A New Book from a British group - Masters of the Universe

Bill White · 2004-03-02 19:22:28

I have just finished downloading a new book from the UK think tank Demos. The book is called "Masters of the Universe" and a free pdf file can be found [http://www.demos.co.uk/catalogue/masters_page380.aspx]here.

I have not read any of it yet.

Has anyone heard of Demos? - - especially our UK members! Has anyone heard of this book?

I got the link at [http://spacepolitics.com]http://spacepolitics.com and while he hadn't read it either, he expressed concern that he would disagree with the book's conclusions.

Cobra Commander · 2004-03-03 16:50:34

My initial impression is that while it brings up some good points and suggestions, overall it is naive and counter to the eventual human habitation of Mars or any other celestial body.

"Until recently the remaining torchbearers of the final frontier were the space lobby groups, which have done their best to keep the dream of JFK's 1962 speech alive. A good example is the Space Frontier Association, which is founded on a set of five propositions:

It is human destiny to open the space frontier.

This must be achieved within 50 to 100 years.

America, as a frontier nation, has a special responsibility to open this frontier.

The current US space programme is not doing so.
It must be replaced with one that will"

While they mentioned this as an example of a paradigm they go on to reject overall, I think these points are valid.

"Immediately before taking office Donald Rumsfeld chaired a high-level space commission, whose final report gives further insights into the current administration's thinking. The commission ominously predicts, 'every medium - air, land and sea - has seen conflict. Reality indicates that space will be no different. Given this virtual certainty, the US must develop the means both to deter and to defend against hostile acts in and from space.'"

Again, this isn't really arguable. While other nations may not be comfortable with the US (rather than themselves) being in the sole position to act on this, the underlying thinking is sound.

"The report states that: 'No system of missile defences can be fully effective without placing sensors and weapons in space... For US armed forces to continue to assert military pre-eminence, control of space...must be an essential element of our military strategy.' It acknowledges that this will inevitably require the use offorce within space and from space, and calls for the.creation of a new US space force as a separate service alongside the army, navy and air force. It also questions whether NASA should remain independent of these wider military and strategic priorities."

Again, hostility to this concept seems to be more rooted in being "outside" rather than having a valid argument and' alternative. While it may sound ominous that US government officials are discussing the increased militarization and weaponization of space, it is prudent. If human activity in space is to increase, we're just going to have to accept military operations as part of that activity. It's part of human civilization, we either grow the whole thing or quarantine ourselves here on Earth. We can't pick and choose only the warm and fuzzy parts for export to the stars.

"Yet any moves in this direction would flout the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, which requires space activities to have 'peaceful purposes'."

The Outer Space Treaty prevents any development, any meaningful "activity." Undermining it is a good thing in itself. By all means, flout.

"Weaponisation is also opposed by almost every other nation. A UN resolution on the subject was passed in November 2000 with the support of 163 nations."

Out of weakness. They can't do it themselves so they want to stop us from doing it. How many of those 163 nations would oppose weaponizing space if it were their weapons on the line? I know there are many non-Americans on this forum, I ask you to think long and hard about this one. Do you really trust everything your governments say on these matters or is it possible that there is a bit of envy and fear at work?

"Kagan argues that the US divides the world into friends and enemies, prefers unilateralist solutions, favours policies of coercion over dip!pmacy, and resorts to force more quickly. Europe, on the other ha'hd, has a more complex picture of the world, prefers multilateral solutions, favours negotiation and diplomacy over coercion, and tends to emphasise processes over results."

Can't really argue with that either. Now ask yourself this; in the colonization of space do we want the emphasis on "processes over results?" Taming a new frontier is not an undertaking for the timid or those worried about offending anyone.

"But the only stable and successful international order Americans can imagine is one that has the United States at its centre. Nor can Americans conceive of an international order that is not defended by power, and specifically by American power.' US power is now so dominant that any threats it faces are inevitably asymmetric in nature. As a result, the US neither seeks nor expects a level playing field - on Earth or in space."

I for one can "conceive" of an order not defended by American power, but given the history of the likely successors I don't want to risk it. I don't want to hit anyone, but I like knowing we could clobber the world if we need to. As for that last line about the "level playing field," it doesn't carry much weight coming from the Brits. I don't recall the Empire being particularly concerned with a "level playing field." Does any dominant power ever try to even things out for the competition? How long would such a power be dominant? The Nations of Europe had their chance, it looks like they'll just have to wait until their turn comes up again. Which it will no doubt, in time.

