INTRODUCTION: IMAGINATION



INTRODUCTION: IMAGINATION

The ability to imagine is the largest part of what you call intelligence. You think the ability to imagine is merely a useful step on the way to solving a problem or making something happen. But imagining it is what makes it happen.

---Michael Crichton, Sphere, 1987

Humans possess an astounding capability. They can imagine themselves living in circumstances very different than the ones in which they currently exist. They can communicate those visions in such a way as to motivate other people to desire them. Using tools and technology, humans can then reconstruct their circumstances so that the visions they imagine become real.

In few areas is this power more dramatically illustrated than in the realm of space exploration. Humans imagined themselves building winged spaceships, defying gravity, and flying those machines into space. They imagined themselves building large, earth-orbiting space stations. They imagined flying to the Moon, landing and returning to Earth, and eventually establishing lunar research stations. They imagined their ability to construct robotic spacecraft that could fly to other planets and without the advantages of humans on board orbit those spheres, land on them, and traverse their surfaces. They imagined large, orbiting space telescopes. They imagined humans establishing colonies on other planets and devices that could investigate earth-like objects around nearby stars. They imagined the discovery of extraterrestrial life. Exploration advocates imagined ways in which they could use current events such as the cold war to enlist support for the achievement of these goals.

In fifty years, just a half century after the launch of the first small, earth-orbiting satellite, humans accomplished more than half of those goals. Given enough time, humans may realize visions even more astounding than those. The human capacity for turning vision into reality could be as unlimited as the realm into which those efforts intrude.

This book deals with space exploration and the manner in which it has been imagined, principally in the United States of America. It recounts what people thought, how they sought to convert vision into reality, and the obstacles they encountered. It concludes with some observations about the process by which visions inspire public action and comparisons to other public policies in which imagination has played a significant role. It attempts to explain why the spacefaring vision proved so powerful that humans confronted with adversity chose to bend reality to fit their visions rather than abandon their beliefs. Many books have been written about space exploration—some about decisions like the one to go to the Moon; others about the space race between the United States and the Soviet Union; and more about individual projects and the machinery that flies in space.[i] This is a book about vision, imagination, popular culture, and its translation into achievements that make dreams come true.

Imagination involves the process of forming mental images of events or processes that are not actually present. A mental image produced by the imagination may be called a vision, although the latter typically refers to an idea of considerable scope that broadly depicts situations that have not yet occurred. Images and visions are transmitted in various ways. Some reach their audience through works of fiction, which depict characters and events that are not real. Others are proclaimed by advocates seeking to popularize new concepts. In the realm of space exploration, the underlying vision has been transmitted through the media of fiction, popular science, books, movies, television, radio, newspapers, magazines, and paintings.

The most pervasive images amplify the ideas, customs, and beliefs held by the public at large: what is generally known as popular culture. Persistent ideas become part of the popular culture themselves. They become part of the stories that communities of people tell about themselves that help to define who they are and the things in which they believe.

We know that visions have a transformational effect, encouraging private action and public change. Transformations often begin when humans alter their subjective interpretations of the world. Subjective interpretations consist of the assumptions that people make about the circumstances in which they live. Humans once assumed illness to be the byproduct of demonic possession a punishment for sins. Healers set aside that subjective belief by imagining that humans had the power to cure the ill. Changes in objective reality followed, including the discovery of cures. In another case, social reformers attacked the view that poverty was “nature’s way” and thereby helped to create the intellectual foundation for the modern welfare state. Conservationists convinced the public – which previously had viewed wild areas as savage and unfriendly places – that tranquility and spiritual renewal could be found in the wilderness. The national park movement was born. Aviation enthusiasts imagined a future in which people could fly, promised that it would change the world, and made it occur.[ii]

History repeatedly shows that humans, having changed their subject interpretations of the world, can change objective reality as well. Arthur C. Clarke, the great science fiction writer, once observed that any sufficiently advanced alteration in objective reality “is indistinguishable from magic.” His thoughts on the subject became known as Clarke’s laws. “When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.” The great diversity of national cultures around the world demonstrate that humans are capable of creating widely different subjective interpretations of the world. Clarke insisted that humans could change objective reality as well. “The only way of discovering the limits of the possible,” Clarke announced, “is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.”[iii] What once seems like magic becomes real.

