Deprogramming

"This book [Atlas Shrugged] should not be thrown away lightly. It should be thrown with great force!" --Dorothy Parker

The first time I'd heard the word "deprogramming" was probably in connection with Korean war veterans who had to be treated for the brainwashing they'd received at the hands of their communist prison guards. The movie The Manchurian Candidate later made use of this background to produce a political thriller.

Since Korea, of course, there have been other variations of brainwashing, from college fraternities to religious cults to even cults of philosophers. And it is here that I come to the title of this article. From the time I was 25 or so, I have been "under the influence," perhaps literally, of Ayn Rand's Objectivism. Here are some things I should say up front, lest Rand fans start bombarding me with hate mail. I am not saying that people who follow the works of Rand are cultists (though some writers have). I am speaking here of my own personal reactions to Rand's philosophy and my gradual backing away from the bulk of it.

Rand is a believer in radical individualism, every man an Atlas, capable of carrying the world on his shoulders. As such, she held with the notion that the individual and his (or her) free intellect should form the basis of a philosophy of rational self interest. She believed very strongly in capitalism, freedom, and the right of the individual to think for himself. I'm not arguing with any of those in theory. The problem was Rand's practice, as depicted in her fiction and nonfiction.

Let's start with the first thing that rubbed me the wrong way about Rand: she had no sense of humor. She had no appreciation of folly or error as the eventual sources of inspiration, salvation, or creativity. For her, the only way to achievement was through strict hard work and direct logic. Heaven help the man (in Rand's view) who admitted to being wrong in his convictions or laughed at himself for any sort of error. Achievement was a serious business, and there's no room for the weak in that mix. If you're a questioning, doubting sort of guy like I am, that can be a little hard to take. And if you read any of Rand's books, it becomes quite clear that she didn't laugh much herself. Certainly her characters don't. Some might call that a lack of warmth. I did.

A second issue I had with Rand was her radical atheism, which I absorbed for a period and quickly found myself becoming as personally unpleasant as some of the people who tried to force their particular religion down my throat. And yes, I've had a few experiences since then that have brought me back to God and religion.

But the most pernicious aspect of Rand is her misunderstanding and mistrust of any form of altruism...doing for others. Even in personal relationships, Rand believed that a husband sacrificing for his wife or a mother doing for her children was not a sacrifice if those individuals' welfare were in the selfish interest of the actor. The notion of doing unto others or for one's partner to make them happy or for their good seems to have eluded her, not just as an essential good, but as an essential part of being human. With that willingness to do good comes empathy, something that makes other people's concerns of interest to you, even if you have no vested interest in their personal success. In the end, though, if you only stay in a relationship for what good YOU get out of it, you're missing half the joy and purpose of that relationship. I am learning, as I get older and more engaged with others that my relationships with people ultimately matter more than what I "get" out of those relationships, at least in the selfish terms Rand would use to define gain.

In the end, Rand's philosophy is just another dead-end attempt to put man and man's selfish interests at the center of all things, when history has proven time and again that unless individuals are answering to each other, a Higher Power, or both, they are likely to fall into a pit where might makes right, the strong survive, the needs of the weak are cast aside, and the core of what makes us human--the family--suffers.

Ending Life on Your Time or God’s

Yesterday a hard day for Dr. OZMG and her family. Her 80+ year-old grandfather has been in the hospital, staying alive basically on life support. There was little change in his condition after they put him on the machines, and they turned off the respirator per the man's living will. He passed away before I could post this. Dr. OZMG and I are wont to discuss philosophical topics, and the subject of living wills came up—individuals’ wishes to have (or not have) extreme measures taken to save their lives in the event of Bad Things happening. This is one of those issues that is bound to cause me trouble, either because I disagree with my church or because I don’t fully understand how the church places one value above another. However, I’m willing to dive in because I consider the matter important enough to wrestle with here, not just among friends.

Life is our most precious gift from God. Throughout history we have dedicated considerable effort, thought, and technology to doing all that we can to preserve it. We even have incredibly vicious arguments over when life begins and what constitutes reasonable boundaries for preserving it. Keeping ourselves or our loved ones alive “at all costs” is an easy answer, but sometimes doesn’t match the painful realities. We don’t think twice about treating minor or even major illnesses. We get limbs fixed, wounds healed, and damaged or diseased organs removed. We get surgery done, take noxious chemicals, and get ourselves irradiated to reduce this or that malignancy. No one considers these efforts at treatment violations of God’s will.

But then there are the really Bad Things that come along: aggressive cancer, incapacity, coma, and other circumstances where we or our loved ones are either in excruciating pain or unlikely to wake up. Our love for life and our desire to preserve it can come into conflict with our compassion for the one we see suffering. Mind you, I’m partial to extraordinary measures: “If A doesn’t work, try B. If B doesn’t work, try C, D, or E. If E doesn’t work, try something really wild.” But eventually there comes a point where the limits of human knowledge are reached, and nothing further in the medical bag of tricks will work. Then what? Then you face the ugly probability of watching someone you love slowly die, either in unconsciousness or agony.

I am not a fan of Jack Kevorkian. That man was and is more interested in killing patients than looking for alternatives to improve the lives they have. I am not an advocate of euthanizing anyone with a merely inconvenient ailment or condition. I love life and wish for it to continue in as many ways as possible. I am just wondering, point-blank, which value is supposed to take priority when our medical sciences have reached their limit: protecting life or preventing suffering? And if it’s not “playing God” to do everything possible to keep someone alive, why is it playing “playing God” to stop trying and to resign oneself to the inevitable once that point is reached?

There’s a great line from a Star Trek book of all things that addressed this very issue. A very old man was suffering from a blastoma that was killing him and he stopped the treatments he was getting because they made him feel even worse. He explained to a young Lieutenant Sulu, “I’m not afraid of dying, son. I’m afraid of dying badly.”

