[soundcloud url="https://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/51823152" params="color=ff5500&auto_play=false&hide_related=false&show_comments=true&show_user=true&show_reposts=false" width="100%" height="166" iframe="true" /]

Micah Saul: This project is built on a hypoth­e­sis. There are moments in his­to­ry when the sta­tus quo fails. Political sys­tems prove insuf­fi­cient, reli­gious ideas unsat­is­fac­to­ry, social struc­tures intol­er­a­ble. These are moments of crisis. 

Aengus Anderson: During some of these moments, great minds have entered into con­ver­sa­tion and torn apart inher­it­ed ideas, dethron­ing truths, com­bin­ing old thoughts, and cre­at­ing new ideas. They’ve shaped the norms of future generations.

Saul: Every era has its issues, but do ours war­rant The Conversation? If they do, is it happening?

Anderson: We’ll be explor­ing these sorts of ques­tions through con­ver­sa­tions with a cross-section of American thinkers, peo­ple who are cri­tiquing some aspect of nor­mal­i­ty and offer­ing an alter­na­tive vision of the future. People who might be hav­ing The Conversation.

Saul: Like a real con­ver­sa­tion, this project is going to be sub­jec­tive. It will fre­quent­ly change direc­tions, con­nect unex­pect­ed ideas, and wan­der between the tan­gi­ble and the abstract. It will leave us with far more ques­tions than answers because after all, nobody has a monop­oly on dream­ing about the future.

Anderson: I’m Aengus Anderson.

Saul: And I’m Micah Saul. And you’re lis­ten­ing to The Conversation.

Aengus Anderson: So num­ber thir­teen, here we are.

Micah Saul: Indeed.

Anderson: Ariel Waldman.

Saul: Yes. Spacehack.

Anderson: Spacehack.

Saul: Basically, it’s about the democ­ra­ti­za­tion of space explo­ration. Why should indus­try, why should gov­ern­ments, have all the fun? Let’s get the tools of space explo­ration and study of space into the hands of as many peo­ple as possible.

Anderson: It seems like she’s pitch­ing sort of a use of sci­ence that hear­kens back to ear­li­er eras when sci­en­tists were often amateurs

Saul: It’s a return to the cit­i­zen scientist.

Anderson: Right, but that’s nev­er exist­ed in the space era.

Saul: No, not at all.

Anderson: I’m kind of curi­ous how it’s going to exist in the space era.

Saul: yes.

Anderson: And I’m going to be real­ly inter­est­ed to see how does this change things? Like, who’s in con­trol of mak­ing the choic­es if we get there.

Saul: Exact.

Anderson: So yeah let’s jump into this and see what Ariel says, and then we will, um—

Saul: Reconnect.

Anderson: —try to make some con­nec­tions here.

Saul: Sounds good.

Anderson: Hey, this is Aengus. I just have to break in real quick and apol­o­gize in advance for the dis­tor­tion on Ariel’s track. It’s an iPhone push­ing data, and I did­n’t catch it when we were record­ing, dis­cov­ered it in post and now I’m embar­rassed. So with that dis­claimer, here we go.

Ariel Waldman: I very serendip­i­tous­ly got a job at NASA in 2008, and pri­or to that I had no involve­ment at all in space explo­ration or sci­ence, and I just kind of on a whim reached out to some­one at NASA and they had cre­at­ed a job descrip­tion that day, and I end­ed up get­ting the job work­ing for a pro­gram called CoLab. And CoLab real­ly sought to con­nect com­mu­ni­ties inside and out­side of NASA to col­lab­o­rate. So any­thing from get­ting ama­teur astronomers to col­lab­o­rate with astronomers at NASA, or get­ting dif­fer­ent mis­sions to open up their data and do more active engage­ment with peo­ple. Also bring­ing a space explo­ration lec­ture series to the start­up com­mu­ni­ty in San Francisco. It was real­ly a wide array of things just around the con­cept of get­ting NASA and non-NASA peo­ple to col­lab­o­rate. And it com­plete­ly changed my life and was real­ly influ­en­tial and inspirational.

Then I left NASA and I cre­at­ed space​hack​.org, which is a direc­to­ry of ways to par­tic­i­pate in space explo­ration. So that’s any­thing from dis­cov­er­ing galax­ies to build­ing robots that go to the moon or Mars. There’s all dif­fer­ent types of things that peo­ple with or with­out sci­ence back­grounds can do to active­ly con­tribute to space explo­ration and sci­en­tif­ic discovery.

