We Did It, But Why?

I heard on the radio this morning that Juno was in orbit around Jupiter. That's quite an accomplishment. Like finding a needle's eye in a haystack. NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory sent a space vehicle nearly two billion miles, and its course eventually intersected with the largest planet in our solar system – and all at a cost of only one billion, one hundred million dollars (so far). That's really a bargain. At a cost of under a dollar a mile it's less than what we have to pay for some domestic flights. Economy class. And Juno is expected to provide scientific information for the rest of its life, which is estimated at twenty months. Moreover it achieved orbit on the Fourth of July. How proud we all are.

Or, at least, how proud they all are. I'm not proud. After all, I paid for this boondoggle. All American taxpayers did. And we're not done paying. Continued monitoring of the ship during its Jupiter orbiting, by the large governmental staff, will cost a lot of money. As will the analysis of the scientific data they collect. And that analysis will go on long after Juno crashes on the planet, as, ultimately, it will do.

Why are we doing it? Why, at a time when so many fear for the survival of the human race which they see threatened by nuclear power, global warming, war, disease, and a host of other scourges, do we devote resources to this kind of program rather than using the money to deal with some of the menaces we face? It must be remembered that the Juno expedition is only a small part of a much more ambitious effort, and the expenditures are far greater than the cost of this particular project. Consequently there would be a significantly larger pool of currency available for addressing more immediate problems if the program were to be tailored back. It's certainly not enough to solve all the world's ills, but it's a start.

Why are we doing it? Our scientists and our government will tell us that the advancement of science and knowledge more than justify the expense. Perhaps it will take centuries, perhaps millennia, but the scientific knowledge that humanity gains from this mission will certainly help future generations. Perhaps. But perhaps future generations should pay for it rather than we and our children. If there are future generations.

Even the results thus far leave me wondering. According to the report I heard today it won't be until the 2030's that we send people to Mars, and, in all likelihood, we'll never send them to Venus for reasons of time, distance, radiation, and many other factors. If it's for the scientific knowledge that our descendants a millennium from now have, give some thought to our own view of the science of the year 1016; those ideas that we don't consider to be old wives' tales we pass off as bad science, or we laugh. In all likelihood our efforts today will suffer the same fate no matter how much we invest in them.

So what is our motive? There are several motives, but the main ones are, firstly, that we can do it. In addition, it adds to our prestige as a nation and our profile as a force to be feared just to show that we can. But an important causative factor is curiosity – not the curiosity of most citizens who rarely if ever think about Jupiter, but that of the scientists who ponder the unanswerable questions of the universe. They may not benefit from the answers, but they want to know, and our government is willing to pay for answers. With our money.

This wondrous event, the shining moment of a project that will doom our children to increased debt and decreased security, marked the anniversary of another event in which one generation spoke for those that followed – the issuance of the Declaration of Independence by the “Founding Fathers” who soon thereafter wrote a constitution for their new country. Although most of us don't agree with the author of the Declaration, Thomas Jefferson believed that one generation should not speak for the next. It was has view that each of us should decide his own fate. There should be a new revolution every generation. Strangely enough, that was his understanding of the mathematics and science of the time. Many philosophers based their ideas on imaginary equations which lacked any validity. And, as a result, Jefferson's approach was a faulty one which would have limited the entire concept of a heritage.

In the past couple of centuries we've become more selective about what is important and what is not – what we accept and what we don't – what we can live with and what can wait. And we're a little more cognizant of what we're passing on as obligations and goals to our children. Some of what we leave as a heritage is reasonable and, indeed, necessary. But not everything. Tikun Olam, the repair of the world as it is now, is high on the list of valuable aims. We do those children no favor by ordaining that they pay for projects that may help their distant descendants while having to limit their investment in their own world.

Before we worry about the thirty-first century we should deal with the twenty-first.

Me, Myself, And I

                                                                                                                   

The most famous exponent of self-interest was Narcissus. Perhaps he never existed, however it is from him that we get the concept of personal concern to the exclusion of anything else. But such an outlook is not unique. We've all experienced it.

As babies we were unaware that there was anything outside of ourselves. Our experience didn't include anything else. Even the few sights and sounds we experienced were only relevant to the extent that they affected us. Eventually, when we got older, we began to appreciate the world around us; only then did we recognize that there were others who were not part of us or answerable to us, and they saw us in the same light. We were becoming socialized.

Unfortunately, many never complete the process. Tom Wolfe coined the term “Me Generation” to refer to self-absorbed “baby boomers”ⁱ whose primary focus was themselves. And it was not a small number of people. There was a culture of narcissism that saw the world only as it related to them – individually. That was the prism for seeing, and then judging, everything around them, from politics to personal appearance to the “relevance” of college courses. It was a self-indulgent generationⁱⁱ that promoted the “sexual revolution” and anything else that felt good. Instant gratification and personal satisfaction took precedence over patience and community development. And, to a significant degree, such a perspective persists.

