Setting Our Sights Lower

First, read this so you understand the context of my next rant. Go ahead, I'll wait... http://www.eco-business.com/opinion/life-degrowth-economy-and-why-you-might-actually-enjoy-it/

Okay, so you had your own reaction to what you read: you shook your head in dismay, nodded in agreement, or shrugged and wondered, "So what?"

For those of you who didn't take the time to read the linked article, here's the author's general thesis:

Earth is getting too overpopulated, we're running out of resources, life is going to become a lot harder, and the concept of economic growth is outdated, unhelpful, and unlikely to continue. As a result, we might as well get used to it, make a virtue of necessity, and learn to live within our means because the future is not going to get any better. We need to share the wealth so that non-Western nations receive an equitable share of the world's wealth. Instead, we should establish a world that involves more local economies and that is less dependent upon international travel. We shouldn't focus so much on new technologies to save us and should learn to "do without" certain luxuries or technologies.

Did anyone just have a flashback to the 1970s? Are we in yet another era of doom and gloom and limited vision?

"The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."
--Franklin Delano Roosevelt

"I believe this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the Earth."
--John F. Kennedy

"There's nothing wrong with America that can't be fixed by what's right with America."
--William J. B. Clinton

...and I haven't even quoted the Republicans yet.

The point is, America is a nation founded on a fundamental optimism that says if you give people freedom and a fighting chance, they'll find solutions to their own problems, with or despite the government's intervention. However, the author appears to have already pronounced sentence on the future: we're doomed, we'll never make it, the people are too stupid to solve their own problems, they can only be ruled for their own good and protection, based on a vision shared by the enlightened.

The problem is that "degrowth" is antithetical to the American experiment because of the implications of the author's ideas:

• Who decides what's equitable? Not the people, obviously.
• Who decides what we can "do without?" The diversity of our economy and technologies ensures that nearly anything and everything can be given a fighting chance to succeed, given enough hard work by the inventor. Who's to say what we can or should do without? And who is this author to say that we should dream smaller?
• How would they enforce this "de-growth?" It brings up an interesting notion: do governments worldwide become enforcers of de-modernization of the world? Would they send in armed troops with magnets to destroy unwanted knowledge and explosives to destroy unneeded inventions like cyclotrons, nuclear reactors, CAT scans, or rocket ships?
• Will Those Who Decide still have access to luxuries and world travel? Here's a hint: yes. I recall talking with Les Johnson about the anti-technology forces in our civilization. "They want to send us back to the caves," he said. I don't think so. They want to send us back to the manors and serfdom, where the majority remain ignorant and ruled while the wealthy elite continues to enjoy a high standard of living. The problem is, it won't happen that way; not by a long shot. Read on.
• What happens if individuals or nations opt to stay pro-growth? We're seeing a variation of this with the Kyoto Protocol, which is supposed to curb greenhouse gases. America has the technology to become high-tech without petroleum eventually, I suppose, but China and India are not there yet and are unlikely to comply with Kyoto anyway. So say they stick with the large nation-state approaches to technology and economics. What happens to the hundreds of thousands of small nation-states elsewhere in the world? If human history is any guide, they will either reunite into coalitions and nations as well or get swallowed up one by one.

Decentralization and descoping of the world economy only works if everyone does it. Odds are, everyone won't, unless some external force requires all of them to act simultaneously.

More to the point, as a space and technology advocate I want to live in a future of abundance. I believe we can access the energy and materials of space, combined with nanotechnology and other clean high technology here on Earth to ensure a future where everyone has access to the goods of civilization. Degrowth is not the way to do it. Degrowth assumes a zero-sum game, where we'll never find additional resources, and therefore the only way to have any choices is to be one of those who decides how the pie is divided. That is a recipe for world conflict on a scale we haven't seen in 70 years, and it would include a lot more nuclear weapons.

No matter how politely or benignly worded, a philosophy of low expectations implies a political order where those expectations would be enforced, lest someone question the underlying assumptions. I'm more in line with entrepreneurs like Elon Musk, who want humanity to expand the scope of technology of civilization. Regardless of past errors or current problems, we certainly have enough pride and ambition to believe a better future is possible, don't we?

Jeez, I hope so.