Aengus Anderson: It’s very alien for me, the idea of democ­ra­tiz­ing space sci­ence, but I think for a lot of oth­er peo­ple it will be as well. So what’s some­thing where a nor­mal per­son could engage with NASA, which always seems like it’s kind of out in ivory tow­er land.

Waldman: There a vari­ety of things. One way that I real­ly like, decent­ly new project, is called Planet Hunters. And Planet Hunters is all about search­ing for exo­plan­ets, which are extra­so­lar plan­ets or plan­ets around stars oth­er than our own. And through Planet Hunters, you can actu­al­ly go through and try and actu­al­ly find new exo­plan­ets that haven’t been dis­cov­ered before. We do have algo­rithms to search for these exo­plan­ets already, but Planet Hunters bets that some humans can find some exo­plan­ets that get left out from the algo­rithms because humans are still bet­ter at pat­tern recog­ni­tion than robots or machines right now. So, Planet Hunters is kind of pit­ting human against machine and bet­ting that they can find some exo­plan­et can­di­dates. And they already have. 

I’m try­ing to kind of wake peo­ple up that when NASA says they’re explor­ing things and we can say, Oh, we’ve been to the moon. We’ve been to all these dif­fer­ent places,” you your­self haven’t actu­al­ly been there. You’re actu­al­ly observ­ing peo­ple explor­ing space on behalf of your­self. And so I think I try and awak­en peo­ple to both that con­cept and the con­cept that space and sci­ence data is a real­ly inter­est­ing fab­ric to work with.

A lot of it’s about dein­sti­tu­tion­al­iz­ing sci­ence and kind of break­ing down the bar­ri­ers that there’s this per­ceived wall between you and sci­ence, and that that’s some­thing that only going back to school and get­ting a PhD means you can work with that. And that’s just not true. So I think it’s real­ly about tar­get­ing some­thing that’s real­ly amaz­ing like the whole entire­ty of the uni­verse, and telling peo­ple you know, this is an area you can play in. Also your indus­try and the types of things you do day to day can active­ly con­tribute to sci­ence. And sci­ence isn’t always real­ly good about ask­ing for help. So a fash­ion design­er could be design­ing a space suit.

Anderson: How do the pri­or­i­ties of the sci­en­tif­ic insti­tu­tions change as they become more democratized?

Waldman: That’s an inter­est­ing ques­tion, and I don’t know if I have an exact answer for that. I think a lot of inter­est­ing things are going to be hap­pen­ing as sci­ence becomes more democ­ra­tized, one of which is the explo­ration of either unpop­u­lar sci­ence or sci­ence that has been left behind by bureau­cra­cies. And I think that’s real­ly where the con­cept of cit­i­zen sci­ence” as a phrase is more mean­ing­ful. It’s not about doing the same thing and just open­ing it up to any­one, or doing the same thing and just doing it for cheap­er. It’s actu­al­ly about real­ly hav­ing dif­fer­ent types of peo­ple around the world be able to explore sci­ence that often gets over­looked. How that’ll actu­al­ly change sci­ence insti­tu­tions and their road maps, I’m not quite sure yet. I think that’s some­thing that’s still wait­ing to be found out.

Anderson: It seems like there’s an assump­tion there though, that by democ­ra­tiz­ing it, their insti­tu­tion­al pressures…maybe we can break it out of that mold a lit­tle bit?

Waldman: Yeah, hope­ful­ly. And espe­cial­ly I would hope that that would kind of fil­ter over into sci­en­tists, because a thing I often hear is I you don’t ever pro­pose the risky, crazy sci­ence thing, even if you strong­ly believe in it, because you know you’re not going to get fund­ing for it. And your entire career depends on con­stant­ly find­ing fund­ing. There’s not a lot of sup­port for explor­ing risk­i­ness. Most of the foun­da­tions real­ly sup­port safe and con­trolled, con­ser­v­a­tive sci­ence. And that real­ly affects the indus­try as a whole. 

