Hello, Mr. Hoel! I am a high school student, and I would like to answer your rhetorical question, "But can you be an Up and want there to be no billionaires?". I do not believe billionaires should exist because there is no way they can get to that status without exploiting others. Besides, they possess more wealth than the world’s poorest 4.6 billion people. However, space exploration can help find new methods of sustainable agriculture, as well as renewable energy. I think it is possible to be an Up (maybe not in the truest sense you describe) and want no billionaires. Also, I have a question: do you think it is easier to be an anti-billionaire Up in other countries?
Hello Siri! Lovely to hear you're reading this. I think it's a fascinating rhetorical question to explore. But I'm not sure there's a concrete answer I, or anyone else, can really give. What counts as "possible"? How different would the world need to be? Personally I think there is something absolutely crazy about billionaires being worth more than billions of literal people. There's certainly nothing objective about money as a value of human worth. I think it breaks down to whether there's any other current route to space colonization, and I don't see one besides these companies (most run by billionaires). But one can always recognize the realities of the current world while dreaming of a better one: in this sense, one can be both an Up but also be skeptical of the entire idea of billionaires at all. As for your question about anti-billionaire Ups being easier in other countries - I think in the end most countries will go the corporate route. So far, no space agency has stepped up to compete on the basis of cost with the private sector, and the chances are looking slim that they will. Ultimately, other countries will have to rely on their companies as well.
Great analysis Erik! I totally agree. In a slightly different context, Hugo de Garis refers to Ups and Downs as Cosmists and Terrans. I’m a Cosmist and I want to go Up. Never mind the billionaires, they have a role to play, and so do we.
Hugo calls Cosmists those who will want to build superintelligent AIs and human/AI hybrids who will move to the stars, Terrans those who want things to stay as they are on Earth. Partly overlaps with Ups and Downs.
Oh and btw, the difference between actual Astronauts and space passengers is real. Doug and Bob had little to do during the Crew Dragon flight *only as long as nothing went wrong*. Much of astronaut training has to do with how to save the mission if something DOES go wrong.
Interesting you should bring up the Mayflower and the Plymouth Colony. During 1621-23 they were formed as a collective, what we would now call socialist/communist group. They did very poorly and nearly did not survive. Then they re-formed in what we now call capitalist terms, where each family had their own land and kept the fruit of their own labors, and began to prosper greatly. This is well documented in Bradford's journal, among other sources.
The real contrast to capitalism is not the capitalist state but communism. How convenient for your pro-capitalist argument that you forget to mention the long series of space exploration triumphs of the Soviet Union. They put the much wealthier US to shame, and this is the only reason you got your act together in the first space age. NASA faded because the Soviet Union collapsed.
This billionaire space race seems to me like capital burning up excess. In the early 20th century, that's what led to the first world war. It is of course preferable to throw money out of the atmosphere rather than having millions die, but there is a third alternative that doesn't involve ludicrous wealth concentration or the insane growth imperative beyond the Earth's capacity to withstand. Our resources could be allocated to figure out ways we can live comfortably without literally sacrificing future generations. What use is space colonization if we're so far from having figured ourselves out that we're poisoning paradise and killing ourselves? A big part of our fatal flaw has to do with capitalism. I say get rid of that first, then plan the economy for the long term survival of our living planet, and in parallel to acting on that we should continue exploring the possibilities of space. You can be both Up and Down simultaneously, as you defined them.
Just to pull one thing out of here: I don't quite think that NASA faded because the Soviet Union collapsed, but it's an interesting hypothesis. I agree that NASA would not have canceled the space shuttle program if still in competition with the Soviet Union, so in that sense, you're completely correct (who would have even given them a lift?). If that's what you meant by collapsed though, then I agree. But I do think that NASA would still have made the switch to mostly unmanned missions, and I also do not think the Soviet Union's programs were really innovating toward any sort of expansion after a certain point either, just the same as NASA: after all, the Soyuz program remains basically unchanged since its introduction in the 1960s (and since it had the lower cost to orbit compared to the USA, why fix it?). I just think that the resources and culture of NASA was not capable of producing, say, a Martian city. Perhaps a single trip *to* Mars and back (which is what everyone until recently thought would be a sensible goal) much like the Moon missions. Maybe an even better way to say this is that really the whole culture and budget of national space programs is based on missions, not things like a "transplanetary railroad," and in the end it's the government-funded mission-based approach that I think history has proven is impossible to lead to serious colonization and expansion in the solar system by humans. The biggest achievement, the ISS, was a rare time when it wasn't just a one-off mission, and it's the clearest continued success of both nations.
