The Forkes Report - Social Responsibility

Time Keeps On Slippin’...

nospam@example.com (Tim Forkes) — Sat, 24 Jul 2010 00:01:00 -0600

My nephew Dan has the blog entitled Eschew Obfuscation, which is top on the list to the left of this screed. I read it from time to time simply because many of his interests differ from what I tend to write about and, more importantly, he’s an excellent writer and his subjects are extremely interesting.

His topics are generally in the nerdy vein, but composed in such a way that even dumbshits (who weren’t bright enough to study math and science in high school and college) can grasp and understand it. And then generally agree with his point of view.
He can be persuasive!
 Note to Dan: Don’t think I can be easily persuaded! You’ll have to work at it!

Anyway, to mark the 41st anniversary of the Moon Landing and the 35th Anniversary of the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project, Young Dan wrote this piece, probably my favorite of his various essays. It speaks volumes about our society in general and our attitudes about space and exploration.

Those are a few reasons I’m posting it here. The other reason: I’ve been busy as of late and haven’t written anything in weeks and this is a quick and excellent fix to that situation.

Really though, it’s a great bit of writing.
It does need some graphics, photos even, so I’ve added a few ...
•••• •••• •••• •••• •••• •••• •••• ••••

It’s been 35 years since Vance Brand, Valeri Kubasov, Alexei Leonov (Who also did the first space walk), Donald "Deke" Slayton, and Thomas Stafford all shook hands while in orbit around the Earth. It's been 41 years since man first set foot on the Moon. And it's been 53 years since the first artificial satellite. And it's been 107 years since the first powered flight. For thousands of years, Humanity has looked to skies, wondering, questioning. For millennia we have watched the birds and have wondered how we might do the same. Since our birth as a species the Moon and stars have been there. No culture escapes making the stars and the skies fundamental to their way of understanding the world.

In less than a century we went from the first man flying under power to a man stepping on the Moon. In less than a century we went from two terrible global conflicts to a cold war stalemate that could kill us all, to a peaceful space race. At the height of the cold war, the two biggest adversaries collaborated to a degree previously unimagined in order to accomplish a simple goal: To have national representatives shake hands while in orbit around the Earth.

The space race and all subsequent space exploration has had a positive effect on international relations. From terror and uncertainty grew not just one of the most amazing accomplishments of Human ingenuity, Apollo 11, but one of the most amazing accomplishments of Human diplomacy. The Apollo-Soyuz Test Project has had huge ramifications, including the creation of the International Space Station, arguably one of the most potent forces encouraging international peace. The ASTP helped bridge the divide between east and west. These men are heroes. These men should be on our stamps. All five of them.

It may seem odd, how easily and capably these two nations came together in order to accomplish this goal. But even in the beginning it was realized that while there may be many national reasons for sending a man to space, the ultimate function of anyone actually sent so far from home would be to act as an ambassador for Humanity.

The first official record of this cooperation concerning space exploration we have the 1963 "Limited Test Ban Treaty". It's ironic to note that this document was designed to halt testing and development of nuclear weapons and to start the disarmament process.1 Though neither nation had yet done so, this agreement prohibited testing nuclear explosions in orbit or in the high atmosphere.2 Though only a small part of the document, it is this part that shows the beginnings of the idea that space is about something more than national prestige.

The second record of international cooperation in space came when, in 1967, the "Treaty on principles governing the activities of states in the exploration and use of outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies" was created. While the whole document is a testament to peaceful cooperation, especially given its stance on the militarization of space, it is article V that really speaks to the companionship that is found when exploring space.3 This document not only builds on what was accomplished in the Limited Test Ban Treaty, and was heavily influenced by the United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs document, "Declaration of legal principles governing the activities of states in the exploration and use of outer space", This document goes far beyond either of these both in scope and in impact. It firmly establishes space as a Human resource that should benefit all peoples, that space should be free from military activity, and that all who enter into space are ambassadors of mankind and should be treated as such.

Both of these documents make heavy use of the principles outlined in the Antarctic Treaty, signed by 12 nations including the U.S.S.R. and the U.S.. Those principles include the idea that some domains are the province of all Humanity, to be preserved for their scientific worth and held as common ground. It is those principles which allowed the other documents in 1963 and 1967 to be created, and it is the sense of shared destiny engendered by exploring space, that laid the foundation for a project as ambitious as the Apollo-Soyuz test project.

A lot had to happen in order for the ASTP to work. But those momentous handshakes led directly to the creation of the International Space Station. It was the first time that two livable spaces had been combined in such a way, and thus this mission laid much of the groundwork for what would become a fundamental element of space station construction: Modular pieces. This kicked off Russian and American space stations such as Mir and Skylab, which led to numerous breakthroughs in longevity in space and construction in space. Though the Russians were more successful at this than we were. This also helped shape what would become the Space Shuttle, because even with modular construction, the bigger the module the better. A heavy lift vehicle was essential for the construction of the ISS. The political and social ramifications are what allowed so many nations to come together and create even the possibility of such a thing as the ISS. It is those social and political consequences, it is those technical accomplishments, which have allowed us to construct the ISS.