Anderson: With every­thing, there’s always sort of a pow­er ques­tion. Is sci­ence demo­c­ra­t­i­cal­ly con­trolled, or should it be? Is it con­trolled by dif­fer­ent insti­tu­tions, gov­ern­ments, fun­ders… Who is sci­ence work­ing for?

Waldman: There is a lot of con­trol at the gov­ern­ment and insti­tu­tion lev­el, and again that’s just some­thing that’s emerged over the last sev­er­al decades. Science just became more insti­tu­tion­al­ized, and there’s a mul­ti­tude of rea­sons for that. So I think that part is sad, because I don’t think it needs to work that way and I don’t think any­one wants to work that way, and I would say even the heads of the insti­tu­tions and the heads of the gov­ern­ment agen­cies would say they’re not try­ing to con­trol science.

But the fact that it all comes back to fund­ing, and that fund­ing and insti­tu­tions and gov­ern­ment agen­cies is incred­i­bly bureau­crat­ic, espe­cial­ly in NASA, you do see a lot of real­ly good mis­sions get killed off in the name of bureau­cra­cy rather than in the name of prop­er sci­ence. I do think some­thing that’s good though, at least when it comes to rock­et launch­es, is that with com­mer­cial space and with some oth­er gov­ern­ments and oth­er coun­tries, they care more about mon­ey than they do about the bureau­cra­cy of it all. So that’s actu­al­ly real­ly pos­i­tive. While not every­one has mon­ey, the idea that some­one will fly your stuff no mat­ter what as long as you have enough mon­ey is actu­al­ly a step in the right direc­tion towards democ­ra­tiz­ing. Because then if you want to study black holes, you don’t have to go through the logis­ti­cal night­mare of going through NASA. You can just go to Russia or some oth­er coun­try, and put your exper­i­ment up into space. Then it’s just about get­ting fund­ing rather than con­vinc­ing hearts and minds that you should be in the roadmap and you should com­pete with all these oth­er missions.

Anderson: Does space then just go from being a government-regulated thing to some­thing that’s more of a play­ground for the rich?

Waldman: It already is a play­ground for the rich. It seems to be the very pop­u­lar thing for rich white men who have been in charge of a com­pa­ny or two to do. You’ve got Richard Branson and Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk. This is good and bad. The bad part is that yeah, it’s some­thing where it’s still extreme­ly expen­sive. Costs on small satel­lites are slow­ly but sure­ly com­ing down, and I do expect that small satel­lites will become more acces­si­ble with­in the next ten years. But the good part is that you’ve also got all these white guys with a lot of mon­ey and a lot of pow­er, who are try­ing to make space explo­ration work for them, in a land­scape where it was pri­mar­i­ly dom­i­nat­ed by a gov­ern­ment agency. This is no small feat.

While space explo­ration might be inac­ces­si­ble right now, the fact that we do have very pow­er­ful peo­ple with a lot of mon­ey play­ing in it right now means that they’re putting a lot of pres­sure on the United States gov­ern­ment to real­ly make it more open, and hope­ful­ly it’ll be paving the way for more peo­ple to actu­al­ly par­tic­i­pate in space explo­ration by send­ing peo­ple to Washington and fight­ing these laws and every­thing. So as I say it is good and bad, but I think long term it’s good.

Anderson: So let’s say we have more pri­va­tized space explo­ration. You’ve got a lot more activ­i­ty going on in space. What is good about using space for dif­fer­ent things, right? So, I spo­ken to a lot of envi­ron­men­tal­ists, peo­ple who feel that nat­ur­al sys­tems just have intrin­sic mer­it. By sort of open­ing up this burst of explo­ration, what are the eth­i­cal ram­i­fi­ca­tions of that?

Waldman: Yeah, I find that ques­tion real­ly inter­est­ing because I can sym­pa­thize with both sides of it. Because I think ter­raform­ing is real­ly cool. On the oth­er hand there is that sense of… Unless we are active­ly going to put a civ­i­liza­tion there, in which case ter­raform­ing would make sense, do we real­ly need to you know, mine it or dig through it? 

That’s hard to say, because space is where the tra­jec­to­ry of where all of our resources are going to be com­ing from. The moon and aster­oids have all these met­als and gas­es that are oth­er­wise extreme­ly rare here. And there is a sense of we do need to con­tin­ue sup­port­ing our­selves. But there there are eth­i­cal ques­tions. That said, we already have a ton of junk that’s on the moon. We’ve already sent a bunch of probes slam­ming into the moon, and things like that. So it’s not like all these places are pris­tine. And I’m not say­ing that’s an excuse to go ahead and junk them up more. But it is some­thing we’ve already been kind of putting our toe into. 

