectively had the first metaphorical cup of joe of the morning of the new millenium, I think Americans are starting to look around and notice that we aren’t who we were. Not by a long shot. Thing always change of course, but I think that in many ways we have, as a nation, somehow let our fields of opportunity run fallow.  We don’t create. We just import. And consume.

The central point of the string of articles to which I initially referred (in my interpretation) is that, with respect to science fiction and fantasy, what comes out as new is really just rehacking and repackaging of what a few greats of yore already did. I don’t think this is pervasively true, but the extent to which it is becoming true seems to be increasing.

But there’s a broader issue at stake. What the Otaku articles discuss is a symptom of a much more pervasive disease: creative apathy. Not just in science fiction, but in our society in general.

I don’t like ridiculously long blog posts, so I am going to leave it here for now. Consider this an introduction. Stay tuned for the next in the series… addressing creative apathy in education.