Monday, February 10, 2014

The Case for Human Space Exploration

               It may surprise you to learn that Neil deGrasse Tyson, one of Earth’s most prominent advocates for extraterrestrial exploration, would be very glad to inform you of the myriad ways the universe is out to kill us all.  He has special knowledge of the many dangers that would face final-frontier explorers, yet he still wants them to go exploring.  What do he and the many other advocates of manned space exploration see in such endeavors?  Nothing short of the survival of our species.
               Homo sapiens sapiens (that means you) are currently rated an “LC” for “Least Concern” as regards to our conservation status.  Though it is true that our population’s rapid escalation makes us not too vulnerable compared to the rest of the species on our planet, there are plenty of events that could turn that state of affairs on its head.
               Our extinction could quite possibly be nigh, and the causes could be many.  Starting from the very tiny, a super-effective virus or bacterial disease could come along and make short work of contaminating all of us in today’s interconnected world.  On a larger scale, there are still enough nuclear weapons to destroy every human on the planet many times over.  Without proper mitigation, the greenhouse effect could go into runaway mode, boiling the oceans right off the face of the planet.  These extinction possibilities start and end at Earth, but we are also threatened from elsewhere.
               A large meteoroid could plunge into the depths of our Earth, ending us and many other species the way one did the dinosaurs.  A nearby (as in within our galaxy) supernova could bathe us all in its gamma radiation, causing mostly death.  It could be that there is extraterrestrial intelligence, and we get to find out when they bring their superior technologies to take our planet’s resources for their own use, leaving us dead or dying.
               I know what you’re thinking.  This sort of thing is never going to happen to me!  It is true that the probability for human extinction occurring during our lifetime via any of these methods is relatively low.  But just because it probably won’t happen to you doesn’t mean that you get to not care about it or do nothing to act against such processes.  This is the reason we (some of us, at least) attempt to mitigate our impact on the environment.  How would do we feel if that we inherited a planet on an exponential path of environmental destruction?  I could go on and on with that subject, and think I will in a later post.  The point here is basically moot, because even though the extinction methods I’ve laid out so far are possible, but not too likely, I can give you one that is both unstoppable and definite: the death throes of our sun.
               The sun is an ordinary star.  In fact, it is of the type which astronomers classify as “main sequence” stars, because that is mainly the type of stars that are.  The only thing that makes it special to us is that it is the star about which our planet revolves, and the source of energy for (most of) life on Earth.  We have been able to observe other stars in the universe just like our sun at various stages of their existence.  In gas nebulae, we see stars being born, starting to turn their hydrogen into helium.  Elsewhere, we see the aftermath of the event that will certainly be the end of any life remaining on Earth.
               When a star runs out of hydrogen to turn into helium (which is what has made the sun shine since its birth), it begins to turn into a red giant star, so named because of the color of light produced by new types of reactions within, and the dramatic increase of size.  How dramatic?  How about large enough to engulf the orbits of Mercury, Venus, and Earth.  Our planet is destined to eventually be inside the sun.  Life as we know it cannot survive on this planet forever.  What are we going to do?
               This, I think, sufficiently describes why we should venture out into space.  It’s as if we live in a house at the bottom of a valley scheduled to be flooded by the installation of the dam.  If we want to survive, we will leave that place behind and live somewhere else.  The survival of the human race and all other terrestrial life depends on colonizing out into space.  Luckily, we do have time on our side for this eventuality.  The sun won’t begin turning into a red giant star for a few more billion years.  With that time scale, the previously mentioned methods of destruction are more of a threat.
               Let’s tackle the really tough question: why should we worry about this now?  If we have billions of years to get out of here, why would we ever want to invest our resources in getting off-planet today?  Couldn’t we just wait until somebody invents faster-than-light travel and save ourselves the trouble?  This is the argument refuted famously (or maybe not so) by Andrew Kennedy’s Wait Calculation.  There is a time certain when given the constants of distance to destination and average overall growth in travel velocity, that one would not be passed by people who started out later in faster vehicles.  For an interstellar journey, the calculation comes up with this perfect time for getting to Barnard’s Star in about another millennia.