And I do think there are a lot of good endeav­ors, and I think the pos­i­tive side of space explo­ration is that it’s sup­posed to be on the cut­ting edge of tech­nol­o­gy and our under­stand­ing of how to do dif­fer­ent things. So my hope is that along with more explo­ration and more tin­ker­ing with all these dif­fer­ent bod­ies in the solar sys­tem, there will also be bet­ter tech­nolo­gies to min­i­mize our envi­ron­men­tal impact. If it’s pos­si­ble to have my cake and eat it too, that’s what I would want. I want us to explore and probe and ter­raform. But I would like for us also to at the same time min­i­mize the envi­ron­men­tal impact, under­stand tech­nolo­gies that we can use that help clean up after we’ve done some­thing to some­place. Things like that.

Anderson: The guy I’ll be talk­ing to next, and this is going to be an inter­est­ing jux­ta­po­si­tion, is a primitivist.

Waldman: Okay.

Anderson: So, basi­cal­ly, for him val­ue in life comes through inter­per­son­al rela­tion­ships and unmedi­at­ed expe­ri­ences with the world. So for him there’s noth­ing good about hav­ing more resources with which to build more things. Because for him, those are dis­trac­tions from the unmedi­at­ed expe­ri­ence of being with oth­er peo­ple. If we were to say there’s a zeit­geist in our soci­ety, I would say most of us assume that tech­no­log­i­cal progress is good. That’s not some­thing we ques­tion. And he is a guy who actu­al­ly does ques­tion that.

Waldman: I would be curi­ous what his thoughts are on anthro­pol­o­gists or ethno­g­ra­phers or peo­ple who study humans. Because by ques­tion­ing that he’s inher­ent­ly being an anthro­pol­o­gist of sorts, you know, kind of look­ing at the world around him, find­ing it some­what strange, and kind of ques­tion­ing it and say­ing, Should we con­sid­er oth­er things?” Whether he likes it or not, that’s a sci­en­tif­ic mind­set and endeav­or, and I think that’s what some­times peo­ple for­get, is that you there real­ly are all dif­fer­ent types of sci­ences. The way you think about humans and humans’ inter­ac­tion with things, and study­ing that, and study­ing those sys­tems, is the same as study­ing the sys­tems of sub­atom­ic par­ti­cles. To me, it’s all the same. Again, I would argue that even he engages in sci­ence in some way. 

Anderson: I think there’s also this sense with these guys that there’s a cer­tain dan­ger to it, in a way that is sep­a­rat­ing us either from some sense of what it means to be human, or in a more tan­gi­ble sense is push­ing us clos­er and clos­er and clos­er to an extinction-like event where we’ve cre­at­ed such pow­er for our­selves sci­en­tif­i­cal­ly that we don’t have the eth­i­cal hard­ware to real­ly sort of deal with the pow­er we’ve created.

Waldman: So, I find that inter­est­ing in a num­ber of regards, but I think it gets at this nos­tal­gic feel­ing that some peo­ple expe­ri­ence, and the assump­tion that things were bet­ter or more authen­tic before tech­no­log­i­cal advances that we have today. A lot my friends actu­al­ly are tack­ling that con­cept, and the thing I found that I love that they talk about is the con­cept that things need to be less seam­less today and more seamful.

Anderson: What does this mean?

Waldman: By that it means peo­ple feel things that are authen­tic or real, or they have a nos­tal­gia for things because you had the sense of you could see the seams, you could get a sense of the work that went behind it, you saw the work, the inter­ac­tion. It felt like it was real because you can see where things began and end, and it was­n’t seam­less and it was­n’t some­times per­fect. So the con­cept of mak­ing things more seam­ful in tech­nol­o­gy is actu­al­ly spend­ing more time to show or dis­play or get the con­cept across of the work that goes into things like com­put­ers, or things like web sites. 

Getting at the heart of that and see­ing those seams and actu­al­ly under­stand­ing the work behind it, is some­thing that needs to be done more, I would say, to com­bat this nos­tal­gia which I don’t agree with. And you know, I under­stand why peo­ple feel that way, but just because you can’t see some­thing does­n’t mean it does­n’t exist. And yeah, that gets into science.