No doubt someone will argue that my reasoning here leads to a slippery slope; and that while extreme measures and circumstances might call for compassionate release, it’s too easy (as in the case of Terry Schiavo) to just pull the plug on someone whom we don’t want to care for anymore because it’s too inconvenient, expensive, difficult, or painful. But really: when it’s your loved one suffering there in pain or a vegetative state, what the heck would YOU do? When prayer and hope and medicine have all reached their limits, what do you do next? I don’t know. God willing, I’ll never have to find out.

Latest from the United States of the Offended

So apparently someone has gotten it into their heads to try to remove "In God We Trust" from the U.S. dollar. Enough already! God has already been removed from our schools, public squares, and public events. Here's the full story from MSNBC. It's worth quoting in full because of the sheer brazenness of it all:

Atheist challenges ‘In God We Trust’

SAN FRANCISCO - An atheist who has spent four years trying to ban the Pledge of Allegiance from being recited in public schools is now challenging the motto printed on U.S. currency because it refers to God.

Michael Newdow seeks to remove “In God We Trust” from U.S. coins and dollar bills, claiming in a federal lawsuit filed Thursday that the motto is an unconstitutional endorsement of religion.
Newdow, a Sacramento doctor and lawyer, used a similar argument when he challenged the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools because it contains the words “under God.”

He took his pledge fight to the U.S. Supreme Court, which in 2004 said he lacked standing to bring the case because he did not have custody of the daughter he sued on behalf of.

An identical lawsuit later brought by Newdow on behalf of parents with children in three Sacramento-area school districts is pending with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, after a Sacramento federal judge sided with Newdow in September. The judge stayed enforcement of the decision pending appeal, which is expected to reach the Supreme Court.

Congress first authorized a reference to God on a two-cent piece in 1864. The action followed a request by the director of the U.S. Mint, who wrote there should be a “distinct and unequivocal national recognition of the divine sovereignty” on the nation’s coins.

In 1955, the year after Congress inserted the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance, Congress required all currency to carry the motto “In God We Trust.”

It is interesting that the guy making the complaint has made similar complaints before, and been rejected summarily by the Supreme Court.

Let's start with something basic here, like the actual Constitution, not the court-ruling-based interpretations of it:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Now, does adding "In God we trust" to our currency establish a state church? No. Despite the 5-10% of the population that is actually atheist or the larger percentage of people who just act that way, this is still a nation that believes in God. In God We Trust is more or less a statement of fact. For example, the statement was added to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1955, at the height of the Cold War, to distinguish this nation from the freedom-suppressing, communist Soviet Union, which did have a state religion, with that religion being worship of the state. Worship of God and public expressions thereof were suppressed, often violently.

This bears thinking about: if you don't believe in God, who or what is the strongest "power" left on Earth? It's ungoverned human beings with guns, knives, and fists. A nation that acknowledges no higher power eventually is ruled by those with the greatest will to power. A nation acknowledging a higher power than Man understands that it, too, must eventually answer for whatever crimes it commits in the hereafter, and limits its ambitions accordingly.

Now I've occasionally gotten into arguments with people who tell me that fundamentalist Christians want to turn this country into a theocracy, and therefore all Christians are suspect. First of all, this is not the actual state of things, though a few preachers here and there might think of it. They mostly protest, as I do, the diminishment of God and faith in the public square and desire a stronger role of faith among elected officials.

Second, the use of Church-imposed discipline on the state is part of a Calvinist inheritance in the Baptist movement that was not embraced by all forms of Protestant religion. John Calvin, the French Protestant reformer, set up a humorless and harsh theocracy in the city of Geneva in the 1500s. A similar arrangement existed among the New England Puritans. Both systems eventually died out, but the notion of using human (secular) law to impose Christian discipline (sectarian law) is not a doctrine supported by other mainstream Protestant denominations today, such as Lutheranism, Methodism, or Anglicanism (or, I believe, Catholicism).

What Lutherans believe is that saving souls is a job for the Church, not the state, and that faith should be achieved through persuasion and free, independent choice, not the sword. That would be a sin. Salvation should be the goal of the individual, not the enforced conversion of the masses to one denomination or the other through state power. So if anyone preaches a separation between church and state, it's the Christian Church, not the Constitution. It is a painful lesson Christians had to learn over the course of 500 years of European history, but most of us did learn it. But this does not mean we seek to end the role of religion or God in the workings of the United States of America. It does mean changing how we as individuals think about our relationship to God and the state...and not a moment too soon.

Miscellaneous Thoughts

I'm fascinated and occasionally horrified when liberal friends ask why a "smart guy" like me is a Republican/conservative/libertarian. The assumption behind the question is rude on its face; might as well just come out and say it: "Only stupid people are Republicans, so why are you joining them?"

Well, I happen to believe this position is wrong, but I've let the insult(s) slide, for the most part. I do, after all, have a life to lead and don't feel like arguing all the time. I save that for the blog because I write better than I speak. But the opinions and attitudes that lead me to vote to the right of John McCain probably deserve an explanation or two. I'll try now.

I am a libertarian on economic issues because I believe that the private sector is more fair and less coercive than government "transactions." The only coercion that occurs in the private sector is if you're borrowing money from the mob. Texaco, Burger King, Apple, Barnes & Noble, Publix, Microsoft, Dell, and the local book or trinket shops do not receive my business because they threaten me. If I stop buying from them and go to another provider of the same services, that's a result of my individual choice or competition. The original vendors are welcome to try things--sales, discounts, new products or services--to try to win my business back, and they might succeed. But I don't worry that representatives of any of those companies are going to come to my house or serve me with an arrest order if I stop paying for their services. I have no such choice with government. I must pay my taxes or I will be audited and sent to jail. The sheer difference in power should make this position self-evident, but some folks still rail against "the power of Big Business." Well, "Big Business" is about to get bought out, wholesale, by the government. Now you've got a reason to worry. What do you suppose will happen somewhere down the line if you don't purchase cars from GM or banking services from Goldman Sachs? And unlike free-market businesses, which must control costs to make a profit, government is under no such constraints. How efficient will the new quasi-government entities be? Or a nationalized healthcare system? Or some new carbon-credit monitoring agency? We will soon find out, I'm afraid.

