Entry 2235, on 2022-09-01 at 21:46:43 (Rating 2, Science)
I recently had a discussion with a friend about the value of exploration of space. Being a technology enthusiast I supported it, but my friend wasn't so sure. He wanted to know what the point of going to the Moon and Mars, and what the value of other related missions might be.
I thought I might get clever so I asked: why are there no more dinosaurs around today? He didn't know, or he knew but didn't see where this was leading, so I gave him my answer: "because they didn't have a space program".
My point here was that a major disaster, affecting the whole planet in a similar way to the asteroid collision which "wiped out" the dinosaurs, could occur in the near future, and the only way to escape it might be to have humans living on another planet.
But he wasn't going to be persuaded so easily, and replied with: "but there are still crocodiles around, aren't there?" I'm not sure if his point was that crocodiles represented a modern form of dinosaur, which they don't, but he was right in that crocodiles existed before, during, and after the dominance of dinosaurs. I also mentioned that birds are the modern descendents of theropod dinosaurs, a group which included the famous t-rex.
So life wasn't completely wiped out by the asteroid impact 66 million years ago, but about 75% of species did become extinct. But that's just the beginning, because prior to that were similar events which also caused mass extinctions: 200 million years ago about 80% of species were made extinct, 250 million years ago 90% were, 375 million years ago 85% were, and 445 million years ago also about 85% went extinct.
It's clear that major events do happen occasionally, with an interval of about 50 to 100 million years, and notice that it has been about that long since the last disaster which was the one which affected the dinosaurs and many other species.
So I say we cannot be too complacent. The last mass extinction cleared the way for mammals, and ultimately humans, to become dominant, but we shouldn't try to deny that we might be the next victims!
My friend countered this by asking who cares if we become extinct? He correctly pointed out that one species dying out and another taking over is the story of life on Earth. I partly agreed by adding that approximately 99% of species which have ever existed on the planet are now extinct.
But it does seem a bit more personal and consequential when the species going extinct is the one which you belong to. I know, just call me sentimental if you wish!
So I had to counter this point as well. I pointed out that we are the only known form of intelligent life in this whole, vast universe. Our galaxy has hundreds of millions of stars, and a significant fraction of those have planets, of which a small proportion might support life, and there are billions of galaxies. After all, space is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space. (that's a quote from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, just in case you didn't recognise it).
So we are the only known intelligent life, capable of reflecting on and discovering the facts about how the universe works. Is that not of some value?
He replied by pointing out that sure, we are the only known form of intelligent life, but maybe there are many other advanced civilisations out there as well. He also, as a joke I think, pointed out that whether we are truly intelligent or not is open to debate!
I countered by saying that sure, it seems impossible that there aren't other species on other planets which are as advanced, or more likely far more advanced, than us, but we need to base our decisions on the facts we know now, not on speculation. The facts as they are now is that we don't know of any other planets with life, and we certainly have no indication of intelligent life anywhere.
And sure, intelligence exists on a continuum and we could certainly imagine a far more intelligent and knowledgeable species than us, but again we need to act based on what we know rather than what might be true by conjecture.
At this point I realised the "survival of the human species" argument wasn't making much progress, so I decided to try something else. I asked if he put much value on just acquiring knowledge; whether exploration and discovery had any value in their own right; and whether new technology which arises through space programs has value.
He sort of agreed on the last one, but I didn't get much of a positive response to the first two. I know that technology which arose from the US space program of the last few decades is a common way to support the exploration of space, but I don't see it as something I would emphasise. Those same discoveries could be made for a fraction of the cost back here on Earth (of course, the question is: would they have been made back on Earth). But I do value the first two reasons far more. I think it is inspirational just going somewhere new, and discovering new facts, even when they have no obvious immediate benefit.
And that's where it about ended. I don't think I convinced him that space exploration was really that important, but it's always hard to tell in a debate like that how much the other person genuinely believes what they are saying, and how much they just like as good argument.
But at this point I should summarise why I support space programs for you, my readers...
First, and most fundamentally, humans like to explore and to discover new things. If we ever get to the point where we just want to relax and not try to explore and discover, then I think we sort of deserve to go extinct when that asteroid hits. Curiosity is an important human trait, which got us to where we are today, and we need to welcome more of it.
Second, there are genuine, practical outcomes from space exploration. Satellites for communications, mapping the Earth, and many other tasks are an important part of our technology. Without a space program we would have no satellites. And there are more peripheral benefits too. Some everyday technologies came from new materials and technologies invented for space missions.
Third, we might need to leave the Earth one day. I mean, in a few hundred million or billion years and we will definitely have to leave because the Sun will expand so much, but an asteroid or other natural disaster could happen at any time. Plus there is the possibility of human caused damage from nuclear war, climate change, and other possible issues. I don't believe any of these are likely to be bad enough to make the Earth unliveable (I don't believe in the climate catastrophe narrative although I think climate change is real) but our ability to destroy the planet will only grow with time, so we need to be prepared.
Fourth, the time and money going into developing rockets and similar technology is quite significant, but it is not as much as many people think. For example, NASA only gets 0.48% of the US total annual budget, and that is decreasing from a maximum of 4.41% in 1966. The US could cancel NASA tomorrow and it would make almost no difference to their financial position.
Fifth, there is no choice between having a space program and solving problems on Earth. As I said above, the NASA budget is quite small, and the big problems in the world today cannot be significantly affected by redirecting that amount. In fact, you could make a case to say the world's problems are primarily political, religious, and cultural. Money might not help much in many cases.
So I say well done to both private companies like Elon Musk's SpaceX, and to programs coordinated by government organisations, like NASA. The only regret I have is that we don't spend more on this most critical part of technology.
Comment 1 (7290) by Ken Spall on 2022-09-02 at 10:28:41:
Like you, I am passionate about the need for space exploration. An excellent book on this topic is “The Case for Mars” by Robert Zubrin, well worth reading. A pity that the US paused in its space programme, but at least now they’re cranking it up again.
Comment 2 (7291) by OJB on 2022-09-02 at 19:40:30:
Thanks for the tip. I might see if I can find that book. And yes, the US went through a period where their capability in space was poor; relying on the Russians for launches to the ISS was pretty embarrassing! But, as you said, at least they are back into it again.
Comment 3 (7315) by Ken Spall on 2022-10-06 at 10:55:25:
Just found another excellent Mars book. “Mission to Mars” by Michael Collins, he was part of the Apollo 11 moon landings. It was written in 1990 but still very relevant today.
Comment 4 (7317) by OJB on 2022-10-06 at 12:00:59:
What were Collins' thoughts on this? Did he try to justify the need for going to Mars? Did he have any good ideas on how to do it, and how to survive once you get there?
Comment 5 (7318) by Ken Spall on 2022-10-09 at 10:42:38:
Yes, Collins does cover this in his book, as does Zubrin in the earlier book I mentioned.
Thanks for reading this blog post. Please leave a message below.
You can leave comments about this entry using this form.
To add a comment: enter a name and email (optional), type the number shown, enter a comment, click Add. Note that you can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous. Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies and updates to this entry. The comment should appear immediately because the authorisation system is currently inactive.
BLOG PAGE
