The Case for Space

Some days, I feel like I’ve read everything worth reading on the internet. Then I come across something like Charles Stross’ blog, and realize how much I have to discover. I particularly enjoyed his, perhaps now classic, post about colonizing space: The High Frontier Redux. Yes, it’s nearly seven years old, but it’s still quite relevant, and given that his post was a redux of an even older one, it’s illuminating to look at it given what we’re seeing today.

If you go read the post (and I hope you do), be sure to also read through at least the first fifty or so comments. Stross has collected some thoughtful and engaged readers (kudos to him and them). Commenter Surur says, “Doing deeds for all time is a real and proven motivator, and has the immediate benefit of glorifying the person who initiated the effort in the first instance.” Stross responds, “Okay, I see where you're coming from…But I still maintain that the urge to immortality thing -- at least when divorced from reproduction -- is essentially religious in tone; you won't ever see any results, so you're basically doing it on the basis of faith in something you will almost certainly never see.” Earlier, in his actual essay, he makes the same argument in the context of people wanting to get off the Earth to avoid “putting all our eggs in one basket.”

If that’s the only form of immortality we consider, then sure. By the time the Earth is in any real danger, we’re so far into the future that people are unlikely to resemble human beings anymore, much less care how we got off the Earth. I would argue that stronger forms of immortality are more immediate: legacy and fame.

The idea of leaving behind a legacy is strongly rooted in human beings. At the very least, as Stross says, you can produce another human being (your child) who carries your genetic legacy for one generation. The people who dream bigger, though, want to leave their marks on the world in other ways - pyramids, skyscrapers, works of art or science. These are definitely ersatz forms of immortality, but they’re hardly being built on faith. Most great endeavors don’t span multiple lifetimes. In fact, most of the great egomaniacs - pharaohs, kings, artists - wanted to witness their work and appreciate the greatness. They reveled in contemporary fame as much as they wanted to be remembered by future generations.

Similarly, as we’re seeing today with SpaceX, DSI, and Planetary Resources, the most daring space ventures are being conducted by entrepreneurs and visionaries who want to see the fruits of their labor within their lifetimes. They want to go down in history as pioneers, but they also want renown in the world today. That doesn’t seem like a matter of faith so much as a matter of ego.

At another point, Stross likens the practical experience of working in near space to that of being on an oil rig or some other inhospitable locale - in other words, something isolating and unpleasant that is tolerated until the worker can return home. While I might agree with this if (when?) space exploration and excavation were old hat, I can’t see it as realistic in terms of human nature today. Look at what’s happening with the one way ticket known as Mars One. Loads of people have signed up for it knowing that they will never return to Earth. Why? Fame. The chance to make history. The chance to be first. The same thing is going to happen with asteroid mining, establishing a moon colony, building LEO stations, and other near space ventures.

Pioneering human beings have certainly been driven by profit and by faith, but they have been equally driven by ego, fame and curiosity. In the case of space exploration and in-system colonization, I suspect that the latter reasons will be more compelling. In a large part that’s because of the exact objections that Stross raises to the first two reasons. Yes, the monetary returns will eventually be great for asteroid and lunar mining, but they will probably take longer than a (current) human lifetime to realize. Similarly, while Mars One is planning to establish a human habitat on Mars, it’s not intended as a long term, viable colony so much as an exercise in psychology and reality-based entertainment. In the end, though, if fame is what gets people more excited about getting off the Earth, I say go ahead. Let’s feed that pioneering egotistical spirit!

Handy Tips for New Parents

The internet is full of these lists, and obviously I haven't read them all, but here are some ideas that I don't see often. I've found them especially useful during the early years of being a parent. 

1. Do what works for you, your family, and your baby. If you're taking the time to read up on parenting, you're already doing a great job. Okay, this one is more of a disclaimer than a tip, but it needs to be said. Often. Really, you're not going to screw up as badly as you might feel.

2. A Bottle A Day: if you want to be attached to your baby at all times, that's awesome. Go with it (see #1). If you don't, I would suggest a bottle of something once a day, be it pumped breast milk or formula, starting as early as you are comfortable. I'm not guaranteeing that this will prevent your baby from going on a bottle strike three days before you're due back at work, but it should improve the odds in your favor. [Aside: if you're breast feeding, try to time the bottle feed with the first middle of the night feeding and have someone else do it, if possible, to get yourself a longer stretch of sleep.]