'Mostly unmanned missions' is the right approach though. Space is incredibly hostile. We can't live on the surface of either the Moon or Mars, because of the cancer-making cosmic rays which are not deflected by magnetic fields or filtered by atmospheres. The first leg of any colonization attempt should be plant life in underground biospheres dug out by machines. Getting the balance of all the necessary material cycles in a miniature biosphere to sustain human life there will be a very difficult challenge.
The dream of a spacefaring civilization is a very long term project, and in order to get there, we need the biosphere here on Earth to survive in the long term. In other words, taking care of this living planet is a necessary precondition for spreading life into space. And capitalism is incompatible with life. It needs to be dismantled, if only to buy us more time.
I think China is a better horse to bet on than a dick measuring contest between a few profiteers whose unreasonable wealth have made their egos untether and escape the Earth's gravity well of concern. China recently started deploying a new space station, and have plans to make a crewed Moon base. That seems like a more reasonable first step than sending cars into space for a photo op, or people to Mars prematurely, where they will die in misery with billions watching, potentially turning people off space.
Again, just to address something specific here, which is your China prediction: it's already very clear that the companies are massively outpacing states, which is whole reason this is coming to the fore. China will privatize incredibly quickly, and already are, abandoning their state-run programs for government-funded contracts to private companies in exactly the way that NASA is currently having such success with. So things are already heading in the opposite direction https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/01/21/1016513/china-private-commercial-space-industry-dominance/
Hello, Mr. Hoel! I am a high school student, and I would like to answer your rhetorical question, "But can you be an Up and want there to be no billionaires?". I do not believe billionaires should exist because there is no way they can get to that status without exploiting others. Besides, they possess more wealth than the world’s poorest 4.6 billion people. However, space exploration can help find new methods of sustainable agriculture, as well as renewable energy. I think it is possible to be an Up (maybe not in the truest sense you describe) and want no billionaires. Also, I have a question: do you think it is easier to be an anti-billionaire Up in other countries?
Hello Siri! Lovely to hear you're reading this. I think it's a fascinating rhetorical question to explore. But I'm not sure there's a concrete answer I, or anyone else, can really give. What counts as "possible"? How different would the world need to be? Personally I think there is something absolutely crazy about billionaires being worth more than billions of literal people. There's certainly nothing objective about money as a value of human worth. I think it breaks down to whether there's any other current route to space colonization, and I don't see one besides these companies (most run by billionaires). But one can always recognize the realities of the current world while dreaming of a better one: in this sense, one can be both an Up but also be skeptical of the entire idea of billionaires at all. As for your question about anti-billionaire Ups being easier in other countries - I think in the end most countries will go the corporate route. So far, no space agency has stepped up to compete on the basis of cost with the private sector, and the chances are looking slim that they will. Ultimately, other countries will have to rely on their companies as well.
Thank you for your thoughts! I’m excited to read more posts! :)
Hé Siri, (pun sort of intended🤷🏻♂️) I wish i had been aware of Jacques Vallée at your age,,,,,Perhaps you’ll find him interesting ✌🏻🌎🦋
Great analysis Erik! I totally agree. In a slightly different context, Hugo de Garis refers to Ups and Downs as Cosmists and Terrans. I’m a Cosmist and I want to go Up. Never mind the billionaires, they have a role to play, and so do we.
Thanks Giulio! Much appreciated, and I love the terminology of Cosmists vs. Terrans, I hadn't known about Hugo de Garis but he's on my radar now.
Hugo calls Cosmists those who will want to build superintelligent AIs and human/AI hybrids who will move to the stars, Terrans those who want things to stay as they are on Earth. Partly overlaps with Ups and Downs.
Oh and btw, the difference between actual Astronauts and space passengers is real. Doug and Bob had little to do during the Crew Dragon flight *only as long as nothing went wrong*. Much of astronaut training has to do with how to save the mission if something DOES go wrong.
