Is technology the cure for X?

[hobbsyoyo]

I want to carry over an exchange for a users group as I think it deserves a wider audience. This thread is not about the space program, but that's what started the exchange that led to it:

Poster: There's far better, more feasible, more productive things to do to help mankind than wasting a lot of money on trying to get to Mars.

Me:Not many things would help people more than a Mars project Poster. You have no idea how much every day life has been enriched for everyone (and not just Americans) due to the Apollo program and the space race. I'm not exaggerating because I'm a space nut, it's the truth that those things have had massive impacts on quality of life. A Mars project would be that on steroids given the impact it would have on sustainability-related fields (recycling, crop production, air quality, energy generation, communication technology, 'smart' grids, etc etc). It would not be a waste by any stretch - you have to see the big picture.

How many social programs themselves work out to be terribly successful in the long run? How many become long running programs that balloon, bloat and need constant adjustment or just flat out fail? These sorts of programs, while noble and helpful, do not tend to solve problems in the long run, they just ameliorate the symptoms. Technology does fix problems, sometimes permanently (smallpox anyone?) and even when it creates some other problems, on balance, it does waaay more good than bad. Even the problems it causes (global warming) could be massive sources of economic growth if tackled in a smart way. That's what happens in a lot of cases any ways.

And what else is a Mars project other than a massive technology program? It's far better than spending our money on war or another housing block for the poor. Not that I'm against housing blocks for the poor, mind you, but again, those housing blocks won't fix poverty. Technology does. EVERYONE was poor before we had technology and while many still are, overall, the numbers show that we as a species are getting ahead day by day. Technology does that.



_________

So am I right or am I wrong here? Put aside the space program aspects of it (unless you want to talk about that which is totes awesomesauce) and instead debate the broader implications of technology as a panacea. Is it? If so, at what cost does it come at? Should we spend more resources trying to increase our species knowledge and technology at the expense of social programs? Is there a balance between the two? If so, then what is the right 'mix'?

 

[IAM]

I think spacer exploration should be the second largest budget item in every developed country. If we (humans) could accomplish the following it would be worth the lives of a Billion people. Yes I would count myself in that life lose.

1- Build a manned space ship that could explore our solar system. A ship that could operate for many decades alone.
2- Build a space elevator.
3- Permanent manned bases on our moon, Mars, and one other planet/moon.
4- Begin mining of asteroids.
5- Send multiple unmanned probes to the nearest stars.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

A Mars project, and technological innovation in general, are long-term solutions to problems, assuming everything goes well. In the meantime, people need food and other essentials.

I do wonder what the Apollo Program did for the poorest of the poor. I can clearly see what smallpox eradication did (a benefit called "not dying from freaking smallpox"), but the impact of humanity's greatest achievement isn't as clear.

 

[Lillefix]

I do wonder what the Apollo Program did for the poorest of the poor.

Who are "the poorest of the poor" exactly?

 

[hobbsyoyo]

A Mars project, and technological innovation in general, are long-term solutions to problems, assuming everything goes well. In the meantime, people need food and other essentials.

I do wonder what the Apollo Program did for the poorest of the poor. I can clearly see what smallpox eradication did (a benefit called "not dying from freaking smallpox"), but the impact of humanity's greatest achievement isn't as clear.

How many millions of sub-Saharan Africans have access to cell phones or smart phones that rely on major advances in computer technology and satellite communications enabled by the Space Race and Apollo? What about the food rations that are gifted to poor nations - a lot of which rely on vacuum packing/sterilization techniques derived from space technology? Same with vaccines?

A Mars project would have lots of implications for growing food (they will have to grow it in close environments) and even climate change mitigation (as eventually we'll want to terraform Mars). Then there's things like satellites that help nations cope with it already or at least understand it and even improve crop yields and inform decisions such as where to clear cut and where not to.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

I'd like a bit more detail so this issue can be cleared up decisively. Point out the innovations required for the the Apollo program (this was what I was only talking about) specifically and connect them to further advances required for what you listed in your post.

Would also like to note that smallpox eradication was a permanent solution to the problem of suffering from smallpox.

 

[El_Machinae]

I'm firmly of the opinion that technology is necessary to uplifting and improving the human condition.

So, the main issue is that you can have targeted technological spending. Want a treatment for Alzheimer's, fund Alzheimer's research. Want cheaper solar panels, fund solar research. The idea that you can fund a Mars project and then 'hope' the Alzheimer's and solar shakes out is ... well ... not fully true or evident.