In the conventional view, cultures are more malleable than technology. Cultures are the creations of human beings whereas technology is subject to the laws of nature. Yet the opposite may be true. Cultural beliefs prove remarkably persistent, lasting hundreds of years, while technological change in the modern world occurs with remarkable speed. A change in objective reality – or technology – need not violate the laws of physics in order to occur. It must merely do that which was once thought to be impossible.

In this respect, space exploration tests the human imagination like few other undertakings. It stretches credulity and assaults physical barriers. Standing alone, the vision of space exploration is one of the most fascinating that humans have conjured. Who could have predicted, a few years before the first humans learned how to fly in the atmosphere, that barely a half century later they would construct rocket ships capable of orbital and interplanetary speeds? Who could have then imagined that humans, scarcely a dozen years after launching the first earth orbiting artificial satellites, would land astronauts on the moon and return them safely home? As acts of imagination, these are fantastic visions. As achievements, they are magical.

The vision of space exploration is impressive on its own terms. Yet it is made even more powerful by the manner in which it interacts with social traditions broader than the vision itself. The vision of space exploration owes much of its power to broader cultural beliefs.

Consider the search for extraterrestrial life. For centuries, humans have debated whether living entities might inhabit other worlds. Early Greek writers supported the notion; Aristotle denied it. Many modern scientists favor the idea; others suggest that conditions supporting the development of complex life forms such as those on Earth are extremely rare.[iv] To gather evidence, scientists have dispatched spacecraft to investigate conditions on Venus and Mars. Others have established listening stations to search for electromagnetic signals that alien civilizations might be broadcasting to us.

Through four decades of watching and listening, no signs of extraterrestrial life have been found. The surface of Venus is too hot, the exterior of Mars too sterile, and no messages from outer space have been received. Rather than deter further investigation, these findings have simply promoted calls for more. Part of this perseverance draws its force from the scientific method, in which theories are constantly tested and refined. Yet a large part of it arises from a series of events that have created a collective social predisposition that favors the expectation of life on other worlds.

The whole history of human exploration on the earth supports the presumption that expeditions dispatched to distant places will discover strange life forms in the places explored. Medieval travelers returned from foreign lands with stories of exotic creatures. Sea captains and the naturalists that accompanied them returned from long voyages with sketches and samples of biological wonders. Modern scientists have discovered life forms on the bottom of the ocean that need no sunlight to survive. Space exploration offers an opportunity to extend the exploration process into new realms and that line of extension supports the notion that what humans find in the cosmos will be like what they have located on the earth. The analogy may be misplaced, but it has kindled the desire to explore.

Analogies like the one presented above permeate the vision of space exploration. They promote the cause. Space exploration may be viewed as an extension of terrestrial exploration and the advantages associated with it. It has been viewed as an extension of the frontier story that characterized the American experience for four hundred years. Military officers view space as an extension of the “high ground” that gives nations enjoying it a security advantage. Analogies make a complex subject easy to explain to an often inattentive public. Rather than explain the intricacies of cosmic radiation or toxic atmospheres, it is easier to say that space exploration will be “like the frontier.”

Through analogies and association, space activities interlock with the most important characteristics of the American experience. The effect gives the space exploration vision a level of desirability far beyond what it would receive if it had to stand on its own. Space exploration promises to maintain the spirit of innovation and discovery that has made American strong. It connects to the corporate experience in a nation that has grown rich through business corporations. It expands the experience with aviation in a nation that invented heavier-than-air flight. It affirms the idea that progress occurs through science. It has helped to define the conservation movement and it is associated, in an odd sort of way, with the American agonies over slavery and servitude. The associations are so strong that Americans would want to believe in space travel even if it was not true. The associations give space travel a faith-like quality, encouraging belief even in the face of doubt and adversity.

