COWAN@MIT-XX.ARPA (Richard A. Cowan) (01/24/86)
> from <Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology>: > If we're going to hesitate about things because of possible military > applications, we might as well give up on technological civilization. > *All* technology has military applications. (Case in point: possibly > the biggest advance in medicine in this century was wide-spectrum > antibiotics like penicillin. The techniques needed for economical mass > production of penicillin were developed because of urgent military need > for it during WW2 -- the *first* major war in which disease was not the > #1 cause of death!) Henry, By expressing concern about militarization of space, I am not arguing for hesitation. I am instead arguing that this concern be freely discussed, so that the space community, and the entire technological community, can explore alternatives to the present mode of technological development in the United States. The problem is this: Historically, technological development in the United States has justified with military goals in mind first, and civilian applications come second. Because the United States had vast economic and military superiority in the 50's and 60's (50% of the world's wealth), the US was able to stay fairly strong with this inefficient mode of development. Now other countries are funding the civilian side of technology directly, completely blowing away the United States, which continues to subscribe to the myth that civilian spinoffs of massive military research will pay off. But all the great spinoffs occurred 20-30 years ago, few occur today, and if any do occur and are worthwhile, it is likely that other countries will put them to use before we do 'cause we're busy with our government contracts. We have a $150 billion trade deficit, and our ability to sell goods is rapidly declining in major world markets that are being infiltrated by countries such as Brazil, India, and of course Japan. Our defense buildup has been temporarily propping up GNP growth; when it ends, GNP will decline. A recession, decreased standards of living, pressure for trade restrictions, and retaliatory trade measures by other countries are almost inevitable. Will the US finally heed Eisenhower's warning, recognizing its military overemphasis and change its ways technologically? Or will it continue to decline and go to war in a vain attempt to salvage its economic interests militarily? If space missions can only be achieved on "the coattails," as you say, of massive military programs like SDI, then I have sincere doubts about our future ability to afford space, because the resulting economic decline will create pressures on the space budget. Other needs, such as housing and unemployment, will become more urgent. Fortunately, there is an alternative for the space community. It can advocate conversion: that certain military programs be gradually phased out, and some of their facilities converted to needed non-military technology. For many military programs, conversion to space is easier than conversion to anything else, so great pressure to INCREASE space funding would result. If L5 is REALLY interested in space exploration in the United States, and not just in the short term, then I believe it should advocate conversion, not coattails. Before "riding coattails," it is necessary to ask where the general wearing the coat is going. Generally, it's a good idea for groups to avoid taking strong political stands which will alienate members. So I agree that L5 should take no stand on which its membership is nearly unanimous. But to squelch debate is going too far, for only through discussion can people resolve their differences and establish a consensus which will enable a stand to be taken that changes the "pre-set course" the space industry is following. "Neutralism," especially when extended to the suppression of political discussion, is partisan, toward preserving the status quo. -Rich (Cowan@xx) P.S. For a more complete exposition of some of the economic issues I've brought up, try Profits Without Production or The Permanent War Economy, both by Seymour Melman. I do realize that most of you would have a hard time reaching the economic conclusions I've made. I would be happy to give more facts to justify them later, but I don't want to make this note much longer. -------
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (01/26/86)
> > If we're going to hesitate about things because of possible military > > applications, we might as well give up on technological civilization... > > ...If space missions can only be achieved on "the coattails," as you say, > of massive military programs like SDI, then I have sincere doubts... Tsk, tsk, you are putting words in my mouth. I did *not* say, and do *not* believe, that space missions can be accomplished only on the coattails of the military. What I was criticizing was the ridiculous attitude that we shouldn't build a space station because it might have military uses. I am solidly in favor of a purely civilian space program. As Clarke said, nationalism should end at the stratosphere. Unfortunately, that doesn't look likely. -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry