Note: this post is actually an old one. It was written in Summer 2006. It was written when I discovered Ayn Rand. The following is the modified version. I had decided to rewrite a few parts for clarity.
Reading "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand has caused me to think. Think a lot, think a lot more about things I've stopped thinking about, or didn't think much, things I should be thinking, things I was wrongly positioned on.
In some ways, it's scary, in some ways, it's awesome. It's as if my current view lies somewhere in between, and my mind keeps jumping between two states unable to find a stable position, but I feel the distance between jumps is narrowing down to some certain point. I don't feel it yet, but I know it will come, as I parse through the book.
Reading "Atlas Shrugged" isn't reading, but looking through numerous points of views, logical chains of thoughts, ideas, philosophies, description of problems and their solutions. I'm reading it very differently, as I've never read a book before. It's not the plot that I'm after - I don't care what and how the plot will turn out and I feel no need to jump back and forth through pages. What I'm trying to grasp are the thoughts in the book. It's what's called between lines, but also something much deeper, it's not the lines, but maybe the entire page or a chapter that I look in-between.
What's really scary though is the change that it brings into my mind. And what makes it worse is the rate of that change compared to the usual flow. The change brought upon by the book is huge. It tears through many old and establish ideas, approaches, and my views on life.
But the change doesn't come from the book itself, or even the ideas discussed in the book. I bring the changes myself, by thinking about what I've read, what I think, how I thought or used to, and how it applies to something. So, in reality I am the one tearing down all that I hold wrong or inconsistent, or just plain bogus.
What it feels like is finding something that you've always had but never noticed, or ignored, or denied to have it. And now that it is found, it explodes without barriers. Not calmly and orderly, but explodes all around the mind, causing chains reactions in other thoughts, topics, views, assertions - anything and everything.
Some reviews have called the book dangerous, and it is. But not in the way they call it, but in a difference context: it is dangerous to those who wish for everyone to be a non-thinking robot. The book gives the mind a chance to re-discover itself. It feels as finding or creating another layer of your own mind that you weren't aware of before and to find spots that were never consciously used.
All that is a very Good thing.
P.S. Enormous thanks goes to Ayn Rand, who wrote the book and created philosophy of Objectivism.
Monday, November 13, 2006
Sunday, October 22, 2006
Proper Relation between Government and Space
My previous post was discussing Burt Rutan and private space industry. This post is a follow-up. It will answer the following questions: Why is Burt Rutan's achievement worth mentioning if NASA has achieved more than him? Should government be involved in Space development at all?
Burt Rutan achievement is very important because his achievement is a private one. NASA has landed on the Moon, and does make a few space flights every year (this number has remained the same for couple of decades, though, which is pathetic), but NASA is a publicly funded organization. Its budget are billions. Burt Rutan's budget was 25-27 million dollars for SpaceShipOne, most of which came from Paul Allen. I won't speak of the ratios here (budget/achievement), as they are irrelevant to the discussion, even though they are in favor of SpaceShipOne.
Before I tackle second question concerning government's role in Space, I need to identify basic premises. Why is getting into Space good? Who benefits from it? Whose effort will be required to achieve it? What is the best way to reach Space?
The first two questions deal with humans. The proper standard of value is a human life. Every value judgement must derive from it. Space provides humans with more resources and chances to improve their lives. Thus, Space is good, and it is good for humans. So, Space is good, however, one must remember that this alone does not mean that any way to get into Space is good. The end does not justify the means.
What does it take to get into Space? The answer is the effort of individuals. Getting into Space is not an easy task, and requires individuals with solid and clear grasp of reality. No amount of praying can further this task. Furthermore, there is no set amount of money that will do the job either. An example is NASA that has spent billions of dollars across several decades without accomplishing goals it was designed to do - get humans in Space. As for right now, it can send a dozen a year at a price of around half of billion dollars and a death rate of 1 in 60. Clearly, this is not a solution. It is a failure.
The solution is indicated by the success of SpaceShipOne. It was developed with very little money and in just a few years with zero help from the government. What does this indicate? It indicates a flaw. In its simplest description it can be stated as: government sucks at reaching Space, private effort does not.
