Category: Unit 2

Question: “is it responsible for the US to pour a significant amount of money into space colonization?”

 

Introduction:

     As we move forward, we advance in technology and as a civilization. This progression involves us in trying to achieve even greater feats than what we have already accomplished as a society. One of the things heavily considered to be an amazing feat of humanity is achieving space travel. It was and still is considered to be humanity’s next step in advancing. There are scientists who work really hard to help bring humanity to new heights by bringing us closer to understanding outer space and finding ways to reach even further out from our planet. An idea that has intrigued me and one that I’m confident is an objective for many of those scientists whom I referred to is the idea of space colonization. It seems like such a Sci-Fi like concept, but it is something that would bring humanity to a much more advanced point then it is now and it would solve our problems regarding the planet’s ability to sustain 7 billion of us. I wonder why it is that we haven’t heard nearly as much about getting closer to that goal besides maybe the recent rover landing on Mars. It then makes me wonder how much effort is actually given to the purpose of furthering our advancement into space. Now we already know that the U.S has its own space program NASA that is responsible for the country’s space expenditures. Like all of the United States’ assets, everything has a budget and I wonder how much of government spending goes towards NASA. Now I’m not saying that I think that the U.S isn’t pouring as much money as they should be into NASA, but rather what if they would pour more money into NASA for the purpose of furthering space exploration and in turn reaching the point of space colonization. That is my question, “would it be responsible for the U.S to pour a significant amount of money into space colonization?” While searching for a reasonable answer to this I expect to find things such as the U.S’ budgeting and how much goes towards NASA, and how far we currently are in the ways of space exploration. I’m quite curious how far we truly have gotten to spreading humanity past just this planet.

 

Source 1: Richard S. Conley and Wendy Whitman Cobb (September 2010) “The Perils of Presidential Leadership on Space Policy: The Politics of Congressional Budgeting for NASA, 1958-2008”

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1642810

 

     In this research paper, they explore what it is that limits NASA’s budgeting and their space policies. Multiple factors go into the budget for NASA such as the president’s position on space programs, members of congress and their positions, and NASA’s own history of endeavors. Though there was a lot of support for NASA during the APOLLO era, since then it has essentially become a side objective compared to pretty much every political standpoint. While the coming president’s continue to put objectives of space exploration to the side, it lessens the attention that the people give to it as well while letting those in congress want to cut the government budget at points to target NASA. Other reasons include the nature of NASA as an agency being almost stand alone with no major group of interest behind them. Because of these kinds of circumstances, NASA has been cut billions out of their annual financial requests. 

 

     In all honesty, I pretty much expected the case to be a lot like this. At least, I had pictured that part of the reason why they probably don’t get as much of a budget for various endeavors of space exploration. However, I wouldn’t think that they would have billions cut out of what they would normally receive. This paper opened my eyes a bit to the larger issue at hand. I figured that more domestic issues might find themselves center and drawing funds, but the capacity by which it affects the president’s actions, that of congress’, and the people’s view is interesting to say the least. When you really consider it, it does make perfect sense that this is the way that things are. 

 

     This paper was written in conjunction by an Associate Professor and PHD candidate from the University of Florida. According to a caption also present at the start, this was prepared for the American Political Science Association Conference in Washington D.C. For that reason their presentation was very formal. This conference is meant to support scholars by presenting an environment by which they can present their work. For this case a paper breaking down the issue of presidential influence on space policy with each main case and point sectioned off accomplishes their objective quite directly. These 2 handled the paper in a very informative and explicit manner even in small things such as citing every quote verbatim that comes up during their analysis.

 

Source 2: Stephen Petranek (March 2015) “Your kids might live on Mars. Here’s how they’ll survive.” https://www.ted.com/talks/stephen_petranek_your_kids_might_live_on_mars_here_s_how_they_ll_survive?language=en

 

     In this presentation, Journalist Stephen Petranek explains how life on Mars would be possible and how soon we may actually be able to accomplish living there. Thanks to various tools and theories created by the likes of NASA and many other individuals, we solve some of the issues that we thought may be impossible for us to overcome on a planet such as Mars. These issues include our basic necessities required for Living. As it turns out our needs for food, water, clothing, shelter, and air are all covered to some large extent by those tools and theories that I mentioned. There is a CO2 to O2 converter created by a scientist at MIT, a dehumidifier tool to turn the extremely yet surprisingly humid atmosphere of Mars into drinkable water, a space suit created by another MIT scientist to block radiation and keep you warm enough for Mars like temperatures, shelter in the form of pressurized buildings and landers (I assume they mean the space shuttles to carry people there initially) or underground settlements, and dried food plus whatever crops to be planted during the process of terraforming/making Mars more like Earth. On that note terraforming according to what is mentioned is possible with all the ice that was actually found underneath the surface. The biggest issue in it all is the means by which we would get to Mars as that has been the biggest issue thus far. However, with the likes of Elon Musk with his company SpaceX we may be seeing a breakthrough (Elon Musk says people will be on Mars by 2025 according to Petranek).

 

     I was so pleasantly surprised to see that this much was done in the way of preparing for colonization on Mars, especially since that is our target for creating sustainable life on another planet. This particular presentation was one I decided to use as a source for the added proof that there is viability to colonizing another planet and as it would show, it is more than likely possible. It seems that the big thing to worry about now is how an individual would be able to make it to Mars. That is why there is still time and money to be invested into the likes of NASA and SpaceX.

 

     Stephen Petranek is a lead editor of the Breakthrough Technology Alert, a newsletter that introduces scientific breakthroughs and investment opportunities in them. He has also had a book “How We’ll Live on Mars” published through TED books the same year as well as having given another TED Talk presentation 12 years before. He is obviously experienced enough on the matter to speak on it and it shows in the presentation. He does well to prove his point that it is more than possible for humans to be on Mars by covering each point of viability with extreme detail. He even says that he has spoken with Elon Musk for the purpose of showing how ambitious he is and how confident our progress will be. It is executed in such a light yet informative matter that would keep both the average viewer and endowed scientist/researcher entertained.

 

Source 3: Michael D. Griffin “Space Exploration: Real Reasons and Acceptable Reasons”

https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/168084main_griffin_quasar_award.pdf

 

     This was a speech given by Micheal D. Griffin, an administrator at NASA after receiving the Quasar award. He speaks on the urgent matter of why the people still support NASA and endeavors in space. These reasons as he explains them are either “acceptable reasons” or “real reasons”. As far as the acceptable reasons go, there is what he quotes from President George W. Bush, “The President, quite correctly said that we do it for purposes of scientific discovery, economic benefit, and national security.” He also brings up what was said by Presidential Science Advisor Jack Marburger which is that space exploration comes down to “…whether or not we want to bring the solar system within mankind’s sphere of economic influence”. These “acceptable reasons” are the more logical ones to bring up when considering the reasons for space exploration. The “real reasons” are those by which we would want to see advancements in space exploration. Reasons such as seeing an actual person rather than a drone sent out to experience something out there in space as a representative for all of humankind. These kinds of reasons can be described as those of competitiveness, curiosity, and monument building. There is also the point that in addressing the real reasons, we actually satisfy the acceptable reasons in the process. One great example being those that built the cathedrals hundreds of years ago. They did it for accomplishment yet it made way for things of engineering and societal benefits. NASA according to Griffin would accomplish more than just advancing technologies of space exploration and satisfying human curiosity/accomplishment.

 

     In all of the research so far finding reasons for why space exploration is necessary was key to bring it all together. After searching and finding this I have to say, it is far less than I would imagine. While there is a list of reasons you can make the case of needing to expand our progress of space exploration, they would be somewhat redundant and avoid the reason like Griffin explains, because it would satisfy our curiosities and senses of accomplishment. It makes sense though. It is what I was thinking before I started this research. I resonated a lot with what Griffin was saying in this speech. I feel like we all support NASA without knowing much of what they’re even doing and who knows how much that will actually hold up. This is especially when you consider it includes those that have to make the decisions on how much is focused on NASA as far as funding goes. Overall, this was quite the satisfying piece to come across in my research.

 

     As far as credentials go, it speaks for itself that he is both an administrator at NASA and receiving an award. This speech, then is done for the purpose of uplifting those gathered for this occasion. While everyone is gathered like that he takes it as an opportunity to address NASA’s purpose to the people and why they support it. The points that he makes about the reasons they continue to work towards advancing technologies for the purpose of space exploration are interesting in content. It is especially interesting and effective how he uses pathos as both an appeal to his audience in the moment as well as the major point of his speech. 