Anderson: Does their grum­bling have any mer­it at all? The whole idea of progress is actu­al­ly false. 

Waldman: I don’t know. I mean, I would say per­son­al­ly I always am try­ing to under­stand and sym­pa­thize. But I think progress is inher­ent­ly progress. It’s called progress. And also that might be hard to under­stand, that phrase. We’re get­ting into some weird con­ver­sa­tion now.

Anderson: I promised it would be…not nor­mal, right?

Waldman: Yes, right. It’s not nor­mal. Progress is inher­ent­ly about mak­ing things bet­ter and yeah, there’s going to be real­ly dark sides to things that we don’t see. But at the same time, there’s dark sides to things that have exist­ed for a long time that we’re actu­al­ly able to help fix. So, dis­eases and longevi­ty and things like that that do affect us on a very human level. 

For bet­ter or worse, humans love con­trol. They love con­trol, and it’s a really…most of the time a bad thing. But to not progress, to not have tech­no­log­i­cal advances, is again to kind of give up what it means to be human, to me, because I think we do like con­trol. And even though we are at this inter­est­ing jux­ta­po­si­tion where we’re cre­at­ing things that now kind of emo­tion­al­ly freak us out even though sta­tis­ti­cal­ly they’re actu­al­ly bet­ter for us.

Anderson: Just cir­cling back very quick­ly to the notion of progress, and we were talk­ing about progress being some­thing you can mea­sure in kind of a mate­r­i­al way. How do we get the val­ue that more tech­nol­o­gy is bet­ter? Is it just based on the notion that human cre­ativ­i­ty is a good? Like, an innate good? Or that liv­ing longer is an innate good? You know, it seems like with any­thing that we rea­son­ably pur­sue, there are ara­tional assumptions.

Waldman: Yeah, I think I maybe have like two respons­es that. One is that tech­no­log­i­cal advances aren’t nec­es­sar­i­ly about forc­ing you to choose them. So you don’t have to get the lat­est MacBook Pro. You don’t have to choose to have your life extend­ed. But you have a choice, and I think that’s a lot of what tech­no­log­i­cal advances are about.

Anderson: Generating more choices.

Waldman: Generating more choice, and essen­tial­ly hav­ing less cor­ners that you get pushed into, either nat­u­ral­ly or not nat­u­ral­ly. It’s per­fect­ly fine to ques­tion like, should we live longer, and what are the impli­ca­tions of that? But I think it’s also some­one’s right to choose to go down that path. Not every­one needs to, but some peo­ple will want to.

Anderson: That’s some­thing very sim­i­lar to…I talked to Alexander Rose at the Long Now Foundation. When I asked him about the good he said sce­nar­ios that in aggre­gate give peo­ple more choice rather than less choice. I was like, that is so clean and philo­soph­i­cal­ly ele­gant, and so I did­n’t the ques­tion but I real­ized lat­er, which was, Why aren’t few­er bet­ter choic­es prefer­able to more choices?”

Waldman: This is going to sound so American. But it is part of what free­dom is.

Anderson: That’s okay. We’re Americans.

Waldman: Yeah. Yeah. I know. But I’m always very con­scious of…just com­ing off super American sometimes. 

No, it’s the free­dom thing. It’s the abil­i­ty to have bet­ter options and pro­vide bet­ter options for those that go past you. It’s the same thing where par­ents their chil­dren to have bet­ter lives. That inher­ent­ly means they’ve got to have more options than their par­ents did.

Anderson: Does it, though?

Waldman: I think so, because I think any­time you try and con­strain peo­ple or put peo­ple into a nice lit­tle tem­plate, you end up with some pret­ty messed up ram­i­fi­ca­tions. You see this in more total­i­tar­i­an states and com­mu­nism. Just that bare-bones con­cept of mak­ing every­one equal and and shar­ing with one anoth­er because it’s a bet­ter option unless you have less options in your life. Yeah, that does sound like a great idea of actu­al­ly you know, every­one being on sim­i­lar lev­els and help­ing each oth­er more. However in real­i­ty it does­n’t work out that way. Things should­n’t be lim­it­ed when it comes choice. I think it only makes sense when you’ve got rough con­cepts of what’s good and that they’re very flex­i­ble. So you know, things like the Constitution and then obvi­ous­ly they’re not always ide­al, but they’re sup­posed to be more flexible.