So, why does government work in Space anyway? It is a common idea today that the government should "help" people. From what I've seen, those who thinks so, rarely define what that "help" entails. It is usually described as something good without considering the details or requirements for the action of "help." This view is important to understand as it is commonly used as the reason for government Space program.
Under this idea, social security is "good," since it helps poor. Free education is "good," since it helps all kids (including poor ones) get education. Space program is "good," since it shows the might of humans. The essence is that whatever is good for someone must be good. Of course, here the error is made by ignoring the question: at whose expense? Neither social security, nor free education, nor Space program grow on trees. Goods and resources must be produced, collected, invented, etc. by someone else, by somebody else's effort. Therefore, these things cannot be free. There is only one way to make them "free," and it is by taking them away by force, and then claim them to be free, and for the good of the "people." (Note, that in this rationalisation, the term "people" is not used to define all the people of a particular group, but only those that need whatever product is being stolen.) This approach is immoral, of course, as are rationalization that use it.
So, public Space program is not "good," if it is accomplished through a stolen effort. A good example is Soviet Space program that was done for the "bright future" and "for the people" while starving most of the country. NASA programs are funded with taxes. Taxes as such are not good. They are products that are taken away from individuals without their consent. Government does need funds to defend individual rights, so some form of support is required. Modern taxes are badly designed, however. There are better ways.
But lets assume that tax system has been redesigned and greatly improved. Would Space program be OK then? It would be OK, if the program was funded through non-compulsory funding, such as an additional optional tax that an individual could pay to support government Space program. If, however, it is funded via compulsory program, then somebody's products are being used against their will or consent, which would be immoral.
So, coming back to my second original question ("Should government be involved in Space development at all?"), I can answer that government should not be involved in Space. Even if some people really want to spend their own money into such program, it must not use the resources of the government that are in any way funded by common taxes.
So, what is the correct way to approach Space development and exploration? The way is via private effort and private funds. Those who want to achieve it, who want to risk their money and time on it, are the ones who should be working on Space program, and they are the ones who should profit from it as well.
Coming back around, this is the reason why SpaceShipOne is such a great achievement. It may be the first successful step in the chain of events that finally leads to a private exploration and exploitation of Space. And this is the only way that the rest of us can get into Space as well, by paying for those services.
Burt Rutan achievement is very important because his achievement is a private one. NASA has landed on the Moon, and does make a few space flights every year (this number has remained the same for couple of decades, though, which is pathetic), but NASA is a publicly funded organization. Its budget are billions. Burt Rutan's budget was 25-27 million dollars for SpaceShipOne, most of which came from Paul Allen. I won't speak of the ratios here (budget/achievement), as they are irrelevant to the discussion, even though they are in favor of SpaceShipOne.
Before I tackle second question concerning government's role in Space, I need to identify basic premises. Why is getting into Space good? Who benefits from it? Whose effort will be required to achieve it? What is the best way to reach Space?
The first two questions deal with humans. The proper standard of value is a human life. Every value judgement must derive from it. Space provides humans with more resources and chances to improve their lives. Thus, Space is good, and it is good for humans. So, Space is good, however, one must remember that this alone does not mean that any way to get into Space is good. The end does not justify the means.
What does it take to get into Space? The answer is the effort of individuals. Getting into Space is not an easy task, and requires individuals with solid and clear grasp of reality. No amount of praying can further this task. Furthermore, there is no set amount of money that will do the job either. An example is NASA that has spent billions of dollars across several decades without accomplishing goals it was designed to do - get humans in Space. As for right now, it can send a dozen a year at a price of around half of billion dollars and a death rate of 1 in 60. Clearly, this is not a solution. It is a failure.
The solution is indicated by the success of SpaceShipOne. It was developed with very little money and in just a few years with zero help from the government. What does this indicate? It indicates a flaw. In its simplest description it can be stated as: government sucks at reaching Space, private effort does not.
So, why does government work in Space anyway? It is a common idea today that the government should "help" people. From what I've seen, those who thinks so, rarely define what that "help" entails. It is usually described as something good without considering the details or requirements for the action of "help." This view is important to understand as it is commonly used as the reason for government Space program.