               Perhaps it is not time to begin work on interstellar travel quite yet, but when we do start, we should have a great leg-up from where we stand now.  That’s because the time to start on interplanetary travel is now.  Humans have been to the moon, and our devices have been flung to every planet and ex-planet in our solar system, and beyond.  We face a frontier.  Humans have never set foot on another planet, and we do not currently have the technology to survive such a voyage, let alone allow for a return trip.  There are a few private companies with ambitions to explore this frontier, but historically, the most successful exploration has stemmed from governing agencies’ initiatives.
               NASA has an annual budget of under $18 billion, which is under 0.5% of the federal budget.  It has been estimated that the discounted rate of return for all of NASA’s activities in its first 10 years was over 33% by its 30th.  NASA put up arbitrary goal posts to mark progress, like sending men to the moon.  Though the economic impact of the boots actually hitting lunar dirt is nominal, the repercussions of all the new technologies that enabled such a feat are still driving economies today.  With all the new and different challenges posed by a manned mission to Mars (and back), a similarly incredible return on investment would occur today.
               The current problem is that NASA has not been pushing the frontier of human space exploration.  The challenge to figure out a way to survive long interplanetary trips has not been faced, and none of those new technologies or their byproducts have been invented yet.  And each day, we draw closer to our inevitable extinction on this planet.
               Sure, in the long run, these past few decades of not pushing the human space exploration frontier will be but a blip on the timeline, hopefully overpowered by the great activities that came before and will come after.  But as long as our species’ extinction could occur at any moment with the flip of a launch switch and a misunderstanding, it would behoove us to not have all our eggs in one basket.
               Our chance of survival as a species goes up with each new place we make home.  Nuclear winter would devastate Earth, but barring some extreme measures, Mars would go unscathed.  Spreading our footprint across the solar system acts as a sort of insurance against events that could wipe out all life at any of our homes.  The sun turning into a red giant and eventually fizzling out, however, might not be survivable within this solar system.  For that, we would have to spread out to other star systems.  Hopefully we will have a plan by then.
               All of these measures are in the interest of our species’ ultimate survival.  But are we worth it?  Should we boldly go where no one has gone before, so that generations to follow can do the same?  If we set out to colonize the entire galaxy, are we noble for allowing our children’s children a shot at life, or are we parasitic for making use of the resources we find along the way?  If we ever got to the point of having a human presence orbiting every star in the galaxy, it will be so far in the future that we probably won’t even be the same species.  We will have evolved into something different, potentially many different species.  Regardless, I think that there is much reason to pursue survival.  I believe that it is our purpose.
               In the Universe, so far as we can tell, the absence of life as we know it is the norm.  Even on our planet, throughout its roughly 4.5 billion year tenure, multicellular life has been around for just over 25% of that time.  Our species has only been in existence for only 200,000 years, or about 0.0044% of Earth’s age.  Intelligent life is not the rule, but the exception.  Newton’s second law of thermodynamics states that in a closed system, there can never be an increase of order.  That is to say that things will either stay the same or become more chaotic, unless there is an addition of energy from outside.  In the case of us, our complex physical, psychological, and cultural systems are the products of ever-increasing order.  Earth is life’s system.  Earth gets energy from the sun day and night, allowing for life to thrive and become more and more complex.  We have essentially taken energy from the sun, and transformed it into the human-ruled world we have today.  Our very being is the (allowable) exception to this fundamental law of the Universe.
               In the extreme long-run, considering the Universe as a whole as one closed system, current theories postulate the eventual heat-death of the Universe.  Eventually, there will not be enough matter to fuel stellar formation.  Eventually the last stars will die out, and the Universe will consist of nothing but stellar remnants, diffuse gasses, and radiation.  If this is the ultimate fate of the Universe, then life is a blip of insolence within this trend.