What lifts people truly out of poverty? Jobs. And jobs are only really created through innovation, someone invents a new product or service and then hires people to deliver it. When you've got true poverty, then you don't even need to invent jobs, since there are products out there that already have markets. We'll buy grains, fruits, meat, coffee, etc. You can use the money to hire (local) teachers, plumbers, contractors, etc.
These initial careers require a basic capital investment, and that requires basic social spending.

So, where does this innovation spending and social spending come from? In established companies, "R&D" spending is considered to be a deficit in the stock price. They'll invest in innovation, but not very efficiently. Their sole goal is to sell you their product, and are merely trying to queak it for better market share. Spending that triggers a cognitive bias on your part is as good as true innovation.

 

[AdamCrock]

IDK Mars would be a place ideal for people not interested in politics - It would grow and prosper and thrive regardless of the political climate on Earth. It is a good thing. At some point declaring independace from earth .... and it's where the problems begin ....

 

[BenitoChavez]

If nothing else, space programs are an investment in our future as a species. Eventually the Earth will get used up so we will need someplace else to go. I like to think of it as a 401k for humanity.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I'd like a bit more detail so this issue can be cleared up decisively. Point out the innovations required for the the Apollo program (this was what I was only talking about) specifically and connect them to further advances required for what you listed in your post.

Alright I'll try and dig some up.

Would also like to note that smallpox eradication was a permanent solution to the problem of suffering from smallpox.

I know, I said that in the OP.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Big problem SS-18 ICBM:

NASA's in-house publication, Spinoff, which tracks technology spinoffs that came from NASA, only contains articles form 1976 onward.

This database contains abstracts of all Spinoff articles published since 1976. Links to the full-text articles in PDF are also provided.

1976 was at the very end of Apollo and only really encompasses Apollo Skylab missions and Apollo/Soyuz.

This makes it exponentially harder for me to find the (highly) specific information you want as the internet is full of false NASA spinoffs and in general, tends to have information slanted more toward creature comforts (Laptops) or high-technology solutions (MRI improvement) rather than lower-tech solutions that NASA creates. Basically, it's easy to find the 'flashy' spinoffs on the internet rather than the hum-drum kind of stuff.

Some interesting candidates:

The University of Miami School of Medicine asked the Research Triangle Institute for assistance in improvising the negative pressure technique to relieve respiratory distress in infants. Marshall Space Flight Center and Johnson Space Center engineers adapted this idea to the lower-body negative-pressure system seals used during the Skylab missions. Some 20,000 babies succumb to respiratory distress in the U.S. each year, a condition in which lungs progressively lose their ability to oxygenate blood. Both positive and negative pressure techniques have been used - the first to force air into lungs, the second to keep infant's lungs expanded. Negative pressure around chest helps the baby expand the lungs and maintain proper volume of air. If doctors can keep the infant alive for four days, the missing substance in the lungs will usually form in sufficient quantity to permit normal breathing. The Skylab chamber and its leakproof seals were adapted for medical use.

I'm having difficulty loading the full PDF on this school computer so these are the abstracts.

Bone blocks underlying tissue, making it difficult to get clear x-rays of soft body tissues. A promising improvement: use of filters such as those employed on the Landsat Earth Resources Satellite, to block out bone and enhance soft tissue images. Simple inexpensive system consists of a filter and optical decoder developed by NASA. The filter is placed between the patient and x-ray apparatus. Filter blocks out bone and the optical equipment displays a clear picture of the lung tissue.

Portable self-contained drill capable of extracting core samples as much as 10 feet below the surface was needed for the astronauts. Black & Decker used a specially developed computer program to optimize the design of the drill's motor and insure minimal power consumption. Refinement of the original technology led to the development of a cordless miniature vacuum cleaner called the Dustbuster. It has no hose, no cord, is 14 inches long, and also comes with a storage bracket that also serves as a recharger; plugs into a home outlet that charges the nickel cadmium batteries when not in use. Other home use cordless instruments include drills, shrub trimmers and grass shears. Company also manufactures a number of cordless tools used in the sheet metal automobile and construction industries, and a line of cordless orthopedic instruments.

^^This one is about improvements to power tools, which are common on construction sites even in the 3rd world.

ATM was developed for NSTL by Daedalus Company. It offers expanded capabilities for timely, accurate and cost effective identification of areas with prospecting potential. A related system is TIMS, Thermal Infrared Multispectral Scanner. Originating from Landsat 4, it is also used for agricultural studies, etc.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Not saying that a Mars project many decades from now should be on the back burner, because it should be funded along with most any other science and engineering related research project. However, it should also be a collaborative effort involving every single country on the planet, instead of any sort of nonsensical "race" against a largely imaginary boogeyman.