Interesting you should bring up the Mayflower and the Plymouth Colony. During 1621-23 they were formed as a collective, what we would now call socialist/communist group. They did very poorly and nearly did not survive. Then they re-formed in what we now call capitalist terms, where each family had their own land and kept the fruit of their own labors, and began to prosper greatly. This is well documented in Bradford's journal, among other sources.
So it has come to this.
The real contrast to capitalism is not the capitalist state but communism. How convenient for your pro-capitalist argument that you forget to mention the long series of space exploration triumphs of the Soviet Union. They put the much wealthier US to shame, and this is the only reason you got your act together in the first space age. NASA faded because the Soviet Union collapsed.
This billionaire space race seems to me like capital burning up excess. In the early 20th century, that's what led to the first world war. It is of course preferable to throw money out of the atmosphere rather than having millions die, but there is a third alternative that doesn't involve ludicrous wealth concentration or the insane growth imperative beyond the Earth's capacity to withstand. Our resources could be allocated to figure out ways we can live comfortably without literally sacrificing future generations. What use is space colonization if we're so far from having figured ourselves out that we're poisoning paradise and killing ourselves? A big part of our fatal flaw has to do with capitalism. I say get rid of that first, then plan the economy for the long term survival of our living planet, and in parallel to acting on that we should continue exploring the possibilities of space. You can be both Up and Down simultaneously, as you defined them.
Just to pull one thing out of here: I don't quite think that NASA faded because the Soviet Union collapsed, but it's an interesting hypothesis. I agree that NASA would not have canceled the space shuttle program if still in competition with the Soviet Union, so in that sense, you're completely correct (who would have even given them a lift?). If that's what you meant by collapsed though, then I agree. But I do think that NASA would still have made the switch to mostly unmanned missions, and I also do not think the Soviet Union's programs were really innovating toward any sort of expansion after a certain point either, just the same as NASA: after all, the Soyuz program remains basically unchanged since its introduction in the 1960s (and since it had the lower cost to orbit compared to the USA, why fix it?). I just think that the resources and culture of NASA was not capable of producing, say, a Martian city. Perhaps a single trip *to* Mars and back (which is what everyone until recently thought would be a sensible goal) much like the Moon missions. Maybe an even better way to say this is that really the whole culture and budget of national space programs is based on missions, not things like a "transplanetary railroad," and in the end it's the government-funded mission-based approach that I think history has proven is impossible to lead to serious colonization and expansion in the solar system by humans. The biggest achievement, the ISS, was a rare time when it wasn't just a one-off mission, and it's the clearest continued success of both nations.
'Mostly unmanned missions' is the right approach though. Space is incredibly hostile. We can't live on the surface of either the Moon or Mars, because of the cancer-making cosmic rays which are not deflected by magnetic fields or filtered by atmospheres. The first leg of any colonization attempt should be plant life in underground biospheres dug out by machines. Getting the balance of all the necessary material cycles in a miniature biosphere to sustain human life there will be a very difficult challenge.
The dream of a spacefaring civilization is a very long term project, and in order to get there, we need the biosphere here on Earth to survive in the long term. In other words, taking care of this living planet is a necessary precondition for spreading life into space. And capitalism is incompatible with life. It needs to be dismantled, if only to buy us more time.
I think China is a better horse to bet on than a dick measuring contest between a few profiteers whose unreasonable wealth have made their egos untether and escape the Earth's gravity well of concern. China recently started deploying a new space station, and have plans to make a crewed Moon base. That seems like a more reasonable first step than sending cars into space for a photo op, or people to Mars prematurely, where they will die in misery with billions watching, potentially turning people off space.
Again, just to address something specific here, which is your China prediction: it's already very clear that the companies are massively outpacing states, which is whole reason this is coming to the fore. China will privatize incredibly quickly, and already are, abandoning their state-run programs for government-funded contracts to private companies in exactly the way that NASA is currently having such success with. So things are already heading in the opposite direction https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/01/21/1016513/china-private-commercial-space-industry-dominance/
I deleted this comment because of the link promoting an unrelated commercial product
The face when Ayn Rand made the same metaphor as you