The means by which humans communicate this vision further reinforce it. Communities of imagination come into being when people who might be physically separated from one another acquire a means for sharing common beliefs. Just as the printing press allowed new religious denominations to arise and committees of correspondence (along with delivery of the mail) encouraged fresh nations to form, so the electronic and print media help people to believe in the desirability of space travel. Magazines printed paintings of spaceships and extraterrestrial bodies before humans and machines ventured there. Science fiction writers told fantastic tales. Movies and television shows promoted the vision of fast space ships, large space stations, and extraterrestrial life. Aliens may not live among us in fact, but they inhabit the mass media in large numbers from movies like “E.T.: The Extraterrestrial” to television shows like “Star Trek.”

Stories about space occupy a special place in American society well above the status of space exploration within official governmental circles. NASA receives a tiny share of the federal tax revenues, yet space activities rank among the most visible of American achievements. The NASA Administrator heads a small, independent agency that does not entitle its leader to sit as a member of the president’s cabinet, yet space accidents precipitate periods of deep national introspection.

Space entertains. Stories fictional and true dealing with space exploration are among the most widely consumed in American culture. They exalt explorers who investigate new worlds, honor scientists who attack the mysteries of the universe, and humor machines that follow the intentions of their creators. In an era of television and mass communication, the capacity of ideas to excite and entertain is crucial to their survival in the marketplace of imagination. Ideas that do not excite and entertain are replaced by those that do. In this respect, space exploration has proved to be one of the most remarkably persistent stories that Americans tell about themselves – a defining characteristic of national culture. The initial vision was transmitted through works of imagination, enthralling readers with stories of voyages to the planets and stars. Through a deliberately organized public relations campaign, using the medium of popular science, space enthusiasts convinced Americans that those stories could come true. When the actual space program arrived, reporters treated it as one of the greatest news stories of all time.[v] Commentators elevated the place of space exploration by treating it as important. By displaying the story, they communicated a central message to the general public. This subject is important. This achievement deserves your attention.

When the line between information and entertainment becomes blurred, difficulties inevitably arise. To make information entertaining, story tellers often bend events to fit saleable story lines. They may simplify or alter reality. The resulting “infotainment” can attract large audiences, but it can also fail to capture the nuances of actual events. Docudramas that twist facts to create interesting tales may mislead the public into believing that imagined events actually occurred. Stories that utilize stereotypes and familiar narratives may weaken the public’s ability to make intelligent decisions about real challenges and genuine events.[vi]

This is the cycle through which the vision of space exploration seems to move. In the beginning, the vision seems familiar, feasible, and desirable. It interlocks well with the American experience. The truth or validity of the vision is largely irrelevant to its undertaking, since no one knows for certain at that time how its pursuit will turn out. The power of the vision to enlist public support is determined largely through its compatibility with established cultural beliefs and its ability to attract a large audience. Entertainment and the collective presumptions about space exploration found in historical analogies guarantee a receptive audience for the undertaking. They also assured that gaps between imagination and reality will arise. The truth often turns out to be different than people imagine it to be.

One might think that the discomforting presence of reality intruding upon a wonderful vision would disappoint its creators. In fact, the opposite occurs. Activities in the modern world constructed on a fictional foundation do not spontaneously disappear when facts intrude in discomforting ways. If the space exploration experience is a guide, then efforts constructed on a sufficiently solid foundation of subjective understanding will persist even in the presence of adversity.

Some fifty years into the venture, the reality of space exploration differs considerably from anticipated events. Visionaries anticipated that winged spaceships would provide inexpensive and relatively safe access to space; NASA’s reusable space shuttle failed to meet those goals. Dreamers prepared plans for large, rotating space stations that could serve as launching pads to the cosmos; the International Space Station is a micro-gravity research laboratory with a skeleton crew. Scientists hoped to find plants or primitive life forms on Mars; the first machines found a cold and sterile soil. The vision of space exploration proved harder to achieve than its promoters imagined; its pursuit led to discoveries that few people anticipated. Few engineers, fifty years ago, anticipated the staggering cost and technical difficulties of building orbital space stations and flying reusable spacecraft. Few scientists foresaw the astonishing differences between the Earth, Venus, and Mars. Practically no one anticipated the capabilities that space robots would achieve after a half century of innovation. To paraphrase J. B. S. Haldane, space exploration not only turned out to be stranger than we imagined, it sometimes turned out to be stranger than we could imagine.[vii]

