Black swans exist and will touch your life, regardless of your nature, nuture, history, or beliefs.
The Troubles With Thinking
Exploration of space and exploitation of space resources is costly in terms of material, time and human life. The value of activities to, through and in space must outweigh its attendant costs to be sustainable. I can find only one objective need for humans to become space-faring, one reason that clearly enunciates a need commensurate with the costs of the endeavor. The understanding itself of that need is faced with fundamental obstacles within human rationality that are rarely ever surmounted. The need itself can be called an "outside context problem" (coined by Iain M. Banks in his novel Excession) and is extraordinarily difficult for anyone to objectively consider, regardless of one's intelligence, education or experience. Cognitive bias and heuristics are so powerful and ingrained in people that an objective analysis of any "outside context problem" is very difficult and, in fact, intellectually dangerous.
The proposition is simply this: the development of human infrastructure in space is necessary and sufficient to avert the extinction of the human species. To do otherwise is sheer folly. Further, all other justifications for becoming a space-faring species pale in benefit when compared against this need. However, computing the monetary value of averting human extinction will be an extreme challenge. Unlike the more readily understood justifications, the value of averting human extinction cannot be objectively computed beforehand; it must simply be taken as "immense".
For some weeks now, I have been attempting to compile a set of first-order and second-order modal logical propositions as well as some easily understood syllogisms to yield compelling, objective arguments for space exploration and exploitation. As I worked to that end, I felt increasingly uneasy that I was introducing factors according to my own biases - unforgivable errors in the quest for objectivity. Turning back to principles learned in school, I began refreshing my understanding of logic itself.
In parallel, I took a closer look at what seemed to be the most powerful postulate, that being the eventual extinction of the human species. My experience in business management has grown to include some objective risk analysis, so I thought it only appropriate that I find from experts (smarter than I) the quantified probability of extinction, with its error margin and any caveats, and the modes considered. My education included some schooling in philosophical existentialism, which I find fun, but this is a little different - what might be called a "practical" existentialism, if you will. Over the years, I've retained disjointed bits of information relating to this practical existentialism but hadn't really delved into it.
Inescapably, I was drawn back into yet another field of personal interest that I haven't had the opportunity to explore as much as I have wanted - cognitive science. The result of this knowledge renewal and expansion has been enlightening, even if a bit troubling. I found an outstanding paper by Eliezer Yudkowsky, a member of the Singularity Institute of Artificial Intelligence, titled "Cognitive Biases Potentially Affecting Judgment of Global Risks" which provided me with some necessary clarity of thought.
Human extinction can be summed up rather economically as having a very high negative utility. Such an event doesn't just lower the utility present in one activity within those of a limited number of humans for some finite time - extinction is of all members and forever, so it states a total loss of all future endeavors by any and all humans. The cost is immense for those who desire that descendants get an opportunity to live, let alone better their station individually and collectively.
When asked the question, "why go to space?", there is very little agreement in answers except from within relatively small groups of people. For instance, members of The Planetary Society may tend to answer that the search for extraterrestrial life is sufficient. Adventurous sorts may tend to answer "because it's there!" or some such. While those keen on nationalistic interests may focus on the military advantage of the high ground. Each answer is sufficient unto the group answering, none are agreed to be sufficient for the human race as a whole. Because such a spectrum of answers exist, it is reasonable to infer that there seems to exist no solid, compelling, single reason to go to space - one that could be agreed on by all members of a nation's population, let alone all members of the human population.
Out Of Sight, Out Of Mind
But for that which no one is comfortable talking about or, perhaps closer to reality, no one is capable of considering without enormous perceptive bias - extinction of the entire human population. There is no shortage of possible scenarios by which this could come to pass, as Nick Bostrom of Oxford University has laid out in his article "Existential Risks: Analyzing Human Extinction Scenarios and Related Hazards". Burdened with appropriate caveats, but nonetheless telling, are the speculated probabilities of extinction values of 25% to 50% in the next 100 years. This number floored me, to be honest. When I began searching for a probability of extinction as a premise for space endeavors, I had already presumed that a number far less than 1% in 1,000 years would mean my arguments would have to be most persuasive and that a number closer to 1% would provide an argumentative "slam dunk".