I am a conservative on social issues because I don't particularly like drug use, child exploitation, pornography, or abortion-at-convenience. Such things come from my attending church on a regular basis and my respect for women and mothers in general. I don't want tougher laws on any of these things, just consistent and rational enforcement of the laws currently on the books. I might even go so far as to suggest that the states, not the federal government, deal with such things. That might be a little radical, but what the heck, a guy can dream.

I am somewhere else on foreign policy compared to many of my conservative peers. I don't see the need to force our way of life on others. I don't think we need to be the world's policeman. I believe we have a right to defend ourselves if attacked. I believe we can and should pursue activities that benefit the direct, vital interests of the country. I don't believe we should lower our standards of conduct to the average tyrants in the United Nations, nor do I believe we do ourselves credit by aping the social policies of our European allies.

In general, my approach to domestic and foreign policy is rather simplistic, but it follows from my own personal behavior: if you don't get into my business, I won't get into yours. Privacy matters to me, as does hands-off leadership. I don't like micromanaging others and I don't enjoy others micromanaging me. I would like to think that everyone would think that way, but I would be wrong. Some folks sincerely believe that unless certain people are "in charge," the rest of society will go to heck in a handcart. This overestimates the abilities and virtues of certain people and underestimates the abilities and virtues of those they mean to rule. However, we appear to have given up on self-government--both of ourselves and of our nation--so perhaps I expect too much.

Again, some of this attitude comes from my upbringing in the church (Lutheran, for the record), where premiums are placed on honesty, respect for life, personal charity, obedience to the laws (civil and spiritual), and self-restraint. If most of my fellow citizens and I are doing all of those things, there is less need for intrusive government. If I wasn't getting a steady diet of these behaviors, perhaps I might require an iron fisted government above me to tell me what to do. But then who would restrain the government? What higher power would they answer to?

The view of a conservative is one of a "fallen" humanity--one that sees human nature as essentially unchanged throughout history. The Bible still has resonance today precisely because human nature hasn't changed: violence, lust, shady dealing, power-seeking, lack of self control--they're all there. And yet religion persists as well because it offers human beings an ideal, a way off the wheel of history, which cycles through good and bad periods. Am I blind to the evils done in the name of religion? Hardly. But the wars against human sin are still to be fought at the individual level, by changing hearts and minds, not forcing them at the point of a sword or a gun. What has been true in the past and is occasionally true in the present need not continue in the future.

Religion offers me a hope for a better future, and standards by which to make that hope come about. However, it does not assume that human beings will ever be "perfectable," through brainwashing, tinkering with our DNA, technological additions to the flesh, or any other radical alterations. Human nature is what it is, and therefore radical experiments in government control (or largesse), behavior modification, or childhood education are to be approached with the utmost caution. One way or another, we'll all have to answer for the wrongs we've done, regardless of what justification we use.

There you go: now you know.

Potpourri LXXIX

Cirque du Soleil's founder is looking forward to his trip to the International Space Station. It would be interesting to see if, after returning from his trip, he decides to create a space-themed show.

From Lin:

• The pernicious effects of "instant wealth" through history.
• Farmers in India are reviving an old fertility custom to increase the chances for rain.
• A new word, which I love: "presstitutes," i.e. members of the media willing to sell themselves in support of the Obama Administration.
• Additional links regarding healthcare:
  http://www.foxnews.com/video2/video08.html?maven_referralObject=7164033&maven_referralPlaylistId=&sRevUrl=http://www.foxnews.com/huckabee/index.html
  http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/07/24/uninsured-a-look-at-the-fifty-million/
  http://www.foxnews.com/video2/video08.html?maven_referralObject=7164074&maven_referralPlaylistId=&sRevUrl=http://www.foxnews.com/huckabee/index.html
  http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=16755&R=162641932E
• Also, an editorial on progressive taxation. This offers food for thought: it might make sense in the short term to "tax the heck out of the rich" to pay for government programs now, but what if you tax these folks so much that they no longer ARE rich? Where do you get the money then? There's a certain magical thinking involved with progressive taxation, and it amounts to the belief that the rich will always be there to soak and that they'll always continue to do the things that make them rich. However, if you keep taxing them, they won't be as rich, or they might leave the country, or they might cease to work as hard because the effort isn't worth the payoff anymore. Food for thought as we continue to mortgage our future. I highly recommend Thomas Sowell's Basic Economics, which I'm a little bit more than halfway through--it teaches the reader a lot about the repercussions of using political "solutions" to fix economic problems.
• Michio Kaku talked on FoxNews about Mars missions.

From Cliff, a music video on Glenn Beck's show featuring some clips of political figures.

From the Down Under Defense Expert (DUDE):

• Government and climate change.
• White Knight Two to fly at the Oshkosh Air Venture.

From my NASA PAO feed, a story about an Earth science program being run out of Edwards AFB.

Buzz Aldrin stated that there's a monolith on Phobos. Saaaaayyyyy what?

Keith Cowing is playing nice with the new NASA Administrator...so far. All it will take is for Gen. Bolden to make one decision Keith doesn't like, and the seal clubbing will begin.

New from Hu: Fans of Starship Troopers will appreciate this. Special Forces troops are getting "Land Warrior" high-tech battle gear.

This editorial irritated me because the writer presumes to take the voice of reason on the space program, but she gets several things wrongs and mischaracterizes other aspects of space. Frustrating.

From Rich: a great speech about asking the right questions, about religion and its role in democracy and capitalism, and about scouting. Yes, all of these things are related.