But I personally think that providing everybody on the planet the basic necessities of life is vastly more important. That even providing basic healthcare for each and every American, like most any other modern country, is a far more critical.

And arguing that the Apollo Program provided any technological advance that wouldn't have occurred anyway in a few short years, with the possible exception of things like Tang , the space pen, and specific technology necessary to keep humans alive in space, is just ludicrous. You might as well argue that without massive "defense" spending we wouldn't have commercial jets and traffic helicopters.

 

[Lillefix]

You might as well argue that without massive "defense" spending we wouldn't have commercial jets and traffic helicopters.

It had been argued that WW2 contributed strongly to the development of a lot of things including the computer. So yeah. Why not argue that if it might be true?

 

[peter grimes]

But I personally think that providing everybody on the planet the basic necessities of life is vastly more important. That even providing basic healthcare for each and every American, like most any other modern country, is a far more critical.

You could cut the Defense Budget in half, use 1/2 of the savings for a Mars project and the remaining 1/2 for basic income assistance, universal health care, (or whatever social support you like) and not need to increase government spending. In fact, I'd wager that tax receipts would increase...

So why not both? I don't think that, despite the claim in the OP, that we have to choose between pie-in-the-sky research and tech programs versus social programs.

 

[Antilogic]

Technology is how we put off making societal changes to solve our problems.

(I'll post a longer response later, this is a subscription post to follow.)

 

[Ayatollah So]

Let me ask you a trick question. It will seem totally off-topic, until you realize it isn't. So, here goes.

A large heavy metal object is at rest. A dozen strong men come along and push it toward the north. No other changes occur, other than the men's pushing and its obvious consequences. No one turns on a magnet to the south, no earthquake tilts the land toward the east, etc etc. So, which way does the object move? And why ISN'T the right answer, north?

Hint: the men are awfully dumb, and didn't take the time to survey the situation. If they had, they'd be pushing in a different direction, even though their only desire is to move the object northwards as fast as possible.

Bigger hint: the object is a rail car.

Sometimes movement is much easier in a direction that only loosely correlates to where you really want to go. Sometimes pushing to the east-northeast is the fastest way to go north. Politics is like that: not sometimes, but always.

If you want society to invest in tech, it helps a lot if it's sexy. Space is very sexy. So it's possible that space research is the fastest way to make a lot of tech progress that improves life here on earth.

That said ... I'm still with El Mac on this one. Targeting is so important, I think it actually overrides the greater ease of drumming up fund for sexy tech. But it's complicated, and my mind is pretty open about it.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I'd like to step back and just say that I really didn't intend to make this thread about the pros and cons of the space program or a Mars mission. It was just a useful talking point to (attempt to) prove a broader point on the impact of technology on our lives and to that end that the space program is essentially just (or at least should be) a technology development program.

I'm firmly of the opinion that technology is necessary to uplifting and improving the human condition.

So, the main issue is that you can have targeted technological spending. Want a treatment for Alzheimer's, fund Alzheimer's research. Want cheaper solar panels, fund solar research. The idea that you can fund a Mars project and then 'hope' the Alzheimer's and solar shakes out is ... well ... not fully true or evident.

I agree 100%, targeted solutions are best for specific problems. However, I also feel that 'general' tech programs are warranted and that to a large extent, the space program fills this need. I do not see the two things at odds with one another either. We can and should increase R&D across the board both for specific targets (cancer cures, ending malaria, more efficient energy generation, etc) as well as more general purpose projects such as the space program.

It's easy to pigeon hole the space program as a targeted program itself as it does tend to have flagship goals. But the nature of working in space to reach specific goals has across the board increased our level of technology in huge ways.

NASA didn't set out to create better imaging systems (better MRI's) to diagnose astronauts, they needed it to address structural issues on their rockets. But out of that came a better tool for disease diagnosis that has save millions of lives. So on and so forth - and I have to say you're just wrong on solar cell efficiencies as it has been the space program that has pushed their development far more than any standalone project ever could as they are so central to the space program.

What lifts people truly out of poverty? Jobs. And jobs are only really created through innovation, someone invents a new product or service and then hires people to deliver it. When you've got true poverty, then you don't even need to invent jobs, since there are products out there that already have markets. We'll buy grains, fruits, meat, coffee, etc. You can use the money to hire (local) teachers, plumbers, contractors, etc.
These initial careers require a basic capital investment, and that requires basic social spending.