The more common “self-interest” though – the one on which most people focus – is that related to living our lives in a world that is not always to our liking. We need jobs and we seek advancement. We want what's best for us – the “good things.” We look for shortcuts around problems – at least those we choose to see or those we simply can't avoid. It isn't a matter of not recognizing others. Rather we are seeking to improve our own lot – even if it's at their expense. “What's in it for me?” That often involves negotiating with those around us – in the workplace, on the street, and at home. Our goal is to stay ahead of the Joneses. The Me Generation didn't care about others. We compete with them. Our world is a little larger than that of the narcissistic individual. Our kind of attitude probably predominates among most people. For some – the poor and starving, especially in the “Third World”– it's a matter of survival rather than advantage, and it's less focused on competition with neighbors. The focus is entirely on the self.

Another level is inhabited by those whose self-interest extends beyond their own time. For them, the future – and, specifically, the future of their own families – is their concern. They feel an obligation to provide for those who come after them. They, too, want to improve “their” lot, but it will be through their descendants. They are concerned for what follows, since it is an extension of themselves; they want to provide for their heritageⁱⁱⁱ – for their children and grandchildren. Like the self-interest that tells them they must beat out everyone around them – that they must win in the competition – this need is to be sure that their offspring are better off than anyone else's. It's selfish, but it's more forward thinking than a desire for personal gains.

Guilt elimination may be another need in the quest for self-interest. Thus, in addition to the premium placed on altruistic behavior by religions, regret and a (rational or irrational) feeling of responsibility, as well as the need to drive it away, are important factors in the generosity of these angels. Their interest in others may seem to be more widely aimed and selfless, but the source remains very personal. Too often it's a matter of self-interest, as perceived by the well-off.

That's not such a big surprise. We all have free will, and we exercise it in every decision we make,^iv even those that involve bad choices. When we choose the lesser of evils, we choose what we think will be less harmful to us. We decide what is in our best interests. And giving away money doesn't present people with unwelcome choices. In addition to fulfilling a religious precept or ridding ourselves of guilt, we enjoy basking in the admiration by others of our generosity. Win, win. Anonymous donations happen, but not very often.

But if we look at the total picture of self-interest, the actions of the majority of people whether rich or poor, we're not very different from the “lower” animals. You may be a Darwinian or a Creationist,^v but it's hard not to see people's actions as aimed at the continuity of the human species. However we reached the point we're now at,^vi the goal for all groups is making things better – for ourselves and our children. And if our designs work, the entire human race will benefit. That may not be our intent, but it is the likely result.

As humans, we're all^vii narcissists.

Next episode: “DABDA” -- I dare you to figure that one out. (Please forgive the terminal preposition.)

I       And the generations since. Nowadays people become so lost in their electronic devices that they have little time for others. Perhaps some use the devices as a way of shutting others out of their lives. In any event, they may spend so much time in this private reverie that they never learn the skills necessary to interact with others.

ii      You're thinking “There he goes again. Things were bad before that. They're no different from what they've always been.” That may be a bit of an overstatement, but I agree that behavior wasn't ideal in the past. But I really think personal behavior is worse now and we, and our predecessors, knew what was bad and we didn't flaunt our actions and lose ourselves in them as much.

iii     That seems to be a major consideration of Presidents. Some seem more concerned with how they'll be judged in the future than how they perform now.

iv      Of course some things are out of our hands. We don't decide when a flood is going to wipe us out, so we cannot act in our self-interest. But we always do so when given the opportunity. Those who choose an oath of poverty see it as in their interest to do so. No one gives away his possessions without a reason. Whether prompted by religion, guilt, or the tax codes, the giver considers it as in his best interests to do so.

v      Unless you're a hard line fundamentalist, the two are not incompatible. Evolution (Darwin's explanation of life's development) is a scientific description of a means. Creationism (“Intelligent Design”) speaks of an end. Most religious people do not view the Bible as a scientific text and accept the idea that some of its content is metaphorical. Many are willing to view evolution as G-d's means of producing life on earth.

vi      It's reasonable to assume that our current state results from the interest of our predecessors in their best-interests and in those of their children.

vii     Almost all. There are some who, like the Lorax (in Dr. Seuss's book of the same name) speak for others, but they, as is true of everyone else, have chosen to do so because they consider that a good choice among the possibilities available to them. From their perspective, it is in their best interests. They may even believe that it is in everyone's best interests, but their concern is really only regarding their own views. They will act for those who don't know better, but who, in their view, will benefit from moves designed to better the world. Whether the ones for whom they are acting like it or not. In a way, those who think they are idealists are actually narcissists. They're assuaging their guilt and fooling themselves.