And lastly, from Dan the PAO Man, some thoughts by T. S. Eliot...written before the Internet:

Opening Stanza from Choruses from "The Rock"

The Eagle soars in the summit of Heaven,
The Hunter with his dogs pursues his circuit.

O perpetual revolution of configured stars,

O perpetual recurrence of determined seasons,

O world of spring and autumn, birth and dying

The endless cycle of idea and action,
Endless invention, endless experiment,
Brings knowledge of motion, but not of stillness;
Knowledge of speech, but not of silence;
Knowledge of words, and ignorance of the Word.
All our knowledge brings us nearer to our ignorance,
All our ignorance brings us nearer to death,
But nearness to death no nearer to GOD.
Where is the Life we have lost in living?
Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge?
Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?
The cycles of Heaven in twenty centuries
Bring us farther from GOD and nearer to the Dust.

Humanity is Too Screwed Up to Inflict on the Rest of the Solar System

The first time I heard this argument, I was working at Disney, and I was utterly at a loss about how to respond. I'm still dumbfounded at the attitude, but then I'm also dumbfounded at people who think the United States was the worst nation in the history of the world, too. "For gosh sakes," I want to say, "If you hate life/America that much, leave it!"

More politely, I would say that I strongly disagree.

The source of this argument takes several forms:

• We've screwed up the Earth, so we'll only do the same to the Moon/Mars, etc. Have we polluted? Yes. But thanks in part to our own space program, the environmental movement got one of the best PR images ever: Earthrise over the limb of the Moon. Would the movement have gotten that big of a boost if Apollo 8 hadn't photographed that image? I leave that as an exercise for the reader. However, one can hardly argue with the political and environmental progress that the movement has had in the last 40 years. The Cuyahoga River no longer burns. You can fish in Lake Erie. I've even been told you can see Pittsburgh now and Los Angeles occasionally. Lead is gone from paint and gasoline. Cars are improving in efficiency and chemical emissions. We rail on about carbon dioxide as a pollutant, forgetting the sulfur dioxides and other nasty black stuff that used to come out of car tailpipes. We have safer nuclear reactors and smokestack scrubbers on coal-fired power plants. Are we perfect? Hardly. And China and India are not yet rich enough to afford the pollution-control technologies that we now take for granted and continue to improve. I cannot speak to the never-satisfied ethos of the environmental movement, but I cannot deny the improvements they've made in our world.
• Our culture is too screwed up to be allowed to expand. Take your perspective on this one--religious, intellectual, cultural, behavioral, social--and you can find plenty of reasons why particular activities we wouldn't want to see expand into space. But how much of that is the result of bad choices by individuals and how much of it is "the culture" as a whole? A culture is made up of individuals, with intelligences and abilities ranging up and down the Bell Curve. We have Stephen Hawking and Beverly Sills on one end, and the Octomom and Darwin Award winners on the other. Some of reader Allen's comments frankly disturbed me, but also made me think. Yes, there are people doing stupid things with their lives.
  
  When Columbus and Magellan sailed from Spain in the late 15th and early 16th centuries, the Roman Catholic Church was conducting the Inquisition while Isabella and Ferdinand were hounding Jews out of the country. Similar villainy could be found in Elizabethan England, which had its own festering religious quarrels but was also enjoying the plays of William Shakespeare. The difference between then and now is that there are more human beings in the world today and the tools of civilization, both benign and dangerous, are more widespread. So this means we need better education, better laws, better (idjitproof) technologies, or better people. I'd opt for the first three before screwing around with trying to make people "better." There are too many value judgments involved there.
• Capitalism will destroy other worlds like it's destroyed this one. I could say similar things about communism, and with greater cause. Consider Stalin's purges, Hitler's evil, or the bloodletting of China's Cultural Revolution or Cambodia's Khmer Rouge. All of these societies killed millions of their own people all in the name of some state-sanctioned idea of perfection. Anyone fighting those visions or even questioning them faced show trials, midnight knocks on the door, gulags, or much, much worse. And returning to the first point, environmental regulations and conditions are much worse in the former Soviet Union than the U.S. I'm sure someone will throw some other statistics at me showing all the evil capitalism has done. However, I would like to also offer, in comparison to the evil done by other contemporary social systems, what good capitalism has done. Through mass production and industrial technology, it has brought down the prices of thousands of goods that once belonged only to the very rich or royalty. It has brought about revolutions in communication, including this Internet that allows people to spread messages about the evils of capitalism to all corners of the world. It has brought human beings to the Moon, images of the far reaches of the universe to our TV screens, and economic and other aid to all corners of the planet within hours of nearly any disaster. One might rail against Enron or WorldCom or now AIG and the rest of the big banks, and perhaps with some justification. But it is capitalism that builds high-quality homes, cars, and cell phones, not governments. It will always be so, and if it is no longer so, well, expect poorer-quality products and rationing.
• Human beings have no business escaping to other planets when their primary duty is to make life better for their fellow men here on Earth. I caught a whiff of this sort of argument from some of my religious friends. Pro-space people are focusing too much on this life and other worlds, and not enough on the afterlife and redeeming themselves in this world. "Well, maybe, says I. But what about building asteroid defenses that protect life on Earth? If there's no life, there's no church to protect, right?"
  "If an asteroid strikes, that's God's will."
  "Yeah, but if we have the ability, we should build the defenses."
  "We could build the defenses, but whether they work or not is God's will."
  "But if we build the defenses, we're at least giving ourselves a fighting chance, right?"
  Get the feeling I've had this discussion before? Anyhow, I have yet to understand why some of my coreligionists have such a negative attitude toward science and technology, though I suspect it goes back to arguments having little to do with space itself. Still, it's an argument I've heard against building space hardware, and it disturbs me.
• Human beings were not meant to live on other worlds. This is a much harder argument to refute because we haven't done it yet...at least not long-term. But it's a simple fact: right now, Earth is the only place in the universe where Homo sapiens can live without need for artificial life support. Everywhere else, we face challenges related to atmosphere (or lack thereof), gravity, dust, and lifelessness. Barring some science fictional scenario where we find an Earthlike planet nearby and simultaneously develop "warp drive," we will only live on other worlds in this solar system, using the machines and life forms we bring with us. We might terraform Mars, cool down Venus, or build structures beneath the grey mountains of the Moon or the ice of Europa. In the meantime, we have those tuna cans and sausages that ensure structural stability and atmospheric integrity. To say we can't survive as unarmored, naked human beings is correct but also missing the point: we can do it, the question is, will we do it?