Millions of people were employed directly and indirectly by the Apollo program. Not just engineers and scientists either, but ordinary laborers of low skill levels who worked in the factories or staffed the offices of that serviced NASA's various centers. Additionally, NASA placed it's centers in poor areas like parts of Texas, Louisiana and Alabama. This speaks to SS-18's point on how Apollo helped poor people - it directly lifted a lot of folks out of poverty by giving them good jobs in support of the program in factories and offices across the country that didn't exist before the program and wouldn't have existed without it.

And to speak to your point on innovation - that's what the space program does best. As I stated before, the challenges of working in space has driven investment in innovation. NASA contractors didn't set out to make better microchips for consumers, they made them to fit in cramped capsules but Honeywell, IBM et al pushed them onto the market and everyone benefitted. NASA didn't seek to improve power tools to make building houses more profitable, they made it for astronauts to be able to work in space on various experiments and equipment. Yet it went out on the market and millions of laborers across the globe now have jobs in large part thanks to the huge gains in productivity of those improved cordless power tools. This pattern has repeated again and again because the important thing to realize is that the space program doesn't monopolize their innovations, they sell/license (or are outright owned by) to contractors and companies.

So, where does this innovation spending and social spending come from? In established companies, "R&D" spending is considered to be a deficit in the stock price. They'll invest in innovation, but not very efficiently. Their sole goal is to sell you their product, and are merely trying to queak it for better market share. Spending that triggers a cognitive bias on your part is as good as true innovation.

Are you suggesting that's the only place innovation spending and social spending come from - from companies? That's folly I believe, for all of the above. And as you point out, they aren't even necessarily efficient at R&D and that's where government sponsored programs (and not just the space program) play a crucial role. They have the power to push innovation that is needed even if it doesn't have an immediate effect on the bottom line for shareholders.

That said ... I'm still with El Mac on this one. Targeting is so important, I think it actually overrides the greater ease of drumming up fund for sexy tech. But it's complicated, and my mind is pretty open about it.

I agree with you 100% and I'm not really in any opposition to either of you - I'm just putting out an alternative path. And yes, space is sexy tech. An important implication of it is that it drives students into STEM fields (and even directly supports them through grants, scholarships, internships and later jobs or research funding) even if those students chose STEM fields that aren't directly tied to the space industry.

I don't mean to downplay vital research that's going on for things like cancer cures and so on. However, in current society, our children are having to pick role models and career paths and the competition for their attention is fierce. They tend to idolize flashy people, the rock stars, the professional ditzes (Kardashians *barf*), the movie stars and professional athletes. They don't often idolize scientists, engineers, scientists and doctors because those people don't get air time and are marginalized in a lot of popular culture (though that may be changing thanks to things like the Big Bang Theory - the jury's still out). But the space program is cool, it produces astronaut-heros that a lot kids do idolize and emulate even if they wind up becoming doctors instead of astronauts.

I guess the point I'm trying to make here is that we need more doctors and less athletes and one way to do that is to have 'sexy' programs like the space program that funnels kids to STEM rather than useless degree fields (or no degrees at all).

You could cut the Defense Budget in half, use 1/2 of the savings for a Mars project and the remaining 1/2 for basic income assistance, universal health care, (or whatever social support you like) and not need to increase government spending. In fact, I'd wager that tax receipts would increase...

That would be amazing and a far better use of our money. Hell, just about any additional social/techonological spending would be better than the current defense budget. It's bloated to hell and gone.

So why not both? I don't think that, despite the claim in the OP, that we have to choose between pie-in-the-sky research and tech programs versus social programs.

I'll chalk it up to poor wording on my part, but I don't advocate for and 'either/or' approach. My comments in the OP along those lines were merely to spark discussion about the proper balance as I think we can all agree there should be *some* balance between social programs and massive projects like a Mars mission.

Not saying that a Mars project many decades from now should be on the back burner, because it should be funded along with most any other science and engineering related research project. However, it should also be a collaborative effort involving every single country on the planet, instead of any sort of nonsensical "race" against a largely imaginary boogeyman.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

But I personally think that providing everybody on the planet the basic necessities of life is vastly more important. That even providing basic healthcare for each and every American, like most any other modern country, is a far more critical.

I don't disagree here and I'm not even saying we should have to choose. In fact, I don't think we have to choose - we can have our cake and eat it too. If we were willing to make sacrifices like cutting the defense budget, we could do all of the above and then some.