Under this idea, social security is "good," since it helps poor. Free education is "good," since it helps all kids (including poor ones) get education. Space program is "good," since it shows the might of humans. The essence is that whatever is good for someone must be good. Of course, here the error is made by ignoring the question: at whose expense? Neither social security, nor free education, nor Space program grow on trees. Goods and resources must be produced, collected, invented, etc. by someone else, by somebody else's effort. Therefore, these things cannot be free. There is only one way to make them "free," and it is by taking them away by force, and then claim them to be free, and for the good of the "people." (Note, that in this rationalisation, the term "people" is not used to define all the people of a particular group, but only those that need whatever product is being stolen.) This approach is immoral, of course, as are rationalization that use it.
So, public Space program is not "good," if it is accomplished through a stolen effort. A good example is Soviet Space program that was done for the "bright future" and "for the people" while starving most of the country. NASA programs are funded with taxes. Taxes as such are not good. They are products that are taken away from individuals without their consent. Government does need funds to defend individual rights, so some form of support is required. Modern taxes are badly designed, however. There are better ways.
But lets assume that tax system has been redesigned and greatly improved. Would Space program be OK then? It would be OK, if the program was funded through non-compulsory funding, such as an additional optional tax that an individual could pay to support government Space program. If, however, it is funded via compulsory program, then somebody's products are being used against their will or consent, which would be immoral.
So, coming back to my second original question ("Should government be involved in Space development at all?"), I can answer that government should not be involved in Space. Even if some people really want to spend their own money into such program, it must not use the resources of the government that are in any way funded by common taxes.
So, what is the correct way to approach Space development and exploration? The way is via private effort and private funds. Those who want to achieve it, who want to risk their money and time on it, are the ones who should be working on Space program, and they are the ones who should profit from it as well.
Coming back around, this is the reason why SpaceShipOne is such a great achievement. It may be the first successful step in the chain of events that finally leads to a private exploration and exploitation of Space. And this is the only way that the rest of us can get into Space as well, by paying for those services.
Sunday, October 15, 2006
Burt Rutan at Idea Festival
I was very glad to find out that my town, Louisville, Kentucky, hosted IdeaFestival conference this year. It is really awesome primarily, because of the kind of speakers it drew this year.
My previous post was about SpaceShipTwo. On this conference, however, I got to see and listen to Burt Rutan, himself, the man behind this project. The man who won Ansari X-Prise by privately developing a manned spaceship that flew into space twice within two weeks. Mr. Rutan is a hero for engineers, including me. I know some general history of space exploration due to reading various books, one of them is Lost in Space: The Fall of NASA and the Dream of a New Space Age by Greg Klerkx. From this book I learned that NASA has been very inefficient about developing manned space programs. And having seen space developments going nowhere for a few decades now, ever since the moon landing, I was extremely thrilled to see an individual reaching to space with private funds (by Paul Allen). Now, this was couple years ago now, in 2004. And to me, he was somewhere elsewhere, not quite on this Earth. The chance to see this man in person looked very slim to me.
But, alas, he came to IdeaFestival to talk about his achievement and the future direction of private space business. This was a right time for me to see him as well, since I had recently discovered for myself Objectivist philosophy and had successfully integrated into my mind. What will follow is my analysis of his speech. Keep in mind that I did not have a recorder of any sort. I simply sat at his speech, and listened to everything he had to say and answer during QA session. However, I have decent memory, and went over the speech afterwards around several key points that he made during his speech.
First of all, people like Burt Rutan are a philosophical fuel for the mind, for the right kind of mind. The mind that is looking to achieve rational goals. The simple fact of seeing someone achieve a rational goal, gives one something that is usually acquired only through one's own achievement or a romantic art.
There is a quote in The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand, which strikes the right note to express what I mean. There is a scene where a college kid finds a product of Howard Roark, the great architect, and leaves the place with an owe that he was not fully aware of. However, the narrator, Ayn Rand, put it very precisely with a description of Roark's action: "He did not know that he had given someone the courage to face a lifetime."
This is what seeing Burt Rutan means. It means 'the courage to face a lifetime.'
Amazingly (or necessarily?), Burt Rutan understood that as well. One would expect him to start from the description of his great success. However, I was astonished when he began explaining what it takes for an individual to make a breakthrough. (I suspect he thought quite a while on this topic if he decide to brought it up in the very beginning.) Burt Rutan explained that It was not the money, not the call or need of society. According to him, It all starts at a very young age where a child receives an inspiration from a great achievement at the time, such as Moon landing. Later a child grows with a courage to achieve, to strive for things that would seem impossible for mediocrity. He did not call it the courage, however, but spoke of belief in impossible. I did not like that description, but did like what he meant by it later, when described it again in some detail. He meant it as a belief in things that are deemed as impossible by others. It is unnecessarily skewed definition towards society, however, it does hold true.