National Security Policy, Nontraditional Threats, and Other Things

It's always interesting attending a Stammtisch gathering at the home of Les Johnson. There is no lack of interesting discussion material or vocal opinions. Tonight's edition featured a guest speaker, Dr. Kathy Hawk, who discussed "National Security Policy and Nontraditional Threats." Dr. Hawk has an interesting background, covering experiences as varied as the U.S. Navy, the Strategic Defense Initiative Office (SDIO), the U.S. Foreign Service, and teaching at UAHuntsville.

Any discussion of contemporary U.S. policy has to start with World War II and the Cold War, both of which presented relatively straightforward national security concerns. The Cold War, especially, provided a relatively easy problem for our national security apparatus: protect ourselves from communism overseas and at home by keeping ourselves strong on both fronts. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, the U.S. experienced several new challenges:

• Many more independent state players appeared on the scene (as opposed to facing a "bipolar" world)
• Advanced or dangerous technologies became more available to more people
• Unstable or failed states became homes to criminal and terrorist actors with no nation having a clear mandate (or will) to do anything about them
• Individual criminals or terrorists were increasingly pursuing agendas hostile to American interests, with or without the support of a nation-state

The most dramatic example of this multipolar world is perhaps the 9/11 attacks, which set the paradigm for national security in the 21st century. Internationally, the U.S. and other Western nations launched a "War on Terrorism" while domestically they centralized their domestic security apparatuses through agencies such as the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The mandates for Western nation-states didn't change--keep the nation safe from threats foreign and domestic--the challenge has become identifying the best way(s) to do that. DHS was built to bring down the "walls" between various intelligence agencies that allowed Osama bin Laden to slip through the cracks and his followers to seize control of four airplanes one day in September. Unfortunately, in reacting to similar types of threats, DHS has come to impinge on freedoms here at home.

Which begs the question: if you keep the people "safe" from terrorists but regulate and police them relentlessly, is that way of life really worth protecting? Needless to say, with a group of opinionated adults in the room, there were plenty of sidebars and other topics brought up in response to that line of discussion. My comment along these lines was that as national security threats have moved from state actors (Communist Russia) to individuals, governments have tended to target their protective measures down to the size of the actor involved. If the threat is from another country, you set up an army; if the threat is from individuals, you try to regulate individuals. That isn't the best way to ensure freedom, necessarily, but it is a natural consequence of how most governments operate.

Another important topic Dr. Hawk covered was what we mean by power. I was curious to see that her definition of power matched my own: the ability to make someone else do something they would not do otherwise.

In addition to terrorism and international criminal activities (anything from narcoterrorism to slaving), the world community faces potential threats from cyber attacks, unconventional weapons (e.g., nukes), environmental issues (global warming/cooling/climate change), and infectious diseases. If the U.S. is going to obtain cooperation from other nations on how to handle these issues, it will need a combination of hard (military) power and soft (diplomatic) power. These issues are complicated enough when negotiating with national governments that have some control over what things are done by their citizens or on their behalves; it gets much more complicated when national or local governments have little to no control over their populations or if those governments are compromised by criminal elements or corruption. It's one thing for Chinese People's Liberation Army launches a cyber-attack against U.S. information networks, it is something else when individuals like Osama bin Laden or Julian Assange pursue their own agendas without any clear support from anyone.

Another sidebar topic (I somehow doubt it was in Dr. Hawk's prepared remarks) was on the general decline in American power in the last X years--pick your timeline--and the potential sources of that decline. Explanations ranged anywhere from cultural rot to slacking youths to military decline to a general failure of national will to our own success. This last argument was forwarded by Les, who suggested that the rest of the world saw what hard work, capitalism, and technology could do, and decided to imitate our success. Having built our nation up to a certain level, we want to relax and enjoy ourselves while other nations are hustling to catch up to us. The world might be less admiring of the values that we claim to hold most dearly: freedom of speech and action, for example, since Hollywood regularly puts out movies and TV shows that depict a nation of people using or abusing their freedom badly--not the best "advertisement" for the American way of life.

The topic of global warming brought up all sorts of side chatter, ranging from the veracity of the climate models to the real efficacy of "going green" when China and India are building the equivalent of a coal plant a day. Say the U.S. was able to completely electrify its economy and switch to other power sources, but the world's two most populous nations continue to burn fossil fuels. What have we done to help the world in that case, and what could we do from a political power perspective to get those nations to "go green?"