Yet this has not deterred advocates of exploration. Not in space. Humans possess an impressive capacity for reshaping their lives and an astonishing capability for imagining how it might occur. Confronted by unforeseen difficulties, humans are prone to increase their efforts. Rather than abandon their beliefs, visionaries modify them.[viii] If nature imposes cosmic speed limits on the velocity of propelled devices, then humans envision shortcuts through space and time. Perhaps wormholes will do. If Mars proves too cold and airless for human habitation, then humans envision methods for changing the local atmosphere. The process is called terraforming and is achieved by pumping greenhouse gases into the air.[ix] Humans believe they have altered the atmosphere of their own planet, so why not achieve the same results on a nearby sphere.

Reconsideration and abandonment of efforts require an opposing sense of reality and a countervailing vision around which the opposition can rally. Alternatives to the dominant narrative of space exploration in America have been ill-formed and their advocates poorly organized. In the absence of a persuasive alternative, space enthusiasts confronted with findings that do not fit the underlying vision tend to reinterpret the vision or modify it in nondestructive ways. The faithful do abandon their beliefs just because their prophesies fail. Rather than acknowledge defeat, they work harder to make the original vision come true and recommit themselves to their original aspirations. In such ways, they move toward their vision. If new worlds do not fit old dreams, it is the worlds that tend to change, not the dreams.

This is a fascinating process. Its retelling through the subject of space exploration demonstrates the power of human beings to reshape not only their subjective interpretations of reality, but also the objective worlds on which they live.

INTRODUCTION: IMAGINING SPACE

Epigraph: Michael Crichton, Sphere (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1987), 348.

-----------------------

[i] See, for example, John M. Logsdon, The Decision to Go to the Moon: Project Apollo and The National Interest (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1970); Walter A. McDougall, The Heavens and the Earth: A Political History of the Space Age (New York: Basic Books, 1985).

[ii] See, for example, Lewis Thomas, The Fragile Species (New York: Scribner’s, 1992); Roderick Nash, Wilderness and the American Mind, 4th ed. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2001); Joseph J. Corn, The Winged Gospel: America’s Romance with Aviation (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002, c. 1983); Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism (London: Verso Editions, 1983).

[iii] Arthur C. Clarke, “Hazards of Prophecy: The Failure of Imagination,” in Clarke, Profiles of the Future: An Inquiry Into the Limits Of the Possible (New York: Harper & Row, 1962).

[iv] See the works of Steven J. Dick, Plurality of Worlds: the Origins of the Extraterrestrial Life Debate from Domocritus to Kant (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1982); The Biological Universe: The Twentieth-Century Extraterrestrial Life Debate and the Limits of Science (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996) or Life on Other Worlds: The 20th-Century Extraterrestrial Life Debate (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998).

[v] Frederick I. Ordway and Randy Liebermann, Blueprint for Space: Science Fiction to Science Fact (Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1992).

[vi] See W. Lance Bennett, News: The Politics of Illusion, 7th ed. (New York: Longman, 2006); James Fallows, Breaking the News: How the Media Undermine American Democracy (New York: Pantheon Books, 1996).

[vii] “Now, my suspicion is that the universe is not only queerer than we support, but queerer than we can suppose.” J. B. S. Haldane, Possible Worlds and Other Papers (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1927), 298.

[viii] See Leon Festinger, Henry W. Riecken and Stanley Schachter, When Prophecy Fails (Minneapolis: University of Minneapolis Press, 1956).

[ix] See Carl Sagan, Contact: A Novel (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1985); Sagan, Pale Blue Dot: A Vision of the Human Future in Space (New York: Random House, 1994).

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download