               In much of the Universe, we see this trend of ever-increasing chaos.  But in our corner, here on Earth, the mechanics of the Universe have been just so to allow the exact opposite.  We are the Universe in defiance of itself; a pinnacle of order in the sea of chaos.  It has taken us this long to arrive at this point, and our fate depends on ourselves.  Let’s make the most of it while it lasts, and make this thing called life last for as long as we can.  Let’s go exploring!

In response to the Bill Nye Ken Ham debate BuZzFeEd LiStIcAl!!! omg 22 almost non-repeating things!

Here is the url:


I won't be copying the written questions, just responding, so feel free to follow along!

1. In my opinion, absolutely!  I believe the argument is meant to imply that by steering children away from young Earth creationism, Bill Nye is also steering children away from God and all the good things that come from being religious.  In his capacity, Bill is not attempting to banish religion, but rather strengthen science.  It has only been recently (the past few centuries) that science has caught up to and been seriously able to compete logically with origin models of religions.  Now that the best explanation for things does not come from religious text, it is time to accept these scientific models as our best theories to date, and teach them to our children.

2. I can't speak for Bill Nye, but I am not.  I don't believe that if a Divine Creator existed, that He/She/His Noodly Appendage would take issue with the way that I choose to live my life.

3. No, that is not completely illogical.  It does, however, become less logical by the second, as we see again and again that the laws governing the universe have not suddenly changed.  If there is an all-powerful god, then I don't doubt that a mature Earth would be a sinch.

4. Bill Nye addressed this point.  The second law of thermodynamics and evolution exist in harmony.  Evolution brings variety and newness to species, which could be counted as entropy.  How is it possible to create entropy without the addition of anything new in the system?  The argument would be very compelling if we viewed Earth as a closed system, which it is not.  Energy is being added to Earth, to quote the Science Guy, "day and night."

5. I think she's talking about the beauty of the sunset.  I'll explain the whole thing though.  Earth is roughly a sphere.  It rotates on its axis about 365.25 times a year.  From our perspective on the surface of Earth, as we rotate, the apparent location of the heavans changes.  When the part of Earth we are standing on is turning away from the sun, the sun appears to fall in the sky until it sinks behind the horizon.  At this point, the angle of the sun's photons through the atmosphere is such that there is more atmosphere between our eyes and the sun.  This atmosphere is full of dirt, dust, and debris that deepen the apparent color of the sun to a redder hue.  You'll notice that aboard the international space station, when the sun rises or sets behind Earth, there is not such a dramatic red tinting.  This is because there is little to no atmosphere from that perspective between the ISS and the sun.  The reason sunsets are beautiful, in my opinion, is because we get to see the sun and the world around us in a different, fleeting light.  It is rarity and atmosphere that make the beauty.

6. Thermodynamics does not debunk evolution, as mentioned in number 4.  I can't say I know what he's talking about with the big bang theory.  Perhaps in his mind, the order in the universe today is not a result of ever-increasing entropy?  The fallacy here is that order can be subjective or objective.  Scientists do not place opinions on the amount of entropy in a system, they use numbers.  The harmonic distribution of the bodies in the solar system may seem ordered, but this system does, in fact, have more entropy than it did a moment ago, and even more now.  This is the way it has been since the big bang, so I think it's point proven here.

7. Noetics as the phenomenon of human minds altering the physical world is a fascinating subject.  We do not fully understand it, but that does not mean that a god, let aloneyour god, is the only explanation.

8. I derive objective meaning in life from evolution.  One point of evolution is to diversify and allow for the continuation of the species.  This is the only objective meaning my life has.  If a part of my DNA is not the best fit for survival in our current world, and that part of my DNA gets me killed before I reproduce, I will have done the species a favor by not passing along that gene.  If the inverse is true, and I have a great fitting gene for our current world, I will do the species a favor by having children and potentially passing that trait along.  The rest of the meaning of my life is all subjective.

9. Chance, the laws of the universe, and lots and lots of time!

10. That's cute.

11. The simple answer is that the evidence is more compelling.

12. I think she means we have not found a complete skeleton of homo sapiens' ancestors between ancient apes and us, citing Lucy as the most complete fossil.  Firstly, Ardi holds that distinction.  Gaps in fossil records are to be expected.  Not all bones fossilize, and only few that do are ever discovered.  Compare, for example, the availability of dinosaur fossils to human ancestors.  There are many more dinosaur fossils, but this is mostly because there were many more dinosaurs.  Dinosaurs walked the Earth for hundreds of millions of years, while humans have only been bipedaling around for a couple hundred thousand.  Many other factors can account for fossil record gaps, but I think this is the most compelling.