Anderson: Seems like beneath a lot of our con­ver­sa­tion thus far there’s an idea that curios­i­ty is good.

Waldman: Yeah.

Anderson: Why?

Waldman: I think the sad­dest thing is if you ever stop want­i­ng to learn new things. And it can be about any­thing. That’s just real­ly heart­break­ing. I don’t know. It’s just so much part of like who you are as a human to learn new things con­stant­ly. And so to not be curi­ous, not want to learn new things and not cre­ate new pat­terns and connections…you’re pret­ty much giv­ing up your human self. I don’t know.

Anderson: Our con­ver­sa­tions been sort of phys­i­cal­ist. We’re talk­ing in the world of stuff sci­ence and explo­ration and mate­r­i­al. But things like that, like human life is a good thing, curios­i­ty is a good thing, those are com­ing from some­where else. Or it seems like it. Where do we get those con­cepts from?

Waldman: Because [the] alter­na­tives usu­al­ly end in a lot of destruc­tion. I think it’s all about stand­ing on the shoul­ders of peo­ple before you and being able to learn good or bad from that. And so the con­cept of be nice and appre­ci­ate human life, is it nat­ur­al to us? I don’t know I’m not a big studi­er of evo­lu­tion and human behav­ior at the core. But I think we’ve done a pret­ty good job of say­ing when you don’t val­ue human life and that when you’re not nice to peo­ple, that you’re prob­a­bly not going to be very hap­py with the outcome.

Humans might inher­ent­ly be a bit self­ish. I don’t think every­one’s very good at long-term futures. But I think part of human nature is being able to play things out in your head and see how those are going to wind up back to you.

Anderson: There’s kind of like a…asocial aspect of this, right, where the ideas of the good can come through prag­mat­ic expe­ri­ence of what leads to more social harmony.

Waldman: Yeah. So that’s just at the very basic lev­el. Now a more I guess high­er, intel­lec­tu­al oper­at­ing level…yeah, I think there’s a lot to be said for want­i­ng to help oth­er peo­ple, want­i­ng to con­nect with oth­er peo­ple, want­i­ng to be a lot more sen­si­tive and more aware of what’s around you. Which I’m sure that all the peo­ple who are very nos­tal­gic like that very much, because it’s about being present and con­nect­ing with what’s in front of you. It might not be at the super prim­i­tive lev­el of being human, but I think it is at the mod­ern day of being a human.

Anderson: I should prob­a­bly just ask. I already know how you’re going to answer this, but are you opti­mistic about the future?

Waldman: Yes, I’m very opti­mistic about the future. It’s real­ly excit­ing and a lot of sci­en­tists just think it’s the most excit­ing time to be play­ing in. And I think real­ly being able to see the birth of a new era in space explo­ration is so impor­tant to me. It’s inter­est­ing see­ing most peo­ple think­ing it’s the end of an era in space explo­ration, and I think it’s just the begin­ning. We’ve been alpha test­ing for like fifty years now, now we’re start­ing like the beta tests. And hope­ful­ly if I live long enough I’ll see it emerge out of beta and real­ly become sort of a cit­i­zen sci­ence renais­sance, or a democ­ra­tized sci­ence world.

Aengus Anderson: So you’re back from out­er space— 

Micah Saul: I’m sorry.

Anderson: —with or with­out that sad look upon your face.

Saul: Could we start with like a, I don’t know David Bowie ref­er­ence instead, or…

Anderson: Space Oddity. You’d rather have that than disco?

Saul: Yes. I’d rather have Rocket Man by Elton John than disco.

Anderson: Oh, god. I don’t even know you. So we just spoke to, or I just spke to, Ariel Waldman.

Saul: Yes, you did.

Anderson: If we had to pin down her con­tri­bu­tion, her fun­da­men­tal­ly new idea, democ­ra­tiz­ing space sci­ence specif­i­cal­ly seems like that’s it.

Saul: That’s it. I have my own per­son­al bias­es about space and get­ting the tools of space explo­ration and space dis­cov­ery into the hands of more people.

Anderson: You think it’s good.