Space Advocacy, Philosophy, &Religion

Fair warning: this essay touches on two things most likely to irritate you--politics and religion. Ignore it such things bother you. Other readers consider yourself warned.

I keep getting invites to an organization called the Space Renaissance Initiative (hereafter the SRI). Now I know several of the people who have been inviting me, if by "know" you mean "are acquainted with their viewpoints via Facebook or other sites on the internet." To my knowledge no one I know personally has invited me, though several folks I've met have joined.

I've decided to touch the third rail of space advocacy because this has become a point of concern and contention in my own mind. Before I start opening fire, here are a couple of links to help you understand what I'm responding to:

• The Space Renaissance Initiative home page
• The Right to Space, a Constitutional Clause Draft
• Concepts for a New Humanistic View of the World

What Was the Renaissance?

First, I do understand the impetus for and positive outcomes of the Renaissance and Humanism. Europe experienced a resurgence of Greek and Roman learning after the Turks sacked Constantinople in 1453. The Greek scholars there found new homes in the trading cities of Venice, Genoa, and Florence, bringing with them ancient texts and art forms that were radically different from the forms current in feudalism. The spread of Greek and Roman philosophies reignited ancient notions of independence, freedom, democracy, and art. This rebirth of Greek and Roman learning allowed the Italian city-states to become rich and foster the great geniuses of the time: Michelangelo, Raphael, DaVinci, Machiavelli, etc. Meanwhile, Southern Europe got back in touch with ancient Graeco-Roman learning, Northern Europe was getting back in touch with the essential truths of the Bible, which reforming Protestants like Martin Luther felt the Popes had lost to opulence and power-seeking. This led to a less centralized, more individualistic Christianity in Germany, Denmark, Scandinavia, and eventually Great Britain.

I also understand some of their downsides. Catholics and Protestants fought some of their nastiest wars during the Renaissance, including the Thirty Years War, which wiped out a large chunk of the population of Germany. In response to the Reformation, the Catholic Church excommunicated the Protestants like Luther and invoked the Inquisition on those who were deviating from the edicts of Rome. Et cetera, et cetera. Christianity splintered in the wake of this massive religious and political conflict.

The Renaissance, in turn, led to the Enlightenment, which brought forth notions of popular freedom and atheism as widespread doctrines—one can see two results from that experiment by reading the histories of the American and French Revolutions.

Why Create a Space Renaissance?

I believe the SRI folks hope to invoke the Renaissance because they see how the exploration of the New World brought wealth and the ability to afford new luxuries and arts to the Old World. In truth, the gold and new foods from the Americas contributed to the changes I already mentioned above. And it should be noted that Portugal and Spain "found" the Americas as a way to avoid the land route through the Ottomon Empire--colonizing a New World was not their original intention. The Renaissance, then, was a time of dynamism thanks to old ideas being reborn in Western culture at the same time that new ideas, wealth, and products were arriving from America.

America experienced a Renaissance of its own in the 1960s as old ideas of middle-class life and radical ideas of cultural life were at war at home while the nation itself was fighting imperial collectivism overseas by the Soviet Union. The decision to go to the Moon resulted in a radical transformation of American science and technology, and we have been living off of that dramatic inheritance since the end of Project Apollo in 1972. But, again, the adventure into space was a reflection of, not always a cause of, advances and changes already underway. And you could make an argument that the cultural warriors of the 1960s won that particular war, because while science and technology continue to advance, further adventures in space and other technical developments (e.g. nuclear power) have been curtailed in favor of "more important things here on Earth" or the more "environmentally friendly" ethos of the Baby Boomers.

Some questions come to mind, then. Using historical analogies are always tricky, especially with postmodernism calling everything into question. Which parts of the Renaissance would they seek to invoke? The parts that dethroned God and religion from the center of our culture? They're a little late. Today's culture warriors are doing their best to hasten religion off the stage, so there's little need to give that change any more support.

Do they seek a return to older forms of art and philosophy? That might be of some value. The Greeks and Romans had some very bright things to say about the human condition, and their views of aesthetics were much more tasteful than much of what's coming out of the art schools these days (I speak here of political art--the stuff that is put out there to deliberately offend and provoke--there are still folks who adhere to creating things that are pleasing to the eye). And a little Christian humility might behoove some of the technophiles who would try to "perfect" humanity through technology.

Do they seek a return to adventure? Ah! I think this is what they had in mind. The Age of Discovery, led by adventurers like daGama, Columbus, Vespucci, Magellan, etc., created great advances in Europe's knowledge of the world. Those advances in turn brought new advances in the technologies needed to further explore and settle the places explored. And unlike non-European Earth, the rest of the solar system is so-far uninhabited. However, anyone who dares to invoke such an age must now face up to the fact that Christopher Columbus is considered a villain by post-colonialism historians 500 years after his landing at San Salvador. To invoke the glory days of Europe is to reassert the right of cultural (or any other type of) imperialism. Are the SRI folks prepared to fight that battle? If so, I wish them luck.

Do We Need a Space Amendment to the Constitution?