Something that stands out, though, is that there are many powerful biases of human thinking that render the perceived threat of extinction nearly trivial. A convenient list that includes, among others, the trivializing biases can be found under "cognitive biases" on wikipedia. Even though these are well-studied and have been found emperically true, some readers may feel quite incorrectly that they are not subject to them.
A very obvious hinderance to objective consideration of extinction is the lack of precedent - dare I say, we've never gone extinct before. I trust the reader immediately senses the fallacy of using this reasoning. Another, perhaps more interesting cognitive factor, is the inverse relationship humans chronically apply to magnitude and incidence of a negative utility event. This is to say that as the magnitude of negative utility event increases, humans strongly tend to assign a lower probability of occurrence to that event. It's just human nature, an unfortunate obstruction for those of us concerned with existence. Yet another bias, maybe surprising to the reader, is that humans strongly tend to both overestimate the probability of a complex system successfully operating while, simultaneously, grossly underestimating the probability of a critical component failure. It might serve to recall the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster at this point.
About The Black Swan
No amount of emperical or historical evidence need exist for something to be true. Nassim Taleb, author of "Fooled by Randomness" and other irreverent epistemic pieces, presented a paper at a Pentagon conference titled "The Black Swan: Why Don't We Learn that We Don't Learn?" which was commented on by David Ignatius of the Washington Post. Mr. Taleb makes the point that the most significant drivers in history are "outliers", disjunctive occurences . Like the discovery of black swans in Australia which immediately falsified the long-held law that all swans are white, a disjunctive "black swan" will appear as a complete surprise to all, shifting the course of history.
There is no sense in preparing for a future sure to be substantially altered by disjunctive events by utilizing hindsight, a method we all find extremely hard to abandon. As we continue to collect knowledge of our world and universe, it could be argued (at the last figurative minute, with the benefit of relatively hasty hindsight) that we "saw it coming", but chose an inappropriate path, or an insufficient amount, of remedy. Nonetheless, the deed will have been done while, for all intents and purposes, we were asleep at the wheel. While all linearly played events that precipitate the extinction event may not be disjunctive, the extinction outcome would still surely be such.
No person or entity on this planet, save perhaps some who suffer from a psychosis, wish the extinction of humans. Most, in fact, would unequivocably proclaim a duty to their descendents to try to provide a better world for them. Nonetheless, extinction will happen without proactive efforts to avert such an end to our species. When it does, it will be a disjunctive event. "I sure didn't see that coming!", we'll say indignantly. That'll be just a little while after the dolphins sing "So long, and thanks for all the fish."
Get To The Point!
The Black Swan will one day descend on humanity in the form of extinction - utterly total and unforgiving. As you may well have heard before, it is not a matter of "if", it is a matter of "when". The longer we find rationalizations against proactive risk mitigation, the more we assure our descendants no life whatsoever and the commensurate abandonment of all progress the species has accomplished before.
The non-trivial scenarios of extinction are spatially defined as encompassing the planet Earth, our solar system and our galaxy. For example, in the order just set forth, an impact of an asteroid tens of kilometers across, the engulfment of Earth by our own sun, and the collision of our galaxy with Saggitarius Dwarf Elliptical Galaxy or Andromeda Galaxy.
We have the technological know-how to begin developing a system to mitigate extinction risks spatially defined by our planet. We can get to work right now, with a sense of purpose, nobleness and intrinsic value, to enable large-scale space access and establishment of permanent occupation of another body in our solar system. The combination of factors presenting the lowest combined challenge to access, contruction, resource availability and human physiology seem to clearly indicate the planet Mars as being the logical first step.