His next point was debunking a popular myth that big things are accomplished by big organization, especially such as government. (Interestingly, before Burt Rutan appeared, an introduction video included a scene with SpaceShipOne and a guy standing on top of it, holding up a sign that read "SpaceShipOne, Government Zero." Audience cheered. I did, too. ) He led us through history of aviation to show that the breakthroughs were accomplished by individuals in a very short period of time. I did not know this, but in 1908 only 12 men had flown in an airplane, but by 1912, the number grew to tens of thousands. Quite amazing when you think about it. Burt Rutan made an explicit statement, if achievements were left to government, we would not even have airplanes now. The state of airlines that is present today was created by private effort, while NSAA, government organisation created for airplane development, had barely any participation at all in the process.
He made a further accent on this fact, by showing pictures of his team, only about 250 individuals had achieved something that NASA is struggling to do with all its billions of tax payers money, and thousands of employees - a cheap way to get into Space. It is true that NASA had gotten to space, but only at a ludicrous cost, and it had not improved its position for over two decades now.
It was amusing to see Burt Rutan calling NASA as Nay-Say when he first mentioned it. He clearly did not like NASA at all. It seemed to me that to him NASA was a giant road block that would not move away from the clear path for humans to space. (OK, I agree, this interpretation has a touch of my own view :D )
Mr. Rutan was a very good and engaging speaker. He easily won the crowd over. Burt Rutan spoke clearly, simply, concrete, straight forward, and with confidence. It was a pleasure to witness a man of his kind with my own eyes. It is not often that I get to see people who achieved as much as he did it. Reading news of his success on the Internet is like seeing an airplane fly far, far up in the sky, while seeing him in person is like seeing the might of an airplane within one's grasp.
I shall store this experience in my bank where I store the rest of the courage to face my own life. :)
My previous post was about SpaceShipTwo. On this conference, however, I got to see and listen to Burt Rutan, himself, the man behind this project. The man who won Ansari X-Prise by privately developing a manned spaceship that flew into space twice within two weeks. Mr. Rutan is a hero for engineers, including me. I know some general history of space exploration due to reading various books, one of them is Lost in Space: The Fall of NASA and the Dream of a New Space Age by Greg Klerkx. From this book I learned that NASA has been very inefficient about developing manned space programs. And having seen space developments going nowhere for a few decades now, ever since the moon landing, I was extremely thrilled to see an individual reaching to space with private funds (by Paul Allen). Now, this was couple years ago now, in 2004. And to me, he was somewhere elsewhere, not quite on this Earth. The chance to see this man in person looked very slim to me.
But, alas, he came to IdeaFestival to talk about his achievement and the future direction of private space business. This was a right time for me to see him as well, since I had recently discovered for myself Objectivist philosophy and had successfully integrated into my mind. What will follow is my analysis of his speech. Keep in mind that I did not have a recorder of any sort. I simply sat at his speech, and listened to everything he had to say and answer during QA session. However, I have decent memory, and went over the speech afterwards around several key points that he made during his speech.
First of all, people like Burt Rutan are a philosophical fuel for the mind, for the right kind of mind. The mind that is looking to achieve rational goals. The simple fact of seeing someone achieve a rational goal, gives one something that is usually acquired only through one's own achievement or a romantic art.
There is a quote in The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand, which strikes the right note to express what I mean. There is a scene where a college kid finds a product of Howard Roark, the great architect, and leaves the place with an owe that he was not fully aware of. However, the narrator, Ayn Rand, put it very precisely with a description of Roark's action: "He did not know that he had given someone the courage to face a lifetime."
This is what seeing Burt Rutan means. It means 'the courage to face a lifetime.'