Next, as far as the proposed amendment to the Constitution (I presume they mean the U.S. Constitution--they never really come out and say it), the authors imply that the Constitution as currently written prevents human travel into space. I dispute that. Is the goal to ensure that private citizens, not just civil service astronauts get to go? If so, they need to be explicit. I’m convinced that many provisions in the Constitution have been warped over the last 200+ years because the Founders didn’t think to state the obvious negative corollaries to their principles.

Establishing a New Philosophy

Finally, there is the very long Concepts for a New Humanistic World. I must presume, based on the impressive length of the document, that they seek to create a new philosophy for space, forged out of whatever they see as the best of older philosophies. Clearly they're focusing on philosophy and "evolution" (cultural or biological--it's hard to tell). God and religion are almost completely absent from this document, and that is what bothers me the most.

Side note: I am, perhaps, an increasing minority in the space advocacy community: a conservative churchgoer who believes in exploring space and using the knowledge found there to improve life here. It's been my experience that many Christian sects emphasize the next life more than this one (after all, you really can't take it with you). However, I derive from my faith my desire to use space to do good for my fellow man, not as a means of earning merit toward Heaven, just as something that should be done as a positive good. No doubt someone will correct me, no matter what position I take.

Returning to the Concepts...As near as I can tell, the writers of this document are a mix of pro-science, pro-technology, pro-free market, but also pro-multiculturalism advocates. I say this because the document includes aspects of all of these, and not surprisingly, the document often contradicts itself. For example, Section PC.1100, the "Cultural Openness declaration," states:

We are for cultural Openness, without discrimination based on skin colour, gender, religion, or creed, except where these are themselves anti-Human! We apply the concept of Open World in all aspects of human activities and relations.

I have no argument with this. However, there are cultures that are not so enlightened. What does the SRI propose be done about other cultures that don't share Western notions of equality under the law?

PC.1300, "The Cosmic Destiny," is similarly problematic:

We propose a Cosmic Destiny for the Human Species. Unconscious life expands to occupy all available niches: yet, it's unable to escape extinctions imposed by the natural cycles of the parent planet. Only Intelligent Life can now prevail, thanks to technology, taking beyond the blue planet its civilization and its culture, gardening the otherwise empty and barren spaces.

Are they proposing some sort of new "manifest destiny" for humanity? What if they encounter non-intelligent life on other worlds? Does the New Humanist view support shunting aside life forms below a certain threshold of intelligence? Mind you, I'm partial to expanding humans to Mars myself, slime molds, or no slime molds, but it'd be best if they just come right out and say that.

HE.1900 says,

We are for a politics of controlled growth, able to keep the growth positive, and not in collision with the available resources and environment.

However, this doesn't square with their desire for the freedom of individuals to achieve any end they want to reach their potential. So, are they promoting capitalism or something different?

HE.2100 says,

In the next century, the number of human beings should be controlled within limits sustainable, beyond the ecosystem of Earth alone!

However, PC.300 acknowledges

that Life strives to penetrate, occupy and utilize all locales within its reach to further its survival and expansion. We defend the right, for Humanity, to accede to a greater ecological niche.

and then there's PL.1100...

We reject and condemn any repressive political practices that prohibit the freedoms of expression and the rights to life, happiness, prosperity and justice.

So how am I to interpret this--it's okay to expand the domain of life throughout the solar system, but we must accept population controls here on Earth? Restricting birth rates is a restriction of freedom.

Moving on, since I've already hit most of the cultural questions, the reader encounters SD.500:

We envision the following strategic goals:

1. Space Power Systems on the Moon and/or in Orbit (see MMS short paper on this topic);
2. Permanent industrial and scientific settlements on the Moon and artificial orbiting platforms;
3. Artificial Small Ecosystems research settlements on the Moon and/or in Orbit;
4. Orbital and lunar defenses against potential impacts by other celestial bodies;
5. Orbital Medical Research Centers and hospital complex;
6. A Shielded Astronomical Observatory compound at appropriate location (e.g. SE-L2).

Great! Who's going to pay for and build all this? Who's going to benefit from them?

EC.300, Specificity of the Greater Earth Economy...

We believe that the economic aspects of the Greater Earth development are quite different from anything before.

Different how? Leading you to what conclusions or actions? Again, are you supporting capitalism, welfare-state capitalism, socialism, communism, or fascism?

PL.200, Evolutionary social behaviour

Our beliefs are liberal, democratic, libertarian and antiauthoritarian. We act in the interest of all humanity.

It’s hard to square an "antiauthoritarian" program with some of the other statements.

PL.500 - Defense of the Scientific Research

We reject the idea that Scientific and Technological research is guilty of the environmental and ecological problems and any assumptions which would limit progress in these areas.

Previously they stated that global warming and the means to overcome it were necessarily human-created and -directed activities. Which is it?

PL.700 For an open scientific world

We defend an open concept of Scientific and Technological Research and the universal dissemination of its results.

Good.

*

The problem with any manifesto or other philosophical/political document developed by committee is that the more minds you have working the problem, the more likely it is to descend into incoherence. Clearly there are several different minds contributing to the SRI. I can find agreement with some of it, but much of it disturbs me, and some of it just isn't gelling for me. A primary advantage the space community has over other Earth-focused advocacy communities is that we can come to agreement about at least one common principle: exploring space is good for humanity. The problems come up when you start asking questions like:

• What should our goals be?
• Where should we go first?
• What technologies should we use?
• Who's going to make the decisions?
• What should the values of a space-based civilization be?

Heck, we can't even answer these questions on Earth, much less hope to answer them for the solar system. But perhaps we should at least try. Space is a technical discipline, to be sure, but it is also at heart a philosophical one, and if the advocates cannot come up with "something completely different," then the rules pertaining to life on Earth will inevitably rule the spaceways as well. I commend the Space Renaissance Initiative folks for contributing to the conversation, but their effort also demonstrates how far we still have to go.