And arguing that the Apollo Program provided any technological advance that wouldn't have occurred anyway in a few short years, with the possible exception of things like Tang , the space pen, and specific technology necessary to keep humans alive in space, is just ludicrous. You might as well argue that without massive "defense" spending we wouldn't have commercial jets and traffic helicopters.

That's not what I'm arguing. I would argue that it accelerated a lot of advances a great deal. I would argue it employed a hell of a lot of people. I would argue that it lead to a lot of spin-offs that were not foreseen, could not be foreseen.

But I would not argue that it was the *only* way. I do think it is one of the better ways, however.

If nothing else, space programs are an investment in our future as a species. Eventually the Earth will get used up so we will need someplace else to go. I like to think of it as a 401k for humanity.

And I think this much is true as well. However, it's extremely hard to argue that point given how short-sighted the general public tends to be or how ignorant people can be when it comes to this sort of thing.

 

[BvBPL]

How many social programs themselves work out to be terribly successful in the long run? How many become long running programs that balloon, bloat and need constant adjustment or just flat out fail? These sorts of programs, while noble and helpful, do not tend to solve problems in the long run, they just ameliorate the symptoms. Technology does fix problems, sometimes permanently (smallpox anyone?) and even when it creates some other problems, on balance, it does waaay more good than bad. Even the problems it causes (global warming) could be massive sources of economic growth if tackled in a smart way. That's what happens in a lot of cases any ways.

The above is illustrative of the philosophy of disruption I mentioned in the "Jerk CEO" thread. The idea of disruption is that a) large social institutions are bulky and unwieldy, b) technology and the technology sector move quickly particularly as consumers interact with them, c) technology can be used to address many of the problems presently addressed by social institutions d) a quicker solution is superior, therefore we should consumer technology to address social woes.

Surely there's more to it, but that I think is the heart of both disruption and hobb's premise.

One significant problem in this line of thought is that technology can only achieve these goals by sitting on the shoulders of social institutions. Take the example, cited by hobb, of smallpox. Surely technology cured smallpox, but it could only have done so because of the social institutions that immunized populations. The smallpox vaccine, by itself, did not eliminate smallpox. It required large social institutions in the form of governmental health bodies to dispense the smallpox vaccine to eliminate smallpox.

This demonstrates that these sorts of technological advances work best when they work with social institutions. Technology is, very generally speaking, developed in the private sector whereas the social institutions in question, again speaking very generally, are public sector institutions. The private sector has little incentive (but not zero) to act in an altruistic function meaning that technological advances may not be made available to members of the public who could benefit from them but not afford them.

For example, disruptionists talk about the value of smart phone apps to perform roles like health self examinations and the like as a useful supplement or alternative to traditional diagnosticians. That may be fine for people who have smart phones, but that is not a solution for the majority of Americans, and the world, who do not have smart phones. The companies who developed those technological advances in medical self diagnosis will not make those applications available to people w/o smart phones because there isn't a market for them.

 

[peter grimes]

It did occur to me that there is a boogeyman that's NOT imaginary and IS worth racing against: the certainty that the earth will be struck by an orbit-crossing object that's strong enough to be a civilization eraser.

It's not an "if" sort of event, it's a "when".

Maybe not for 1000 years, 100,000, nor 10,000,000. But it will happen. And if we've never learned how to live outside the nest, we'll be as good as stillborn.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

It did occur to me that there is a boogeyman that's NOT imaginary and IS worth racing against: the certainty that the earth will be struck by an orbit-crossing object that's strong enough to be a civilization eraser.

It's not an "if" sort of event, it's a "when".

Maybe not for 1000 years, 100,000, nor 10,000,000. But it will happen. And if we've never learned how to live outside the nest, we'll be as good as stillborn.

Yes, we absolutely need to become a 2+ planet species.

Moreover, while our technologies have created lots of problems (atom bombs) for ourselves and others (mass extinction) they also offer solutions. In the very long run, all life on Earth is doomed. We can stop that by either preventing disaster or moving Earth life to other planets with us. We can even someday stop and reverse the damage we have done to the environment ourselves as well.

@BvBPL -

Not only did Smallpox eradication take institutions, it took effective international institutions to pull off. That in and of itself is pretty awesome and that international cooperation was really only possible with modern technologies that have nothing to do with vaccines like fax machines, telephone networks, printers, and so on.

To drive home my point vis a vis the space program - NASA may not be working on vaccines, but for example, if you need an effective distribution network that spans remote areas of the globe, you're going to need satellite communications and effective portable refrigeration systems and other tangential technologies. Those are the kinds of things space program work develops even if they were never intended for uses like vaccine distribution.