Amazingly (or necessarily?), Burt Rutan understood that as well. One would expect him to start from the description of his great success. However, I was astonished when he began explaining what it takes for an individual to make a breakthrough. (I suspect he thought quite a while on this topic if he decide to brought it up in the very beginning.) Burt Rutan explained that It was not the money, not the call or need of society. According to him, It all starts at a very young age where a child receives an inspiration from a great achievement at the time, such as Moon landing. Later a child grows with a courage to achieve, to strive for things that would seem impossible for mediocrity. He did not call it the courage, however, but spoke of belief in impossible. I did not like that description, but did like what he meant by it later, when described it again in some detail. He meant it as a belief in things that are deemed as impossible by others. It is unnecessarily skewed definition towards society, however, it does hold true.
His next point was debunking a popular myth that big things are accomplished by big organization, especially such as government. (Interestingly, before Burt Rutan appeared, an introduction video included a scene with SpaceShipOne and a guy standing on top of it, holding up a sign that read "SpaceShipOne, Government Zero." Audience cheered. I did, too. ) He led us through history of aviation to show that the breakthroughs were accomplished by individuals in a very short period of time. I did not know this, but in 1908 only 12 men had flown in an airplane, but by 1912, the number grew to tens of thousands. Quite amazing when you think about it. Burt Rutan made an explicit statement, if achievements were left to government, we would not even have airplanes now. The state of airlines that is present today was created by private effort, while NSAA, government organisation created for airplane development, had barely any participation at all in the process.
He made a further accent on this fact, by showing pictures of his team, only about 250 individuals had achieved something that NASA is struggling to do with all its billions of tax payers money, and thousands of employees - a cheap way to get into Space. It is true that NASA had gotten to space, but only at a ludicrous cost, and it had not improved its position for over two decades now.
It was amusing to see Burt Rutan calling NASA as Nay-Say when he first mentioned it. He clearly did not like NASA at all. It seemed to me that to him NASA was a giant road block that would not move away from the clear path for humans to space. (OK, I agree, this interpretation has a touch of my own view :D )
Mr. Rutan was a very good and engaging speaker. He easily won the crowd over. Burt Rutan spoke clearly, simply, concrete, straight forward, and with confidence. It was a pleasure to witness a man of his kind with my own eyes. It is not often that I get to see people who achieved as much as he did it. Reading news of his success on the Internet is like seeing an airplane fly far, far up in the sky, while seeing him in person is like seeing the might of an airplane within one's grasp.
I shall store this experience in my bank where I store the rest of the courage to face my own life. :)
Sunday, October 01, 2006
Space = Wow
Here is an update on SpaceShipTwo.
http://www.space.com/news/060929_spaceship2_wow.html
It is definitely awesome to see the progress of private companies in space exploration and development. Too bad NASA was getting in the way for too long (since its beginnings actually), but this is another topic.
Here is something tasty from the article, though.
The article does not mention what is the size of deposit. It might be available on their website. However, it follows that folks at Virgin Galactic (or one of their branches who handles this) can already see a flow of cash and interest. Speaking of interest, Virgin Galactic also keeps in mind the big money here, check this out:
This would definitely be the way to go for Virgin Galactic. And at a 2500 dollars per kilogram, it sounds like a very good price for those who need to deploy relatively small space objects into near orbit. Although, SpaceShipTwo does not sound like a ship to deliver something into orbit (it doesn't have enough angular speed at the rise of its travel to actually launch something into orbit). This can be adjusted if the load was capable of self-propulsion.
This is definitely a good update on the progress of SpaceShipTwo.
http://www.space.com/news/060929_spaceship2_wow.html
It is definitely awesome to see the progress of private companies in space exploration and development. Too bad NASA was getting in the way for too long (since its beginnings actually), but this is another topic.
Here is something tasty from the article, though.
Virgin Galactic officials said more than 65,000 people have registered their interest to ride a SpaceShipTwo vehicle into suborbital space, with more than 200 already reserving their seats by making a payment deposit.
... to carry paying passengers into suborbital space at a starting ticket price of $200,000 each.
The article does not mention what is the size of deposit. It might be available on their website. However, it follows that folks at Virgin Galactic (or one of their branches who handles this) can already see a flow of cash and interest. Speaking of interest, Virgin Galactic also keeps in mind the big money here, check this out:
Virgin Galactic’s SpaceShipTwo vehicles ... could even be modified later to carry a 1,763-pound (800-kilogram) science payload into suborbital space for about $2 million should the market demand warrant it, the spaceline’s president Will Whitehorn said.