Continuing developmental efforts could later lead us to an ability of mitigating extinction risks defined within our solar system, even within our galaxy. These risk-reducing endeavors are, quite simply, establishment of living environments not located in our present solar system, or in our present galaxy. While we must take the entire mitigation effort a step at a time, beginning with a second home for humanity within our solar system, the logical extension is intergalactic travel. We can't afford to wait until the "last minute" unless, of course, you agree with the unfortunate masses who would rather just wait and see.
I am not keen on unreasonable goals, but neither am I keen on supporting the extinction of humans through apathy. The technology for intergalactic travel is nearly unknown at this time, save for vague concepts of generational ships. We mustn't try to bite off more than can be chewed, lest our efforts become so diluted as to be ineffective. So, then, we need to organize efforts in a fashion that quickly results in the harvest of "low hanging fruit", combined with a concurrent, slowly growing body of research supporting the longest-term efforts. In particular, low-cost, high-volume space access is of immediate concern and worthy of the bulk of resource expenditure now. Intergalactic system technologies deserve, indeed require, continuous research efforts, although at proportionally lower funding levels.
As for the present, all activities that consciously work toward the realization of the goal of human infrastructure in space are commendable. That is true whether they are short-term or long, commercial or individual, or even technology transfers from a decidedly narrow-focused, short-sighted military effort. The key is to develop, innovate or experiment as each person or organization sees fit but, above all, not to stop. Effectiveness toward the necessary goal is assured if all participants in this grand and critical adventure remember where the finish lines are, specifically: first, one or more extraterrestrial homes, then extrasolar homes and, finally, extragalactic homes. If this understanding is the case, every suborbital joyride, vacation trip to an orbiting inflatable hotel, tinkering with autonomous vehicles and more can provide elements that the human species needs to assure ultimate survival, while satisfying short-term business and financial requirements that make such pursuits viable in today's economy.
There will never be a "better" time to consider the propositon spelled out in this essay - it is the nature of the problem that determines that fact. Similarly, there will never be a "better" time to get to work on averting extinction - no amount of data or debate can change the problem or the fundamental solutions indicated. While never forgetting why we must do it, we need to pursue development of new homes for humanity in a continuous, sustainably aggressive fashion, focused on creating a future wherein humans have consciously increased their chance for survival as a species - else we're making the statement that the whole of humanity is not worth the effort. Don't wait until your neighbors understand the problem, don't wait for your governmental representatives or business leaders to adopt the subject as a talking point. I wish you personal success in getting your mind around the problem, understanding the nature of the problem, as well as the amazingly powerful troubles we all have in thinking about the problem - the inevitable and inarguable extinction of the human species.
Monday, November 12, 2007
On the Usefulness of Space Endeavors
Black swans exist and will touch your life, regardless of your nature, nuture, history, or beliefs.
The Troubles With Thinking
Exploration of space and exploitation of space resources is costly in terms of material, time and human life. The value of activities to, through and in space must outweigh its attendant costs to be sustainable. I can find only one objective need for humans to become space-faring, one reason that clearly enunciates a need commensurate with the costs of the endeavor. The understanding itself of that need is faced with fundamental obstacles within human rationality that are rarely ever surmounted. The need itself can be called an "outside context problem" (coined by Iain M. Banks in his novel Excession) and is extraordinarily difficult for anyone to objectively consider, regardless of one's intelligence, education or experience. Cognitive bias and heuristics are so powerful and ingrained in people that an objective analysis of any "outside context problem" is very difficult and, in fact, intellectually dangerous.
The proposition is simply this: the development of human infrastructure in space is necessary and sufficient to avert the extinction of the human species. To do otherwise is sheer folly. Further, all other justifications for becoming a space-faring species pale in benefit when compared against this need. However, computing the monetary value of averting human extinction will be an extreme challenge. Unlike the more readily understood justifications, the value of averting human extinction cannot be objectively computed beforehand; it must simply be taken as "immense".
