Shot Moon
One theory holds that America aimed to put a man on the moon merely to define a race with its Cold War rival that America could still win, since America had lost several other opportunities to be first. This also serves as an explanation for why we haven’t bothered to go back. We won the race, after all, and what are you going to do after that? Certainly you aren’t going to keep circling around the racetrack forever and ever. No, you’re going to collect your prize and go home to rest on your laurels, or at least live out the rest of your life paying attention to normal life-like activities: tending to your family and your career, organizing reunions to recall your glory days.
Nevertheless, in the popular imagination, once we managed to put a man on the moon, we mostly lost our way. Ever since we’ve lacked for a collective goal for just about anything else resembling a Big Idea with a simple metric for success. Much polemical mileage is gained from arguing that one’s favorite political hobby horse would be just within the nation’s grasp if given the same sort of inspiring speeches and collective effort as was the Apollo program. The “next moonshot” could be eradicating cancer, ending poverty, or finding cheap free energy from imaginary sources that involve no extractive resources.
Yet it does not seem as if playing around in space is among our collective goals. Well, except when Elon Musk and his fans want federal handouts for colonizing Mars. Nevertheless, when do we ever get to hear of the real challenges to space travel that may not have any actual solutions? Not often enough, it turns out, except in a recent EconTalk episode in which Russ Roberts talked to author Zach Weinersmith about the profoundly earth-bound nature of humanity.
The long and short of it is that we can do all the moon shots we want so long as we don’t try to do them in space. The challenges aren’t just difficult, they are impossibilities based on the limitations of biology. Space itself is far too harsh an environment, and far too destructive for technology to shield us against. We can send remote robotic probes all we want, but we are not going to do much in space using anything remotely resembling our current engineering abilities.
This skeptical review suits my preferences better than imagining the impossible and reckoning we’ll achieve it by hoping hard enough. For instance, much of our energy policy simply implies perpetual motion machines of one sort or another have been invented, and then moves along to implementation. We can also fly on animals if we assume Pegasus. That doesn’t mean it’s time to ban flying machines and start proscribing diapers for aerial commuters, designing public law as if the imaginary were real.
On the other hand, perhaps that sort of public policy would be preferable to the click-bait politics our elected officials appear to perform for.
Thinking about moon shot projects and the collective imagination: the big problem first world countries are attempting to address is global warming. Fine. Except what is fundamentally a technological project is gated to keep out those with the wrong ideologies.
Add to that the profit motive bringing in those focused on feel good sales carefully averting their eyes from inconvenient realities that cancel any benefits. Or the ones making money off of bad policy, cutting down trees in the US to make pellet fuel favored by renewable energy tax incentives in the UK.
If the existential threat isn't great enough to cut the BS, then it isn't enough of a threat to justify putting up with all the BS. We are overrun by drama.
Once upon a time, people started companies and hired employees. Now they start companies and do it all themselves or outsource it because managing people is a pain, finding good employees is a pain, dealing with government regulations is a pain. And by "a pain" I mean the financial benefits don't outweigh the emotional effort - one can manage employees or spend time with family but not both.
We need to pay attention to Stephen Pastis:
https://www.gocomics.com/pearlsbeforeswine/2023/12/10
Meanwhile, in the middle east:
Just as I said Hamas started this in order to get the attention of the larger Arab and Muslim world, I think Israel is out to accomplish more than one goal with its military response. Of course, they want to disable Hamas to the fullest extent possible and I also suspect they will do their best to hunt down and execute Hamas leaders long after this round of military action seems to have ended. More Jews died on Oct 7 than any other day since the holocaust and just as nazi war criminals were hunted for decades, I think that might happen again.
But I also think Israel, like Hamas, is addressing the larger Arab/Muslim world with a clear message: Do not support this again, do not let it happen again. I also think they are addressing the US: Take note. We are your allies but we will do what we must here and if you want peace in the middle east see to it that you do all you can to maintain that peace.
As for the Palestinian people, who are suffering under the Israeli military action, I expect that Israel will allow humanitarian aid to flow, and even contribute to it, when they feel they can do so without jeopardizing the necessary action precipitated by Hamas' attack.
Long term peace, not just a cessation of military action, will still have to come from within the Arab world. Israel will welcome it but cannot make it happen. I hope middle eastern leaders are taking note and will realize it is to their detriment to allow another Hamas to rise up.