One theme Dr. Hawk returned to as we wound down the evening was the danger of failing or failed states, which become a magnet for bad actors. Corruption, crime, and instability in such places (Afghanistan, Somalia, Zimbabwe) make those nations much less able to respond to issues that require coordinated international effort, such as climate, disease, or space-related threats (I brought up asteroids as a case in point). Someone asked, "So you're suggesting we take on international crime as a way to combat global warming?" It sounds convoluted or counter-intuitive, perhaps, but it made sense to me. In a nation with stable political, social, and physical infrastructure, it is more likely for the citizens of that country to feel safe enough to become politically engaged and make positive contributions to their nation and the world at large.

But lots of questions remain: is it the duty of the U.S. or some other great power to police or stabilize the Somalias of the world? Do we merely contain those areas or use hard/soft power to bring things under control? This being a Stammtisch of engaged citizens, not the U.N., we didn't have any immediate answers or solutions, but as always, a really good conversation.

The New Era of Space Continues

The Indian space agency has launched its first probe toward the Moon, Chandrayaan-1: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7679818.stm. Good for them!

Chandrayaan-1 was developed, in part, with assistance from the U.S., as one of its onboard instruments was built by NASA. Data from this orbiter will most likely help Constellation pick future landing spots for our astronauts (though, of course, any discoveries made will be confirmed by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter).

Between the cooperation in space and the recent deal on nuclear power, the U.S. and India are fundamentally shifting the shape of politics in South Asia, as the two largest democratically elected governments on Earth are now seen as cooperating, if not actual allies. This is a huge change after the Cold War, when socialist India was much closer to the Soviet Union. Having finally embraced capitalism, India is now moving closer to the U.S. This is to our advantage, especially given the potential threat of China--on Earth or in space. We could do a lot worse, and this country could use all the allies it can get!

*

In the course of my job today, I got to listen to the following speech by NASA Administrator Mike Griffin: http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=29544. It was an interesting topic--integrity--for a man who many pundits seem to assume will not have a job come the next administration.

Obviously Dr. Griffin has felt wounded and insulted by the criticism the Constellation Program has endured for the last four years. However, the speech also served as a reminder to the NASA internal audience: the proper functioning of a government bureaucracy requires behaving with integrity.

That said, Griffin remained "on message." He stated that the current Constellation architecture will continue. Is it perfect? No, but it is the best architecture given the constraints the agency had to operate under and the requirements the Constellation mission had to use.

*

Griffin's speech was given at the American Astronautical Society's Wernher von Braun Memorial Symposium here in Huntsville. The first panel of the morning--the one that most concerned my day job--was the Ares panel. After that was Griffin's luncheon speech and then a panel on the other parts of the Constellation Program, including the Ares V cargo launch vehicle, the Altair lunar lander, and Orion crew exploration vehicle. Wayne Hale, former Space Shuttle Program Manager, had a great and sometimes hilarious presentation on exploration and science.

The best speech I heard all day came from John Horack, Manager of the Science & Mission Systems department at Marshall Space Flight Center. I've heard Horack speak before, but he hit a sensitive spot for me today, as he discussed the "why" of human exploration. I have some notes, but they don't begin to capture the man's delivery or message. I'm hoping to get a copy tomorrow to pull some actual quotations, but I'll try to give some of my impressions now.

He spoke about the fact that space exploration is one of the few things this nation does that exists to create a better future. This is important when so many governmental actions exist to prevent negative consequences. He spoke of the need to build a better future, and how NASA exemplified that need. He spoke of how Abraham Lincoln, in the midst of the Civil War, still decided to fund the Transcontinental Railroad, and how that investment "made the future that much better." He spoke about the need for a better future, and challenged the audience to explain to their children, if we cut the space program completely, why we believed America would no longer exist or that the future would no longer be better for them. It was fundamental stuff, things we probably don't hear often enough, and things I obviously needed to hear. I promise to post some better quotations from Horack's speech as soon as I can obtain them.

And it bears noting how Horack introduced himself: "Hi, I'm John Horack, and I'm a scientist." There's this bizarre competition between science and engineering within NASA, but you hear none of that from Horack, even when I'm sure some of his programs have taken budget hits to pay for Shuttle or Constellation. He believes in exploration and what it can do for science, and that goes a long way toward helping others see the potential for cooperation and synergy. Now the cynic in me should probably qualify this, and say, "He says he believes in exploration," but jeez, why go to all the trouble? Why put one's best thoughts and words toward ideas one doesn't believe? Anyhow, I liked his speech a great deal, and given some of the negativity I've heard and expressed lately, I probably needed it.