The ISS is the result of a multitude of decisions made over decades. It is the result of peaceful cooperation and cooperative exploration. The ISS is the current culmination of Human ability. It's very existence is made possible by international cooperation and the hope that one day we will truly be able to explore Space as one species: The Human Species.
•••• •••• •••• •••• •••• •••• •••• ••••

1"Proclaiming as their principal aim the speediest possible achievement of an agreement on general and complete disarmament under strict international control in accordance with the objectives of the United Nations which would put an end to the armaments race and eliminate the incentive to the production and testing of all kinds of weapons, including nuclear weapons,…" Preamble, Limited Test Ban Treaty, 1968

2"1. Each of the Parties to this Treaty undertakes to prohibit, to prevent, and not to carry out any nuclear weapon test explosion, or any other nuclear explosion, at any place under its jurisdiction or control:
(a) in the atmosphere; beyond its limits, including outer space; or under water, including territorial waters or high seas; or…" Art. I, Limited Test Ban Treaty, 1968

3"States Parties to the Treaty shall regard astronauts as envoys of mankind in outer space and shall render to them all possible assistance in the event of accident, distress, or emergency landing on the territory of another State Party or on the high seas. When astronauts make such a landing, they shall be safely and promptly returned to the State of registry of their space vehicle." Art. V, The Outer Space Treaty, 1967

Related article by Zemanta:
First International Space Crew Reunites for Mission's 35th Anniversary (space.com)

Idealism and Reality

nospam@example.com (Tim Forkes) — Mon, 21 Jun 2010 00:39:00 -0600

My Good Nephew Dan replied to an earlier post of mine — as a comment
but it’s so well written it deserves it’s own post here! Hope you don’t mind Dan!

I would agree that “selfishness” is promoted in America (which makes it rather puzzling why so many people hate Ayn Rand. Or maybe that explains it). There is some measure of the idea that a group of individuals acting out of motivated self interest can create a sustainable and beneficial system for everyone involved which is built into the fabric of our country. I would have to imagine that Adam Smith’s work was highly agreeable in America's formative years (Given that it was published in 1776 it was definitely with us from the beginning) and certainly reflected some aspects of enlightenment philosophy which formed the foundation of our country. .

But I wouldn’t say that it’s selfishness, really. To be selfish implies focusing on yourself to the exclusion of others, even at the cost of the well being of others. While, in certain extreme situations, this is certainly the case, I would say that on the whole we Americans focus on ourselves only slightly more than we focus on the welfare of others.

But this is getting away from where I was intending to go. People call me an idealist from time to time, and I certainly give them evidence for it. But it’s hard to make a declarative statement, especially regarding philosophy, without sounding like an idealist. But then, what are ideals? I like to use the Platonic ideal as a starting point. Unlike Plato, though, I don’t view ideals as some real object floating in some metaphysical world of which we have only the pale and diluted shadows to ponder. Rather, I look on them as ultimate goals that can never be ultimately reached, but in reaching for them we better ourselves. Ideally one would apply skeptical inquiry in their political pursuits, be it running for president or voting at the town council. Ideally, we would have a direct democracy. Of course, the real world isn’t ideal, so these ideals can never come to absolute fruition. The practical impediments for the latter alone are seemingly insurmountable.
 Though the case for a direct democracy has a new argument now that we have the World Wide Web.
 Of course, that brings on a whole slew of counterarguments against voting online or some variant, a topic I’ll not get into right now as I’ve already started this reply with a tangent and I won’t be doing that again, though I am getting rather tangential right now with this massive run-on sentence so I’ll just shut up and get back to the point.

Ideally, yes, a more scientific approach to politics would be beneficial. But that runs in the face of “free market” ideals which kind of assumes people will be dumb as rocks, but a well designed system will use that to create a strong system. As in all things, a balance seems to be needed. Those in power should be way more scientific than they are, as you pointed out with your health care example. And those not in power will do whatever they can to save the life of their loved ones, even if it means abusing the system. Which makes the health care example quite apt and harkens back to those extreme circumstances I mentioned earlier.

But people are dumb as rocks and hence highly selfish most of the time, and will likely be so for a long time to come. I personally deplore the lack of understanding about science in our culture right now and think that we need more of it, but science is not likely to be dominant for some time to come. And so we have representative democracy and free markets and we all hope like hell that the people in charge are smart enough to keep everything working properly.

Ideally the real world will balance idealism against pragmatism, selflessness against selfishness, hope against pessimism. Though for me, right here and now, my biggest concern is paying the rent.

A Nice Idea

nospam@example.com (Tim Forkes) — Fri, 04 Jun 2010 00:01:00 -0600

Just read a great blog written by my nephew Dan. He has a link on this page, Eschew Obfuscation. In his blog, Dan links the search for truth in science with the search for truth in democracy. “By science does democracy function.”