13. Sure!  The egg-larva-pupa-adult life cycle has many evolutionary advantages.  I don't know if there's an argument that metamorphosis is evidence against evolution...*quick google search*...annnnd there is.  Okay, the argument here is that systems so complex as metamorphosis could not possibly have occurred by a series of chance mutations in a genome.  That's incorrect.  I don't know how else to put it.  That's how it happened.  It happened little by little over several millions of generations, but it happened like that.

14. If evolution is taught as a fact, meaning that no other explanation will ever fit, and evolution will always be right, so we shouldn't bother trying to prove it wrong, then I have a serious problem with that as well.  If science teachers do their jobs correctly, they will be able to emphasize the point that everything in science is a theory, and evolution is the best scientific theory for biology that we have yet.  The reason evolution is taught in schools is because the theory further helps us understand our universe, and that is the point of schools.

15. All science is testable, observational, and repeatable.  A theory is something that can be tested, observed, and repeated.  Creationism is a theory as well.  The reason I reject creationism or intelligent design being taught in school is because it is not the most robust, best-tested, most revealing theory available, and I want nothing less for our young students.

16. This point was harped upon by Ken Ham during the debate.  He posited that in an event touted as evolution, bacteria were able to sustain themselves on a different substance not because of an evolutionary mechanism, but by a sort of switching-on of genes.  In this model, no new genetic information was added.  It was already there.  I don't know if science has yet discovered evidence of an increase of genetic information through the evolutionary process, but I do understand that an increase of genetic information must needs be occurring over vast time periods, much greater than the time since we sequenced the first genome.  It would not surprise me if this smoking gun goes on undetected for years to come.

17. I mentioned in #8 that my purpose is to contribute to the ultimate survival of the human species (or descendants thereof) through playing my small role in the big scope of evolution.  Without a belief in salvation, life can seem pretty bleak, and death bleaker.  My subjective purpose, as I understand it, is to make the world a better place for those that come after me, and be as happy as possible while doing so.

18. See #12.  Just because it hasn't been found doesn't mean it never existed.

19. No, you can't.  Belief in the big bang stems from evidence that took billions of years to reach us, and there is no absolute proof that during that time, the laws that govern the universe have not changed.  We have to take a leap of faith that universal laws have been consistant since the big bang in order for it to be implicit from our current observations.  That being said, for me, at least, that leap is easier than one that requires a divine creator.

20. I just do.  However amazing the world is, with all its complexities and interconnectedness, I have yet to see any evidence that convinces me that all this could not have occurred by chance over 4.5 billion years.

21. I don't know if one would call all the energy in the universe condensed beyond the Planck length as an exploding star...but the answer is that I don't know, and it's one of the limitations of modern science that we do not have any tools to observe beyond a certain point in spacetime.  Again, this does not disprove the big bang theory, and if anything, the fact that we don't know should make us thirst for that secret even more!  If we turn to a creationist model, the answer is given to us in the form of the divine creator, and that sense of wonder and exploration is gone.

22. The theory of evolution does not assert that homo sapiens sapiens descended from the same species of monkeys we coexist with today.  The theory of evolution as applied to human ancestry implies that there was a species from which all of today's primates are evolved.  This species is now extinct, and its descendants are all that remain.

What do you think?  Do you have any rebuttals for/against?  Feel free to comment & share!

On the Debate Between Bill Nye and Ken Ham

Here is a link to the debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham on this subject:


I thought this debate was very good.  I heard what I think is the most compelling argument for the topic (Is creation a viable model of origins in today's modern, scientific era?), and am deeply pleased that this conversation was possible in the mature and professional way that it occurred.  I would like to comment on the debate itself, while attempting to keep as true to the topic as the debators did.