 

Conclusion:

     This research has been quite the experience. It was difficult finding exactly what I thought I needed to fully explore my question and I am satisfied with the results of it. Through it I have gotten an idea of what kind of process goes when the U.S government wants to budget their agencies and the scenario that NASA finds itself in. From the second source I learned how viable colonization is at this point to prove whether or not it is still reasonable to point a substantial amount of effort towards pushing space exploration technology. Surprisingly, we are a lot closer to the point where it could actually happen then I thought that we would be. And from the last source I was searching for concrete reasoning as to why it was necessary to back these efforts. While it isn’t some heavy research piece on those reasons, I find it to be just as effective in doing so. It touches base with logical reasons as to why, but finds the true reason for it to be on a more emotional level. I think that’s perfect though because when you trace the logic behind supporting efforts such as NASA back to the core, it has to do with what satisfies the people of this country. They influence the political climate and therefore would affect how much the government puts towards an agency like NASA. With all this being said, who should be the ones that receive this information? To that I believe that it should be your average person. It could have been something that I directed in a more statistical and informative way, but it would change my intention and audience. My question is one that I formulated with the intention of satisfying the curiosity of the matter. To that extent I feel that your average person going about their life could scroll through their social media and come across this showing mutual interest. After all, if this were to go beyond just being something people see and forget about immediately, it could be something that influences (like I mentioned) the political climate as something the people want. I think overall that what I found was more than sufficient to answer my question.

Intro:

How worried should we be about the rise of Artificial Intelligence (A.I.)? That is the question my annotated bibliography is based around. I became interested in this topic while I was exploring subject matters for an engineering assignment in my freshman year of high school. The subject matter that I settled on was something along the lines of why A.I. should be incorporated further into mechanical engineering. It amazed me how useful it could be but what fascinated me more was how equally if not unequally dangerous it could be. The cost seemed to far outweigh the benefits and still do now depending on the lens you look at it from. I’ve kept up with the topic over the years and it’s sparked a hobby of sorts. I expect to find people talking more about the dangers of A.I. than the benefits. Most of the research I did before on the topic followed this trend. It would be a pleasant surprise to find an article or video that had otherwise, it might even change my opinion on it for the better. I doubt that will happen though as most of the articles I have read portray fewer benefits than anything, most likely due to the majority of people seeing cost over or at least before benefit. Honestly, if I found a genre for this topic that painted a brighter picture of the benefits I would have to use that here as it would balance out the other entries a bit more.

 

Source Entry #1:

Shane, Janelle. “The Danger of AI Is Weirder than You Think.” TED Talks, 22 Oct. 2019, www.ted.com/talks/janelle_shane_the_danger_of_ai_is_weirder_than_you_think?language=en.

Shane talks about what she thinks is one of the major concerns about A.I. should be. She goes on to talk about how A.I. differs from simple computer coding starting at its core. Shane briefly mentions how coding is laying out the process step by step and giving the necessary tools to solve it. While A.I. is fundamentally different. You give it a goal and wait to see how it solves the problem because giving it the answer will defeat the purpose. The example she displays is asking an A.I. to use a set amount of parts to assemble a robot to then go from point A to point B. The A.I. then decides to create a tower out of the pieces and topple itself to achieve the goal. So the point she tries to make is that we shouldn’t focus on A.I.  rebelling against humanity but rather it doing what we want just not how we want it done. She tries to provoke thought on the topic of how to express a problem to an A.I. and how to articulate it in a way that leads the A.I. to a conclusion we desire and not simply what the optimal decision is. I love some of the examples Shane uses to get her point across, my favorite being when she says “But when David Ha set up this experiment, he had to set it up with very, very strict limitations on how big the A.I. was allowed to make the legs… And technically it got to the end of that obstacle course (3:25–4:00).”. I loved learning about this part as it gave me a different perspective on the perceived problems when developing A.I. as I had never thought about it like that. It always made me wonder what led her to that angle of thought and why she used the images and examples she did in the video, thinking about it now makes a lot more sense, as they aptly display both a relatable real-world problem (when Shane mentions the ice cream flavors in the intro) as well as a conceptual one (when she mentions shows the two experiments). I understand the concept for her thought and why she used the medium she did. When sharing information via a Ted Talk, comprehensive and easy to follow slides fit the bill perfectly, especially because they were simple enough that a child could understand, as well as thought-provoking enough that research and debates could be held over it.