3. Command Central: set up a spot for the new Mother/Father where the parent can sleep, feed the baby, change a diaper, and have the following in arms reach: TV remote (if near the TV), laptop/tablet, phone, large bottle of water, and snacks. For the first few weeks after bringing a new baby home, expect to spend a lot of time at command central, especially if you're a breast feeding Mother. If you're a breast feeding Father, I know some news outlets and biologists who would really like to talk to you.

4. Sleep Training: if you're going to do it, I suggest you do it before the baby is trying to do back flips over the crib wall, i.e. between 4 and 8 months. If you fail spectacularly at training your baby to sleep through the night, do not despair. They all figure it out...eventually.

5. The Sheet Parfait: have at least two layers of sheet + waterproof mattress pad on any surface where the baby/child will be sleeping, be it a crib or bed. This ensures minimal disruption in the middle of the night when any kind of accident might occur. I've found this to be extremely useful even in later years to deal with pee accidents and random cough-induced vomiting. If you live in a place with cold winters, keeping an extra blanket or two on hand is a good idea, too. Fluids can be...challenging to contain.

6. The Link Collection:

http://kellymom.com/ (breastfeeding issues/support; sometimes a little too "rah rah" breast-is-best, but the information is sound)

http://askmoxie.org/ (everything...lots of good ideas in the comments; will make you feel a lot less alone about whatever problem you're dealing with)

http://parents.berkeley.edu/advice/ (various topics; many useful personal stories and suggestions)

Everyone Wins

I’m aware that the purpose of many of The Atlantic’s opinion pieces are intended to provoke commentary and generate traffic. In and of itself, that’s not a bad thing. The world needs more analytical thinking, and if even a fraction of that traffic engages in some critical thought, society will benefit. I do wish, however, that they would steer the conversation in directions that are controversial in a more positive manner. This article is a case in point.

The article’s main thesis questions a basic assumption about paid leave for new Mothers versus Fathers and addresses the potential fallacy, especially in modern times, that one is more useful than the other. This seems sufficiently controversial and socially progressive by itself. Unfortunately, it stumbles by trying to make the benefits of paternity leave into a competition:

“While paid paternity leave may feel like an unexpected gift, the biggest beneficiaries aren’t men, or even babies. In the long run, the true beneficiaries of paternity leave are women, and the companies and nations that benefit when women advance.”

First of all, don’t “companies and nations” include men and children? Second, how exactly are they going to accurately measure a fuzzy word like “benefit” to the point that they can rank who receives the most? Instead of wasting time picking a fight about this, our focus should be on the fact that this policy should improve everyone’s lives in some way. Men will feel less pressure to return to the workplace, women will face less discrimination by being “baby tracked,” and even those without babies will reap the benefit of retaining a greater percentage of female talent. The policy would especially help the lower socioeconomic levels that are sometimes overlooked by feminist policy making. When both parents are working to make ends meet, giving paid paternity leave is a financial boon which defers day care costs without reducing the net household income.

The article then goes on to say this:

“paternity leave [...] is a brilliant and ambitious form of social engineering: a behavior-modification tool that has been shown to boost male participation in the household, enhance female participation in the labor force, and promote gender equity in both domains”

All of those results sound great, but quite a few men don’t need to be engineered or psyched into spending more time with their children. Many are already frustrated with their work-life balance, and their numbers are increasing. Was it really necessary to use words that, dare I say, patronises men and possibly alienates the women who are partnered with these men, never mind gay male parents who adopt. The rest of the article presents a sound, cogent, and sometimes impassioned argument in favor of paternity leave, but I nearly missed it all because I was so irritated by these two passages.

We cannot avoid biology (until someone invents a reliable artificial womb), and that means women are the baby makers and need time off work after giving birth. What we can change is the attitude that women are more naturally suited to the raising of children than men are. Women are socially conditioned to the role just as men are led away from it, but that needs to stop if we are to achieve gender equality in all spheres of life: home, career, and child care. Antagonising men by making social change into a competition isn’t going to help bring it about. Emphasizing the point that all of society, including the men, will benefit tremendously just might sway some opinions.