"The European Union represents a commitment to a set of distinctive values: democracy, coexistence and cooperation between nations that have learned from a history of conflict."

That might be a bit premature. We could well be in a brief period of European peace rather than the start of a new era.
Afterall, all of Europe was fighting until 1945, and if you really get down to it a big reason for the following "unity" was the direct result of rebuilding and the Soviet Union sitting next door. So Europe has truly been "at peace" without compulsion for about 13 years. I'm not impressed yet.

"Applications of satellite technology that have excited the most interest over the past year are in transport: specifically the use of GPS as the basis of a nationwide road pricing scheme. Now that Ken Livingstone has shown that congestion charging can work in London, the Department for Transport is considering the introduction of a national scheme. GPS offers the most effective method of doing this.
By introducing a GPS 'black box' into every car, it would be possible to tax motorists for the precise distance travelled, and to vary charges according to time of day or location"

Hmm, we could use space to build infrastructure on new worlds and expand the domain of (Western) human civilization, or as a way to pay new asinine taxes made possible by technology... Militarization is looking pretty good right now.

"This is another area of tension between US and European visions for space. At precisely the time that the space community should be embracing new forms of open innovation, President Bush's announcement of a massive boost in funding for human exploration, combined with his enthusiasm for weaponisation, has sent a strong signal that the US favours a closed approach."

This, among many other passages, implies that the so-called "European vision for space" minimizes human activity in space. Scientific research for its own sake is essentially pointless if we don't do anything with it. Avoiding weaponisation of space requires avoiding humans in space, in which case all we're doing is satisfying our curiosity with expensive toys.

If this is the distinction, I like the alleged dirty, gun-toting, boots on the ground American vision.

"Today, the space age no longer feels like the future. It doesn't even feel like the present. There are a number of explanations for this. First, the frontier myth has lost much of its power. Since the Apollo era it has been subject to much revision and critique, especially surrounding the negative experiences of Native Americans, African Americans and women. The space programme itself has increasing failed to represent a changing society, a point made by Gill Scott Heron in his song 'Whitey on the Moon'. For many people, frontiers have come to mean conquest, rather than progress."

Yes, bad things happened in the conquest of the American frontier, but that doesn't negate the good or invalidate the model. In the development of a new frontier, conquest and progress go hand in hand. Besides, so far every target for potential developemt is free of natives to be oppressed and exploited, or to impede progress depending upon your perspective. Conquest is not the opposite of progress.

Congress is.

"Given the likely advances in space science over the next decade, it is possible that some of these questions will move centre-stage. If astrobiologists succeed in their search for life beyond Earth, space science could become the locus for a deeper public conversation about the purpose and destination of human activity, and the need for new forms of global - or even interplanetary! - governance."

I've got some definate thoughts on interplanetary governenance, whether or not life beyond Earth turns up. I doubt anything devised under the mentality of this document would function. Adherence to the Outer Space Treaty alone causes huge problems. Perhaps a new thread is in order.

"For the first time since the end of the Cold War, there is a growing recognition that space matters. George W Bush has made it a central focus of his second-term electoral platform."

That's overstating the situation in oh so many ways.

"MORI polling for Demos has uncovered a genuine concern among the British public about the militarisation of space: 66 per cent feel that space should be a neutral place, with no military uses, and 68 per cent are concerned that the US is 'more interested in the military potential of space than in sending astronauts to Mars'."

Of course they are, what use would the US government really have for going to Mars? Unless it was for military advantage or political show, maybe to one-up the Chinese. While not particularly encouraging, militarization will get people there faster than robot probes. And once the military has a "port" on Mars for whatever reason, we have the beginning of permanent habitation. We can't trust the government to colonize Mars for its own sake, but we just might able to trick them into starting the ball rolling.