First of all, I am SO pleased that these gentlemen found the point that they disagree upon, and that which is the underlying reason for the debate question:  What can you prove to yourself?  There is a leap of faith involved in fully believing in either evolution or creationism.  Because evolution occurred over billions of years, and humans have not been around for that long, nobody has had first-hand evidence to support the theory in the long-term.  All we have been able to do is look at fossil records and the like, and piece together the model of best fit for the patterns we see.  Complete evidence is lacking for the creationist argument as well, because of the nature of the basis from that argument: the Bible.  We have to take the leap of faith that all of the translations were accurate, that we're interpreting the text correctly, and that the passages are the true historical accounts as told by God through his servants.

On a personal note, when confronted by these two leaps of faith, I have an easier time making the leap away from God than towards him.  I concede that this could be a product of my upbringing.  It could be that I have been hypnotized into counting certain evidence as more compelling than others.  For the topic of this debate, however, whether or not creationism is the correct model of origins is a moot point.  Has it been disproven?  The answer is no, and as such, we should treat that model as we treat all others that have yet to be disproven.

The debate is whether or not that model is viable model of origins in today's modern, scientific era.  To this, specifically, I say that it is a viable theory, but one that does not function as sturdily as the theory of evolution does.  I agree with Mr. Ham and Mr. Nye that there can be devoutly religious people who are also scientists, that there is room for both religion and reason in every human.  However, there are certain places and situations where I cannot support the advent of creationism today.

Ken Ham made an argument during this debate that by teaching evolution in schools, the districts were teaching a religious idea.  I recall him naming it the Religion of Naturalism.  I do not doubt that evolution is indeed a part of many people's religions.  Regardless of whether it is a part of or expressly denied by any religion, when the theory is demonstrably the best model for understanding and making predictions about our universe, it is a disservice to the students to belittle the authenticity of, or deny them this remarkable tool of science.  This is why I believe evolution should be taught in schools, and creationism should not.

Our modern, scientific era is one where the teachings of religion, and the models of history derived therefrom, no longer go without questioning.  Questioning is what science is all about.  Today, we can use technology to challenge these versions of the story, and offer up evidence to the contrary.  Bill Nye made the salient point many times during the debate that if we were to accept creationism as a viable model of origins today, our country would fall behind.  If we turn to the Bible for answers and call it job done, our scientific progress will atrophy along with our sense of wonder about the universe.

The scientific method is beautiful in its structure.  When we make scientific observations, we are making assumptions about, among other things, the homogeneity of the universe and the consistancy of its laws.  There will never be full proof one way or the other.  Built in to the scientific method, though, are measures to ensure that only the best theories survive, and to test every theory constantly, searching for new insights.  As evidence supports a theory continuously, experiment after experiment, the theory proves to be robust, but never absolute law.  One small piece of evidence against the theory has the capacity to destroy it completely.  I welcome all theories onto this level playing field, as I welcome all evidence for and against every model.  Because we can never fully prove that creationism is incorrect, it will always have a place on the spectrum of theories that explain the origin of our species.  It is a spectrum, though, and although evolution is just as vulnerable to evidence disproving it, it is the most robust explanation we have discovered to date.

Ken Ham pointed out in his closing remarks his dissatisfaction with the evolution of cave fish from fish with eyes to fish without.  His argument was that the fish have not gained anything, but lost something through the evolutionary process.  This example is to him evidence that evolution does not choose winners and losers by survival of the fittest, and that some other mechanism is at work here.  Bill Nye did not rebut this point, but I will here.  Organisms are made of cells.  Cells need energy/nutrients/food.  The more active cells an organism has, the more food it needs.  Eyes are made of cells, and naturally would require food to be sustained.  Eyes also send electrochemical information to the brain, where brain cells use food energy to interpret the signal and make decisions on what to do.  By living entirely in the dark, the signals from eyes to brain ceased their functionality; they became a waste of energy.  By evolving the eyes away, each generation in the sequence had less and less active cells to feed where the eyes once were.  The advantage here is that they can redirect nutrients that might have gone to the eyes of their ancestors, to other parts of their body, and have that much more energy to survive.  In competitive environments, and in the long-term, it is the little things that count.

The fish are humans, the eyes a creationist model of origins, and the cave is today's modern, scientific era.  It is not necessary for survival to remove the creationist model from our society completely, but minimalizing its role is, in my opinion, the most advantageous path for us to follow.

