A Left Argument for Space, Part 2

In fact, that’s the wicked secret dream of space exploration: You can create new constitutions, new rules. In other words, instead of thinking that men are bad and therefore shouldn’t explore, why not try asking how would you create a constitution that encourages our most noble aspirations? For example, Mr. or Ms. Green, would you like to create an environmental Supreme Court as proposed in the Kim Stanley Robinson Mars series? Would you like to directly vote on international trade agreements like NAFTA? Would you like a national referendum process? Hell, would you like direct democracy and a confirmation vote on everything your congress does? Well you can have that if you have the courage to work for it. But not here, and probably not anywhere where you have to live under the United States constitution. It’s not that I’m unpatriotic. It’s just that I think that we can do better--e.g.,mechanisms for runoff voting and uniform ballot machines sure would be nice. I’m also of the opinion, and I’ve stated this more than once on the space.com message boards, that people who build state of the art fusion drives are going to want state of the art constitutions to go along with them. Keep in mind that the Mars Society—aside from worrying about energy sources and dental health—wants a constitution and government set before they land. They also already have their own flag.

--From my own "A Left Argument for Mars", that appeared in Tech Central Station of all places...

I can certainly understand why many of my Better Humans and Cyborg Democracy colleagues aren't exactly "up" with space exploration, or at least any kind of space exploration initiative spawned by the Bush administration God knows. For the record, as an American, I don't support space exploration initiatives sponsored by the Bush administration because I just don't trust the Bush administration. Space exploration under the Bush administration will be as much about peaceful exploration as the Iraqi war was about "liberation" and "democratic principles", which is to say, not at all. Americans might as well all start wearing garish "Mirror Mirror" universe sashes and start sporting that stylish Spock's goatee...

In fact, as has been pointed out by James Hughes and the influential sci site Defense Tech there is every indication that this would just be a transparent way to enrich Bush contributors and the Iron Triangle, which, usually, ends up being one and the same. What's worse, it would be the kind of space exploration that would demand a monopoly on space exploration. In theory, Europe and China and the Soviet Union and India  would no longer be allowed to expand their space efforts. How the US would enforce this upon nations with nuclear weapons is unclear, but this wouldn't be the first time the Bush administration engaged in transparent folly. 

And quite frankly, that might be the end of the discussion. For that's what a proprietary, monopolistic and imperialistic space program would be about: nothing worth discussing. I guess I'm asking my colleagues on the left to imagine a different kind of space exploration. Try to imagine space exploration not managed by nation states, but individuals. Imagine that it wouldn't be run like NASA, but more like the Open Source movement. And finally, try to imagine it if was actually affordable, accessible and available. Or more to the point, you should look at space the same way that you look at the Internet: as a place that you get to transform and build, possibly. However, if you don't think that way it's probably guaranteed that you won't get a space program that you'll like very much.

Realistically, it's not responsible to ignore space exploration. It's like ignoring how open access and copyright law and evil demonic Microsoft affect the Internet. You must think about the kind of space exploration you want because you might want to live there. Do you want health care? Are you as responsible as the EU about preserving the Martian microbes? Then support their efforts and work against the efforts of those who want a monopoly on near space. In the next decade, you should not only look forward to nation states going to space that probably include the United States, the EU and China, with special cameo appearances provided by India, Russia and Japan, but private space ventures funded by the likes of Elon Musk and aerospace visionaries like Burt Ruttan. And why not Canada? You might be able to overtake the American space effort by opening it up to capitalism and real competition. I wish you luck because I would like to have health care on the moon. Would be nice. 

What space offers us, potentially, is a place to go to where you can experiment with different constitutions and ways of living. In fact, if reactionary forces are successful in stopping the future here on Earth--those forces being the twin-headed hydra of both fundamentalist Christianity and Islam and their  inherent anti-logic, anti-reality foundations--space might be the only place where you're allowed to evolve. I guess, one day over the next 20 years, I might get sick of the winner take all corporate theocracy that the United States has become. So, I take a ticket to the Better Humans orbital platform, currently making its way, slowly, between the planets. I understand it's a place where all the voting machines work, where scientists can work on most if not everything that's been banned upon Earth, where there is a guaranteed living wage law, where passing the Turing test grants personhood rights, and where there is a direct democracy that gives the citizenry final say over every bill passed. Smart people might say that's science fiction. No way we could make the tech leaps viable to make that happen. Of course, if you were to try to tell someone who lived 20 years ago about the Internet today, then you would probably be called science fictional and delusional.

We're also very fortunate that the people who created the underpinnings of the net were democratic and libertarian. We lucked out. Now, it's quite clear some of the nation states (all right I'll name them: China and the United States) that are building what we call "space exploration" are the exact opposite of "democratic" and "libertarian". They won't even allow the Better Humans settlement to be built, with our own money probably, because it's against God's way or some other silly nonsense. Wouldn't it make logical sense to root for Canadian and EU exploration efforts which would be more humane?

And I think space exploration is very possible. Singularities will happen. Smart people used to think that  there wouldn't be a huge market for personal computers. Those people were wrong. Now, people say space exploration would be too hard and expensive. Those people are probably wrong too.  I'm going to bet on materials science, multidimensional theory, new energy efficiencies, and experimental propulsion to make at least solar system exploration a cheaper more affordable reality. Isn't that what Better Humans is about? Aren't you betting that science will be ascendant? And if you come to the conclusion that space habitats are possible, thanks to South Korean advances in genomic engineering, isn't it responsible to think about the rules that you would live under?

The question isn't whether you like or dislike space exploration, just as the question isn't whether you like or dislike the information revolution. The real question is how are you going to deal with the potential change these realities bring.