Gary Shteyngart, in conversation with Ezra Klein:
Let me tell you this. I do think that space colonization really is not something I’m terribly interested in. I don’t think going to Mars is going to answer any of our problems…
We have a really nice planet here that we’re destroying. We really don’t need to discover the marvels of Mercury anytime soon. So a lot of this is complete [expletive] as far as I’m concerned…
This is a common view, and typically includes two related points:
- Space exploration won’t help us solve our problems on Earth
- Space exploration is too costly, drawing resources away from solving problems on Earth
I wrote earlier in Our Fractured Future that I struggle to engage with this view. The Earth is magnificent and we should do all we can to preserve its ability to sustain the wild diversity of life that inhabits it. The problems of our civilization are considerable, and it’s the responsibility of every generation to give all it has to solve what we can for the ones that come after us. None of that diminishes for one moment my conviction that we must continue to explore and to discover beyond our planet, our solar system, and our galaxy.
In On Persuasion, I wrote:
Persuasion happens when someone is convinced that a particular belief they hold is inconsistent with deeper beliefs of theirs. This is critical: the argument must be rooted in something the individual already believes, and it’s all the better if the person making the argument believes it too. If I’m a supporter of the ACA, I’m not going to persuade you that it’s good policy based on a right to healthcare because that isn’t a belief of yours, and may be in conflict with deeper beliefs you have. But, I may be able to persuade you by finding a different core belief and building a case from there, and it’s the excavation of one another’s beliefs to find a foundation on which to build an argument that binds the members of a political community together…
So what common foundation could I find with the opponents of space exploration to convince them, or to be convinced by them?
To begin, we can dismiss the instrumental arguments, for example that space exploration yields scientific understanding that we can apply to solving problems on Earth. It’s true, yes, but also absurd: it’s not persuasive that we need to send rockets to another planet to improve a surgical procedure at home.
Instead, I might say that scientific discovery is of a piece with art, a search for a truth that is beyond our immediate perception and that expands and deepens our understanding of our reality and our place in it. Space exploration (or particle accelerators, or genomics laboratories, or data centers) are costly, but so are literature, music, gastronomy, film. I can’t imagine arguing that we should stop directing resources at art until we’ve solved our problems, but that’s exactly the cold calculation I hear when someone — and particularly an artist like Shteyngart — argues that space exploration is a distraction.
I might ask, why is the planet the boundary of our home? At this moment, many of us (and almost certainly anyone reading this) live in a world that is interconnected enough that Earth feels like humanity’s home. But of course that wasn’t true even a few generations ago, and I don’t expect it will be true in the future. Our ancestors might have seen their village or their nation or their continent as the relevant world, with wilderness and savages beyond its borders. Our descendants may see the solar system and the Milky Way just as naturally as humanity’s native home as we see the Earth that way today. What difference is there between the seashore and the edge of the atmosphere?
I doubt any of that is persuasive. I also wrote in that earlier piece:
It’s also possible that there’s no way I can convince you as long as you hold a certain set of core beliefs.
The dismissal of space exploration, or of scientific endeavor generally, touches a deeper question: What is human life for? Science is more than a practice or body of knowledge, but an answer to that question: human life is for discovery. In the face of the vast, complex, beautiful, and indifferent universe, it is for us to witness, to learn, and as best we can to understand. That vocation can be radical and demanding, it can be profoundly disturbing, and it is often tragically bound up in war and conquest and exploitation, but the alternative — persisting in ignorance — is unthinkable.
I believe that, but it’s only half the picture. To live a full life, and to work to ensure everyone can, is equally important. The main point here is that science is not something we should pursue only when all of our needs are met, because it is important in its own right (and anyway, our needs will never all be met). Discovery is not extracurricular.
I don’t have a way to persuade anyone of that, except to express it. If you can see the stars at night without wanting to know more, to know everything — if not now, then in some future generation; if not everything, then as much as possible — then there may be nothing else to say.
I’ll keep looking.