My thanks to Bill Nye and Ken Ham for debating this topic so well, to Tom Foreman for his fair moderation, and to the Creation Museum for hosting the event.  I'm very glad this happened!

The Sardonic Response to the Republican Response to the State of the Union Address 2014

In case you missed it, you can watch the Republican Response to the State of the Union Address of 2014 here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qkaay1P7Ar8

               What an honor it is for me to be able to have the last word in this discussion.  Tonight, we honor America, a nation that has witnessed the greatest rise in political “rhetoric” not based on facts.  A nation where we are not defined by our potential, but by our ethno-socio-economic background.  And a nation where you don’t live above the poverty line if you have to support your family by working at McDonald’s, unless you make Assistant Manager or better, let alone afford any type of higher education or quality healthcare.
               The most important moments right now are happening in Washington D.C.  Many Republican members of Congress voted against the motion to re-open the Federal Government.  Instead of receiving the reprimand they deserved, they are praised for their attempt to obstruct a law that was essentially voted on during the 2012 Presidential election.  Gigantic companies have made deals with members of Congress to vote in ways that benefit the company’s interests (more profit for them).  Instead of focusing here, however, the right wants to remind us that you have every opportunity to dream big in America.  If you’re already wealthy, you can even make those dreams reality!  If not, then you must not have worked hard enough, and your lack of opportunity is your own damned fault.
               That night, the Republicans made retorts that sound like they could be based in fact, but are not actually supported by any good evidence whatsoever.  Abstract phrases like “defined by our potential” and “empowered by what we can become” are based in the fact that Americans have potential.  When it comes to empowering, however, the Republican plan is due to be selective.
               I grew up a straight white male in a suburban upper-middle class family.  I didn’t have to work until after I graduated high school, and didn’t pay a dime for College.  This was all possible because my white dad had enough money to support my sisters and me throughout our lives!  He achieved his wealth without having to battle any extra obstacles like racial discrimination or unequal pay.  If anybody else with a different sexual orientation, ethnicity, or gender were to work just as hard as my dad, they wouldn’t be as well off.  This is a point that the right sweeps under the rug and pretends doesn’t exist.
               No doubt it is difficult raising a child with a learning handicap, at any income level, and I sympathize with Mrs. Rodgers.  For a moment, however, let us think of what that parenting situation would be like for the single mom working at McDonald’s.  In my mind, the below-the-poverty-line experience isn’t the same as the six-figures one.  Sure, evening out the pay differential between a fast food employee and a member of Congress would have an impact on this inequality, but the Republicans want us to think that it is merely an opportunity inequality that is to blame.
She’s talking about the opportunity to get a job, work hard, earn raises and promotions, and living happily ever after: The American Dream.  I know that path.  I’m on it, and it’s working well for me, but like I said, I’ve had a head start.  What about the people starting off very ill, disabled, or homeless?  What about African-Americans, Hispanics, the GLBTQ community, or women?  If the forthcoming Republican plan is anything like previous proposals, these are groups who will become disenfranchised, along with government programs put in place to assist them.
               Republicans have plans.  These plans are not as well planned out as Obama’s plans, and little details are given, but at least they cater to the Republican base.  Especially on the immigration issue.  Americans (including the roughly 11% of the population that are Mexican-Americans) all know that the best way to attract the best and the brightest to America is to keep Mexican immigrants out.  Great job there.
               And a big round of applause for cherry picking data about healthcare reform.  One woman with a name has to pay more, and we’ve all heard of too many other people that have to pay more.  That’s why all of us, including the majority who are paying less, should fight to make sure that insurance companies can continue to profit heavily at our expense.
               In conclusion, I too would like to offer a prayer.  Dear God, if you do indeed exist, please stop these evil people from fooling your followers into supporting them at their own expense.  Please provide the clarity of mind for the 49% of the 99% to realize that they are fighting for the wrong team.  And please, please smite all climate change deniers, especially those who reference the weather as evidence of its nonexistence.  Thank you.  And once they’re all gone, God Bless America.


And if you don’t exist, I guess I’ll just have to do it myself.  How classically left of me, asking for a handout like that!