An Alternative to Jumping Out the Window

A New York stock broker got off the fast track and became an Eastern Orthodox monk: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/3123516/Wall-Street-trader-becomes-a-monk.html

I'm willing to bet that quite a few folks on Wall Street will get religion before this mess is all over.

Book Review: Ideas Have Consequences

I have read a variety of "big books" on the state of Western Civilization: its origins, its moments of greatness, and its moments of decadence and decay. Perhaps the most convincing book on the "fall" of Western Civilization is Jacques Barzun's From Dawn to Decadence: 1500 to the Present: 500 Years of Western Cultural Life, which puts the source of the West's loss of confidence in the Great War of 1914-18. However, Richard M. Weaver's Ideas Have Consequences is the first one I've encountered that put Western Civ on the wrong track at the start of the Renaissance and the turn from medieval scholasticism to modern materialism.

Weaver's essential complaint about the West's state of culture (he was writing in 1948) was that we made an error in turning away from Platonic "forms" and toward more Aristotelian realism. This might require a little explanation, as Platonic forms are rarely taught today. Plato, philosophic student of Socrates, believed that the universe existed on two planes, the material world we actually lived in, which was corrupt and imperfect, and a superior world of perfect forms, of which the real world was merely a pale reflection. For example, in Plato's two-tier universe, concepts such as horses, beauty, chairs, trees, or men as they exist in our daily lives are but imperfect knockoffs of true, ideal Horses, Beauty, Chairs, Trees, or Men. For Plato, these forms were more "real" than the world in which we lived, and thus more worthy of emulating or admiring. The genius of St. Paul the Evangelist was to embrace Platonic forms as a way of explaining the Christian Heaven to Greek Gentiles.

In the Middle Ages, after the fall of Rome, the Christian Church gave birth to Western Civilization by more fully articulating the merger between Greek and Christian thought. The primary scholars of the time were Christian popes, bishops, fathers, monks, professors, or students of the same, and their primary concerns were primarily philosophic, moral, and religious. Weaver believes the West made a crucial error by shifting its emphasis from such questions and toward a world view in which "man is the measure of all things."

The first half of Ideas Have Consequences therefore demonstrates how this shift from philosophy to materialism led to greater and greater emphasis on the physical realm to the detriment of religion, nature, and ultimately man himself. Weaver sees science as a move away from a synthesized and balanced view of the world toward one where specialization causes people to learn more and more about smaller and smaller parts of reality (in the Platonic sense). In short, Weaver laments the movement from Truth with a capital T toward mere facts. He believes that shared truths enable better communication between individuals and nations, and that the collapse of the Christian Western order that began with the Renaissance led inevitably to the devastation of the Second World War 400 years later.

Weaver, like Russell Kirk in The Conservative Mind: From Burke to Eliot also laments the loss of gentlemanly aristocracy and the rise of egalitarian democracy. Weaver and Kirk both see the French Revolution of 1789 as a tragedy for Western Civilization because it called for an end to acceptance of hierarchy of any kind: political, moral, or (later) economic. The loss of a liberally educated class of gentlemen expected to cultivate the arts and a measured response to matters of politics, meant that the masses no longer had a group of individuals worthy of looking up to, emulating, or obtaining wisdom from. America, of course, has been the home of the radical egalitarian ideal since the time of Andrew Jackson, and Weaver and Kirk perceived that the last aristocrats of the old gentlemanly sort were put to the flame and the sword in the Civil War. From then on, everyone was expected to be an equal, and political authority became more problematic: "You're no better than anyone else, Mac. Who says you have a right to be in charge?"

In addition to the rise of egalitarian democracy, Weaver lectures against the dangers of materialism as applied to the state. If the bourgeois ideal is material comfort, then the democratic state's primary purpose is to ensure stability and eliminate any tendency toward moral considerations. He likens the middle class of the West to spoiled children who are incapable of recognizing duty, honor, or hard work. He sees the public translating "the right to...the pursuit of happiness" as "the right to happiness," which is to be furnished by the state. And, of course, in the spirit of egalitarianism, no one can be more comfortable than his neighbors, so if some individuals are more comfortable than others, their goods must be taken from them in the form of socialism to ensure material comfort for all.

To combat this rising tide of radical egalitarianism, Weaver proposes a program centered first upon a vigorous, philosophical defense of private property, which he describes as the "last metaphysical right" the middle class has left to it after taking away religion and hierarchy (of station or ideals). He also calls for educational emphasis on poetry and Socratic dialectic rather than semantics or specialization. He is calling emphatically for a return to an integrated world view for the spiritual health of the individual, and a turning away from materialism, which he sees as interfering with or opposed to the integrated individual.

As I read this book, I found myself wondering about its implications for space advocacy (it's an occupational hazard, I confess). Clearly, we would not have put men on the Moon without dramatic advances in the study of the natural world. And yet even at the time of the event, writers like Norman Mailer were complaining about the flat, unemotional, unspiritual nature of the enterprise and the men embarking upon it. Attempts to tie our spiritual selves to the material action of flying to the Moon were met with a lawsuit by an atheist, perhaps illustrating Weaver's point. There is also this problem: as affluent as America might have been in 1969, it has become even more so now. The spoiled children Weaver described in 1948 have come into their own as obese materialists who believe government owes them a living and who reject the notions of sacrifice or hard work--notions that will be critical to building permanent establishments in space or on other worlds. The "New Space" entrepreneurs have generated more excitement than NASA's revived human space program because space tourism offers a more egalitarian possibility of access, whereas NASA will most likely continue its tradition of sending up hyper-competent, non-egalitarian Astronauts. Many space advocates are actively hostile to religion. Would they welcome a return to religion-based verities, even if students educated in such a moral-material synthesis build the first permanent habitations on the Moon or Mars?

