It’s been a while, but I shall make no excuses – I’ve been reading about 10x more than usual, leaving very little time for any writing, and well, my academic writing takes priority when push comes to shove.

Anyway, I’ve come across this wonderful article from the BBC. I must say that since I’m a technocrat, a futurist, and a science-fiction lover myself, in principle I agree with Asimov’s laws. Even more so since those laws are quite minimal – they simply protect people and robots (in that order). They do not implement a higher order of ethics, which eventually would be bound to result in something as ridiculous as human laws. And by ridiculous I mean any and all cases where discrepancies between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law exist (also known as the law vs justice debate), or situations where the judicial system is used/abused to pass judgment in cases which are the responsibility of the legislative arm of the government.

Technology is a funny thing. It’s designed to make our lives more convenient. However, the economics of technology usually dictate that for it to be profitable, consumers must continually fuel the demand. This is achieved in two ways, simply speaking. On one hand, we have so-called life cycles – how long a product is expected to be useful or how long a product is going to be supported. Historically speaking, life cycles in the world of technology have been getting shorter, both in software and in hardware. On the other hand, we have component quality, and here too, the tendency is to use cheapest components available to minimize costs.

The effects of the factors described above on the society at large are a separate topic. My focus is on something entirely different. The average lifecycle of objects sent into space is usually quite short because of the unpredictable and generally harsh conditions experienced in space. And yet, when I read something like this article, I cannot stop smirking in triumph. It is possible, we will succeed!

Hah!  Just days ago I was having a conversation about our need to start on serious space exploration, with me strongly defending the pro side.  The tone of the conversation ranged anywhere between minor disagreement to a near-physical violence.  The conversation finished some days later with a compromise suggesting that a mixed perspective may be the best solution.  Today, however, I see that Stephen Hawking decided to take sides with me.  Amusingly enough, one of his primary reasons for venturing into space is the fear of extinction, which was also the crux of the aforementioned argument.

Although this debate has raged on for at least a few decades, I think that we’re slowly approaching a moment where space exploration will become a common-day task.  Whether this happens for the right or wrong reasons (i.e. to further our understanding of the universe or to mine Mars) is another story.  For now, however, I’ll be happy if we make it into space for whatever reason.