"Yet in the second half of the programme ESA is proposing to play catch-up with NASA, by joining the race to put astronauts on Mars. The strategic rationale for this is flimsy at best. ESA argues that certain scientific experiments are best conducted by humans rather than robots, but it seems doubtful that these benefits will justify the potential for this half of the programme to absorb such a huge amount of money. The other argument being made is the familiar and unsubstantiated claim that this will somehow re-engage the public in space. However, as we argue above, there are many more innovative and genuinely participative methods of achieving this objective. Furthermore, at a practical level, ESA will struggle to compete with NASA's deeper pockets and greater experience in human exploration.
So our conclusions are a hearty yes to phase one of Aurora, but a polite no to phase two."

A policy which deliberately rejects manned Mars missions. More pro-robot bigotry. Next...

"This report argues that the time is ripe for Britain to develop a new vision of public space. This vision has five core dimensions:

It is distinctively European,grounded in a commitment to international development and environmental protection.

I see. The American vision is ignorant of the past, unilateral and non-inclusive but a "distinctively European" approach is wonderfully progressive. ???

It sees space as a crucial part of the smart state, contributing to economic innovation and public service renewal.

And how does it contribute to these things? Never really explained. And "Smart State," that conjures up some imagery they might want to suppress.

It recognises the intrinsic value of space science and earth observation in understanding the origins of the Universe and our place within it.

And that's great, but to what end? Just to know for our own satisfaction?

It reconnects space with our social and cultural imagination.

Well, as an American, it seems hostile to "our" social and cultural imagination, which is apparently not a vision wortt pursuing. As Mars is apparently not a destination worth visiting, in person at least.

It democratises space by developing new forms of public participation that can shape the future direction of space science and technology."

So, what? It let's individuals build and launch their own spacecraft? Let's anyone off the street take part in the design of the robot probes that are apparently so well-suited to the task? or could it be that "democratises" is code for "make them think they're participating when they really have no say?"

Rxke · 2004-03-04 00:41:15

Hmm... Looks like a bit of good ole Eurocratism... By British no less! Huh?:;):

Space is good for taxing people,
Space is bad if we are not the masters there,
Manned flight is too fancy a thing;
...
While I agree with some points, they lack a lot of things in their vision: courage, imagination...
They almost admit literally they do not want to xplore too much anymore, better to stay in LEO, for the 'smart state' (sounds too Big Brother for me, honestly...)

Masters of LEO ...

Mundaka · 2004-03-04 16:14:03

Bill White · 2004-03-04 17:53:25

By introducing a GPS 'black box' into every car, it would be possible to tax motorists for the precise distance travelled, and to vary charges according to time of day or location"
Hmm, we could use space to build infrastructure on new worlds and expand the domain of (Western) human civilization, or as a way to pay new asinine taxes made possible by technology... Militarization is looking pretty good right now.
Jeez! I haven't laughed that hard in weeks! You're a rare specimen Cobra, somebody better have you stuffed and mounted while there's still time. :laugh:

I concur with Mundaka. This quote is perhaps the best bit of an excellent review. Well done.

I believe the book offers excellent insight into a mindset that needs to be overcome if space settlement advocates are to prevail. I say this as someone who is certainly more "liberal" than either Cobra or Mundaka. :;):

The other mindset to overcome are the Pentagon/Beltway control freaks who surely have read Heinlein's "Harsh Mistress" and are well aware that Job#1 for any red blooded American Mars settler will be to revolt against the Mother Planet.

Scylla and Charybdis?

Rxke · 2004-03-04 19:40:12

The bit you guys quoted from Cobra, got a chuckle out of me, too, but a pained one... He highlighted-quite successfully- the typical Eurocrat way of looking at things, IMO. We're steadily becoming some kind of a cross-breed of a Kafkaesque world and a Big Brother one... (Europe, I mean...)

Now, doesn't that sound harsh from a leftie! (sometimes... Some socialists still live in the 19th Century, if you ask me...)

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-03-02 19:22:28

Re: A New Book from a British group - Masters of the Universe

#2 2004-03-03 16:50:34

Re: A New Book from a British group - Masters of the Universe

#3 2004-03-04 00:41:15

Re: A New Book from a British group - Masters of the Universe

#4 2004-03-04 16:14:03

Re: A New Book from a British group - Masters of the Universe

#5 2004-03-04 17:53:25

Re: A New Book from a British group - Masters of the Universe

#6 2004-03-04 19:40:12

Re: A New Book from a British group - Masters of the Universe

Board footer