Saul: I think it’s good.

Anderson: She even said that ter­raform­ing is cool.

Saul: I mean…it is in some way. It’s not some­thing I think we should do with­out seri­ous­ly con­sid­er­ing the eth­i­cal and moral impli­ca­tions. But it is…cool.

Anderson: It’s hard to talk about space with­out talk­ing about under­ly­ing notions of what is good and what is eth­i­cal. There are def­i­nite­ly some big ones that came in. The idea that curios­i­ty is good.

Saul: Yes.

Anderson: Which I thought was real­ly inter­est­ing because I don’t think any­one else has actu­al­ly talked about curios­i­ty. Max More talked about self-expression in a way that is very sim­i­lar to curios­i­ty. Kind of a way of being self-fulfilled.

Saul: She also said that it was not just a good, it was one of the fun­da­men­tal things that make us human.

Anderson: Yes.

Saul: Which I appreciated.

Anderson: I feel bad for cats, because that was often their branding.

Saul: But I was hap­py that she was will­ing to just say yes, this is a fun­da­men­tal part of being human in a that Andrew Keen was­n’t will­ing to define what makes us human.

Anderson: And whether or not that puts her on firm ground or not, I sup­pose is one’s own sub­jec­tive opin­ion. But I was real­ly glad to have that out there.

Saul: I’m hap­py to have peo­ple just make those claims.

Anderson: Because then we’ve got some­thing to grab onto.

Saul: Yes. Going off of curios­i­ty is good, I’m not quite sure that the con­nec­tion was made, but I think she would argue that curios­i­ty is good because it’s what dri­ves progress.

Anderson: And what is progress any­way? This was some­thing that we came back to sev­er­al times. And I’m still not quite sure what I know. Progress seems to be expand­ing one’s knowl­edge of the world.

Saul: Yeah.

Anderson: It also seems to be technological.

Saul: Yeah. There was a nice tau­tol­ogy there. Progress is just…pro­gress­es is progress. You know, it it comes down to that tele­o­log­i­cal debate again.

Anderson: Right.

Saul: Science and tech­nol­o­gy are work­ing toward some­thing, and that some­thing is defined as progress.

Anderson: And that progress usu­al­ly man­i­fests as more stuff and more knowledge.

Saul: Yes.

Anderson: And I think that is one of the fun­da­men­tal assump­tions of our era. And it’s real­ly hard to get under­neath that, to sort of blow up that tele­ol­o­gy. Tim Morton will blow up that teleology.

Saul: Oh, absolutely.

Anderson: It’s inter­est­ing. I mean, the idea of how do we define this progress? I think we have had oth­er peo­ple we’ve spo­ken to, Jan Lundberg, maybe even John Fife…almost cer­tain­ly John Fife, who would mea­sure progress as some­thing that you make sort of interpersonally.

Saul: Right.

Anderson: Social things, which aren’t nec­es­sar­i­ly teth­ered to mate­r­i­al goods. They can be. And I think actu­al­ly Colin Camerer, we talked about that as well, the idea that for him, yeah you need a cer­tain lev­el of mate­r­i­al progress because oth­er­wise you are starv­ing and unhap­py. But after that, progress can be mea­sured in oth­er ways. Ways that are maybe less eco­nom­ic or material.

Saul: I’m going to project into the future a bit, but I have a feel­ing our next con­ver­sa­tion is going to be some­one else who will blow up this tele­ol­o­gy. We should prob­a­bly men­tion who that is real quick. Next you’ll be talk­ing to John Zerzan, who is—

Anderson: A primitivist.

Saul: —a neo­prim­i­tivist anar­chist in Eugene, and philosopher.

Anderson: He’s not afraid to speak his mind.

Saul: Yes.

Anderson: And he will, maybe more than any­one else in this project, tear apart pret­ty much every sin­gle notion of what we think is good. And I’m real­ly excit­ed to have some­one who makes the case for the prim­i­tive. And it’s going to be a cool jux­ta­po­si­tion to go from Ariel, who’s real­ly look­ing into the future with tech­nol­o­gy, with expand­ing… I mean for her, expand­ing off-world is kind of, that’s where it’s at.

Saul: And it seemed like a given.

Anderson: Right.

Saul: There was no way in hell that was­n’t going to happen.