That’s a nice sentiment Dan, but the trouble with your conclusion is that it is based on the premise of an ideal society — I assume. As examples, Dan uses two of our best and brightest Founding Fathers: Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson.

As Dan points out, correctly, both Franklin and Jefferson were scientists and explorers and it was their faith in, and discipline for, the scientific method that led them and their colleagues to craft the Declaration of Independence.

In their real world experience, created on the anvil of our earliest forms of capitalism in a new world, the freedoms of the French Enlightenment were pounded into a philosophy that envisioned American citizens have certain inalienable rights: Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. These three were left almost vague, opaque, leaving it up to the individual to decide how to define his life, what liberties he wished to use and what would make him happy.

In other words, and this won’t go over too smoothly, they crafted a document that codified selfishness. This was at the root of the loose confederation of states that sprung up right after the rebels defeated the British Army at Yorktown, VA. Every state was to decide independently how to govern, what was to pass for currency, etc. The central government had little, if any, power. This philosophy created chaos and thus was created the Constitution of the United States.

In that hallowed document is Article VI — the “Supremacy Clause” — that basically says federal law is the supreme law of the land. For example: here in California growing, distributing, buying and using marijuana for medical purposes is legal under state law. But, according to federal law anyone who engages in those activities is still breaking the law and can be prosecuted in federal court. And some people have been prosecuted since California legalized “medical marijuana.”

But let’s not get too far off into that tangent. Back to Dan’s idea that “by science democracy does function.” In the kernels of that tangent though is the codification of selfishness: Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

For democracy to be a function of science, i.e., for democracy to actually be formed by the scientific method, all participants have to adhere to that method. Few, if any, do, at least in this nation. Yeah, we get a lot of laws correct, like the various Civil Rights bills of the 1960’s, but in our contemporary political climate, that is barely the case.

Currently we have a president who is a critical thinker, and that is a good thing. But his views and policies are formed by pragmatism more than idealism, a bane to his followers on the left. What many on the left consider “true” health care reform is glaringly absent from the health care bill that recently passed, while everything that is wrong with the health care system in America has been strengthened.

This was a result of President Obama’s pragmatism. According to his ideal, we would all have health care based on proven American models like the V.A. Health Care System, but the recent bill doesn’t even come close to that model. Instead of sticking to his ideals, the president left the end product to the vagaries of our legislative branch that is torn by sharp partisanship and drowning in the money of corporations that can afford billions to influence lawmakers.

What we got was a bill that may improve the system a little, but not one that will ensure every American will be able to get health care, the goal the president and his supporters demanded during the president’s campaign for that office.

Not really a testament to the scientific method and Dan’s ideal that skeptical inquiry will give us the best of democracy. See, those who opposed health care reform didn’t do so for skeptical inquiry, they did it for political expediency and those opponents made no bones about how their decision to oppose the president on everything is based entirely on defeating the president, regardless of the consequences. Not based on skeptical inquiry, but political expediency.

But thinking about the thesis that “by science does democracy function,” it’s a great idea. If all the participants engage in the scientific method when forming the laws that govern us, as Franklin and Jefferson did 235 years ago forming the Declaration of Independence, we would have a government that actually was by, of and for the people.

Selfishness though, stands in front of that idealism and selfishness is an American Ideal. It’s in the Declaration of Independence. Now, many people will consider that to be the height of cynicism. But, the truth is in the pudding, so to speak. No one wants to pay taxes, or any more taxes, but everyone wants the government to provide services, like fixing that horror in the Gulf of Mexico. The government doesn’t have any of the equipment or technology for deepwater drilling so there’s not a whole lot the government can do, other than pressure the oil companies to fix it.

We want cheap gasoline and are willing to fund nations that then fund terrorist organizations who mount attacks against our nation and our allies. Or, demand we drill for oil anywhere within our lawful grasp, ignoring the potential — and now real — consequences of doing so. We want cheap products to buy from Wal-Mart, and are willing to kill jobs in America and send then to China to get those cheap products, which then turn out to be dangerous to use.

Do “you” care that the people living on the next block over are losing their homes because their jobs have disappeared? Not really, as long as you can buy Levis jeans cheaply from whatever outlet you prefer, their problems are not our problems. Not gonna pick on Wal-Mart, although that company is the biggest purveyor of cheap, foreign-made products. We want “ours” and we want it before “they” get theirs.

The scientific method gets lost in the shuffle when we are only concerned with “what’s in it for me?” Not to mention, most Americans, at least many Americans, have no idea what the scientific method is or means.

When Jefferson and Franklin cast great shadows over history, it’s hard to imagine they took into account that too many of their fellow citizens, both contemporary and in the future, would be dumb as rocks. That’s often how idealists think. They assume most everyone will be imbued with their same spirit once the ideals they espouse come to fruition. Not so with the ideals of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States.

What “we” have been imbued with is this notion of the “free market,” until that free market crashes and burns half the nation with it.

It’s still a nice idea though: “By science does democracy function.”