This would definitely be the way to go for Virgin Galactic. And at a 2500 dollars per kilogram, it sounds like a very good price for those who need to deploy relatively small space objects into near orbit. Although, SpaceShipTwo does not sound like a ship to deliver something into orbit (it doesn't have enough angular speed at the rise of its travel to actually launch something into orbit). This can be adjusted if the load was capable of self-propulsion.
This is definitely a good update on the progress of SpaceShipTwo.
Saturday, September 30, 2006
Oliver Stone Should Be Ashamed of Himself
Here is an article with quotes from film maker Oliver Stone.
I suppose that nowadays it is considered a sign of greatness (or at least a sign of intelligence) to speak against current political leaders, however, it is not easy to point out their real mistakes and correctly identify the grounds why those are mistakes.
I will go through some of Oliver's statements.
Maybe, it is because Mr. Stone does not see attacks as such a horrible action?
Apparently, Mr. Stone does not think so. It seems that what Mr. Stone's solution is keep the situation as it is, i.e. keep the current count of murderers, since if we fight the numbers will grow. Thus, the conclusion is to stop fighting, and just keep this situation "manageable."
This is surreal.
I suppose that nowadays it is considered a sign of greatness (or at least a sign of intelligence) to speak against current political leaders, however, it is not easy to point out their real mistakes and correctly identify the grounds why those are mistakes.
I will go through some of Oliver's statements.
"From September 12 on, the incident (the attacks) was politicized and it has polarized the entire world," said Stone.This beginning statement is the first sign of trouble. The attack was an attack for fanatics who hate America (among other things), and yet Mr. Stone easily skips over the fact that American soil was attacked, and thousands of American people had died. Apparently, it is more important to consider what feelings the event generated in the rest of the world. This view is astonishing.
Is this a call to forget and forgive the events of 9/11? Apparently, it is. Furthermore, there are more important things to do, according to Mr. Stone. One of questions here is "Shouldn't we (our government) do something to prevent this kind of event in future? Isn't this really important?" This is answered in his later statements.
"It is a shame because it is a waste of energy to see that the entire world five years later is still convulsed in the grip of 9/11."
"It's a waste of energy away from things that do matter which is poverty, death, disease, the planet itself and fixing things in our own homes rather than fighting wars with others."This clearly ignores the fact that 9/11 did brought death, disease, and poverty to Americans. Thousands died, economy sanked, Manhattan had plenty of dust for several days, no doubt causing people medial complications. And this is all was caused by fanatics from Middle East. How can this be a waste of energy to defend against such attacks?
Maybe, it is because Mr. Stone does not see attacks as such a horrible action?
"Terrorism is a manageable action. It can be lived with," said Stone.Hold on a second. What does this say? It says one can live with terrorism. Did people in twin towers live with it? No. Life cannot exist and prosper while there is a killer on a run. This situation can not be managed, until terrorism is removed.
"That's the evil that turns its mind and ears on humanity and is able to say 'I can kill a person in the name of God or religion.' This is not a human being, this a fanatic.This gives Mr. Stone some credit, as he correctly identifies terrorism with evil, and connects it to religion. This is a good start, but he fails to state which religion is causing this trouble - Islam.
"And I fear that fanaticism is the result of our overreaction to 9/11," said Stone.So much for a good start, Mr. Stone falls down after one step. Apparently, it is America's fault for producing fanatics in Middle East, according to Mr. Stone. America is attacked, and rightly fights back. What is the result, according to Mr. Stone? The product is that fanatics grow in numbers. Is this America's fault? Mr. Stone thinks so. How about the fanatical countries who brain wash their kids from the first grade in schools to teach them to hate America? Maybe fanatics who blew up people are products of those governments?
Apparently, Mr. Stone does not think so. It seems that what Mr. Stone's solution is keep the situation as it is, i.e. keep the current count of murderers, since if we fight the numbers will grow. Thus, the conclusion is to stop fighting, and just keep this situation "manageable."
This is surreal.
What Is This Blog About?
I will use this blog to post short ideas, views, and points about various things that I come across. I shall exercise Objectivist philosophy in all my posts. Keep in mind that I do not represent Objectivism or any of its organizations.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