Anderson: Pairing her inter­view with Zerzan, where on one hand we have the inevitabil­i­ty and the good­ness of progress, and I think we’ll see what the con­ver­sa­tion with John is like this com­ing Friday. But I think he’s going to say that stuff is mad­ness, you’re miss­ing the whole point.

Saul: So while we’re on the sub­ject of sort of tying Ariel into the broad­er pic­ture, what oth­er par­al­lels did we see? You know, it’s pos­si­ble that we defined, in this con­ver­sa­tion, more of the good than in any oth­er. Because I think of three things that were defined as the good. There’s curios­i­ty, there was progress, and then there was choice. More choice, is good.

Anderson: Yes.

Saul: And that brings us to Alexander Rose. Another idea that’s fair­ly preva­lent in our soci­ety is that more choice equals good. When there are stud­ies that sug­gest once you get past a cer­tain num­ber of choic­es, it’s crip­pling. You can’t actu­al­ly make a deci­sion when faced with more than…I don’t remem­ber the num­ber but it’s not a large number.

Anderson: No there’s actu­al­ly are a real­ly fun Radiolab episode that explores that con­cept. It cuts to our self-estimations of our worth. So while I felt like we did­n’t get into as much of the phi­los­o­phy and the def­i­n­i­tions of terms that I would have liked, I real­ly liked her exam­ple when we were talk­ing about choice in the case of a total­i­tar­i­an state. It’s kind of like look, when you’re going to say we have few­er choic­es or no choic­es and that some­how maybe that can make the sys­tem bet­ter, maybe that’s pos­si­ble. There’s also a real­ly good chance that that just does­n’t work.

Because when you only have one or a small num­ber of peo­ple mak­ing the choice for every­one, you’re still trust­ing that to a cou­ple of peo­ple. It’s not like you’re farm­ing this out to some omni­scient god who’s going to say, You know what, I real­ly got this fig­ured out for all of you. I’ll take care of the choic­es.” You’re trust­ing the Commissar.

Saul: Giving up choice is fun­da­men­tal­ly ced­ing some part of your agency.

Anderson: And isn’t that an inter­est­ing con­nec­tion? Because just briefly else­where, we got into the idea that ced­ing your agency can actu­al­ly be good.

Saul: Uh huh.

How does this line up? I had­n’t thought about this until you men­tioned it right now.

Saul: Neither did I.

Anderson: But we talk about it being good to have more choic­es but also that in the case of say, tech­nol­o­gy, our inabil­i­ty to let go of con­trol is a bad thing and that some­times it’s good to sort of farm that out to say, a self-driving auto­mo­bile. But if you just change the word con­trol out for choice… 

Saul: Which is a fair­ly easy thing to do here.

Anderson: In this cir­cum­stance it cer­tain­ly is. And I think you end up with, well…I don’t know how you bal­ance those. And that’s some­thing that I hope our lis­ten­ers weigh in on.

Saul: Yes. And on the same token, what else are we miss­ing? What are the big themes that we just don’t have yet? We cer­tain­ly have more peo­ple we want to talk to com­ing up. And cer­tain­ly some of them are going to sat­is­fy some of those themes. But we’re sure we missed some.

Anderson: We know it. We just don’t know what they are.

Saul: We don’t know what they are. And we don’t know who to talk to about them. So if you have any sug­ges­tions, let us know.

Anderson: Think about a new theme and how this idea could be fun­da­men­tal­ly new or chal­lenge our most cher­ished norms. 

Saul: Ugh.

Anderson: Does that sound like polit­i­cal speak or what?

Saul: That was awful. I pro­pose you leave that in and we end­ed here.

Anderson: That was Ariel Waldman. Recorded June 18, 2012 in San Francisco, California.

Saul: This is The Conversation. You can find us on Twitter at @aengusanderson and on the web at find​the​con​ver​sa​tion​.com

Anderson: So thanks for lis­ten­ing. I’m Aengus Anderson.

Saul: And I’m Micah Saul.

Further Reference

This inter­view at the Conversation web site, with project notes, com­ments, and tax­o­nom­ic orga­ni­za­tion spe­cif­ic to The Conversation.

Help Support Open Transcripts

If you found this useful or interesting, please consider supporting the project monthly at Patreon or once via Cash App, or even just sharing the link. Thanks.