Regardless of how Weaver's solutions are implemented in space, they still bear contemplating here on Earth, especially as we have at least two presidential candidates who are socialists in all but name and a nation where welfare costs outweigh any other single expense. Is there still room for religion, let alone private property, integrated liberal (in the old sense of broad) education, and Platonic/Christian ideals? One can sit back and wonder, or one can take action. Cultural revival requires the efforts of active, involved individuals. And if one believes Weaver, those involved individuals must also be willing to give up on some of their material comforts and conveniences to achieve the revived morality he seeks.

Random Thoughts on a Friday Evening

When I started this space advocacy thing, I was already doing a lot of philosophical and historical reading—Aristotle, Toynbee, Rand, what have you—but one thing that surprised me was how philosophical pro-space literature is: The Case for Mars, The High Frontier, etc. Heinlein, Zubrin, O’Neill, and the others have a vision of humanity that is often more lofty and courageous than our current age would seem to inspire. This has led me, unsurprisingly, to yet more reading.

We often have to ask ourselves: who are we as a people? Or, more selfishly: who am I? What kind of person am I? What kind of person do I want to be?

So I’ve done yet more reading: Cicero, Kipling, the King James Bible, Kissinger, Bobbitt, Pournelle, history, philosophy, space stuff, religion, biography, pop culture sociology. And then, of course, I have my daily interactions with non-literary people in person and via email. Occasionally, when I can stomach it, I watch the TV news. The more I read, the more I am convinced of the following:

• People are inherently fallen, subject to temptation, greed, lust, ill temper, violence, gossip, shortsightedness, foolishness, and power-seeking. And I include myself in that category 100%.
• The best thing I can prescribe is that individuals and groups act under a similar creed: if someone’s behavior is not causing you harm, leave them the hell alone. Of course that sort of libertarian thought is not likely to be practiced. Otherwise, laws wouldn’t be enforced, nor, most likely, would religions be spread, regardless of their goodness.
• Religions seem blind to the possibilities or potential of space exploration and settlement. This is mostly because they—and I mean here Protestant Christian sects, I cannot speak for others—prefer that their followers focus on the next world. A friend of mine suggested the other day that “we needed a new church.” I’m not so sure. Roman Catholicism at least believes in practicing good works in this life. Would improving living conditions worldwide and offering the potential for new freedoms qualify as good works?
• I suggested to my pastor and vicar, very gently of course, that space exploration offers us a chance to better learn about God’s creation. And, indeed, the more we see of the universe’s vastness, the more humbled we may become. I don’t hold with the scientific (liberal?) view that the size of the universe is proof-positive of how insignificant we are. On the contrary! If life is truly so rare, then we should treasure it as never before, and marvel that we have brains to comprehend it at all. I haven’t made much progress with either camp on these views.
• Another argument I suggested to the vicar (this discussion quickly eluded or bored my pastor) was: “Isn’t space technology worthwhile if it is used to stop an asteroid that kills all life on Earth?” I was told, more or less, that if God wanted to smack us down like that, that was his privilege; likewise, if he felt it was within his mercy to grant us the intelligence to achieve such a mission, that was fine, too. Again, I was cautioned against focusing too much on this world and not enough on the next. Yeah, but while I’m here, shouldn’t I try to do everything in my power to help my fellow man? I left the church for about 20 years because of its hostility to science fiction. It doesn’t seem to be much more welcoming to science fact, either. I draw my moral and spiritual precepts from Christianity, but most of my daily-life inspiration comes from outer space, which God created. I’m sure I’m going to hell for that in some people’s minds.
• We are in for a long war with Islam. Wouldn’t space colonies provide excellent sanctuaries and places for preserving Western Civilization, especially if Europe actually becomes “Eurabia,” as Bat Ye’or suggests? Some Europeans, not wishing to give up their culture or move to America to preserve it might seek an “island” from which to preserve their lives, families, and traditions. Such enclaves could offer the hope of a second Renaissance in exile.
• America’s ruling political parties have both embraced “big government” as their mantra: for Republicans, big government encourages virtue, discourages vice, promotes a strong military, and rewards faithful political districts with pork; for Democrats, big government rights wrongs, ensures (enforces) equality of outcomes, emasculates a strong military, and rewards appropriate pressure groups with preferred legal rights. Actual limited government has fallen by the wayside in favor of doing good, and elected officials have assumed an air of arrogance toward their subjects that is becoming all too obvious. Free enclaves in space must be established, if only to get out from under foot once in awhile. But would such a government willingly establish such colonies, knowing its citizens were likely to secede? Would businesses funding such settlements accept independence if the end result was no return on investment? Yet the frontier must be preserved. We must do something before freedom is extinguished.
• Book after book and study after study is pointing out the steadily decreasing gap between East and West. China has more honor students than we have students, and not all our students are geniuses. If it weren’t for immigration, America’s birth rate might well be falling. Would technological success or the challenge of the frontier create the cultural incentives to overcome these hurdles? One can only hope. There is some doubt as to whether our educational system can still teach kids the skills and insights they need to conquer the space frontier.
• Space can, in fact, be tied to so many Earth-based issues that it truly baffles me how short-sighted our society has been toward it. We need a commitment to technological leadership—check. We need a reason to feel hopeful about the future—check. We need goals worthy of the freedoms that God and our Constitution gave us—check. We need reasons for kids to study the hard topics—check. We need new resources, energy, raw materials, and so forth to enable our capitalist economy to keep expanding without undue harm to our planet—check. We need more information about how the climate of our planet functions and what, if anything, we can do about it—check.

On and on like that. Space exploration and settlement are truly multidisciplinary activities worthy of our attention. And yet NASA is 0.58% of the federal budget, while “more important things here on Earth” are many dozens or hundreds of times greater—and still the Earth-bound want more from the paltry sum NASA consumes of the federal treasury. In fact, this will only get worse, either as the War on Terror deepens or as the Baby Boomers start retiring. Discretionary spending, of which NASA is a part, will dwindle to nothing, even though it is the one agency specifically dedicated to developing the very technologies that could save us. Frustrating, but there it is.