 

Source Entry #2:

Ghosh, Anushka. “PPT Presentation on ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE.” Anushka Ghosh, 19 Dec. 2017, www.slideshare.net/AnushkaGhosh5/ppt-presentation-on-artificial-intelligence.

Ghosh and the other members of her team throughout this PowerPoint illustrate what A.I. is as a basic equation: Artificial + Intelligence = Artificial Intelligence. They then go on to show a brief timeline ranging from 1950-2016. They go even further by briefly going over the history of A.I., as well as the current status (in 2017), and even a few of the goals. Throughout the rest of the slides, they each have a few bullet points about select topics ranging from A.I. platforms to advantages and disadvantages, all the way to what they believe the next decade will bring. This was the most underwhelming of the 3 sources, most closely pertaining to the fact that it was presented in slides format and didn’t have as much information as I would have liked. It was however very easy to understand and slightly thought-provoking, but again after going over the other two this one just seemed a little lackluster. I lack interesting questions after reading it. I would only like to ask this team why they decided to present it in this form because it can leave much to be desired in the explanation department as it only offers a few too-the-point bullets. 

 

Source Entry #3:

Kurzweil, Ray. “The Singularity Is Near » Questions and Answers.” THE SINGULARITY IS NEAR: When Humans Transcend Biology, 22 Sept. 2005, www.singularity.com/qanda.html.

Kurzweil writes this piece in a Q&A format. He starts by telling the readers what a singularity is writing that “Within a quarter century, nonbiological intelligence will match the range and subtlety of human intelligence.” He then goes on to write about the projected calculations per second (cps) necessary to achieve this feat and how close we are to reaching that goal. Further down the line, Kurzweil explains how we have narrow A.I. that can do specific tasks but lack general intellect. Kurzweil mentions how technologies increase is exponential and not linear which leads to his prediction that this boom of sorts will occur in the year 2045. He then goes on to write about nanotechnology and overpopulation but for the sake of sticking strictly to the topic of A.I. I will omit the latter half of this piece. Most of the points illustrated in this Q&A that correlate directly to A.I. are timgated projections of what could and should occur after a set amount of years leaving plenty of room for computational error and expectations as it is purely a guesstimate. That leaves me slightly dissatisfied but it was to be expected as this book that the information is from is more than a decade old. It does however lead me to wonder exactly how off and or on track we are to said projections, are we directly on Kurzweil’s timeline, or did we differ at intervals? It wouldn’t take a considerable amount of research to understand his points, but it would be more than what I am presenting here as he gets into subdivisions of the expansion and development of A.I. that would leave far too much to talk about. The Q&A from the book left me with more questions than answers which to me is great because that only made me want to learn more about the rest of the topic he covers. I believe he wrote this as further clarification to questions people had or would have had after reading through his book.

 

Conclusion:

Throughout my research, I learned of a few of the lenses through which people use to judge the dangers of A.I.. In source 1 brought up my favorite quote that I believe captures the overall theme of the Ted Talk: “But when David Ha set up this experiment, he had to set it up with very, very strict limitations on how big the A.I. was allowed to make the legs… And technically it got to the end of that obstacle course(3:25–4:00).”. It perfectly captures Sane’s point about how we would be more focused on how A.I. would do what we want just not how, instead of focusing on a potential rebellion. The second entry only glosses over a few topics I had already come across, the basic questions if you will about what, why, when, and how. The final piece goes over far too much information to cover in this paper and could easily take up an essay by itself so only the relevant details were added. It might not have been the most thought-provoking to me, but it had the most information and offered a great deal of clarity, and required the most prior knowledge. What surprised me most was the sheer domino effect that A.I. would cause which wasn’t expanded upon in this bibliography. The answer to my question expanded by at least 2 separate levels, such as A.I. going the optimal route instead of the desired one, and the effects it would have on medical technology. This was important because it leads to an entirely different set of problems that need to be worked through before A.I. can be safely implemented into everyday life. It would be such a great achievement if those issues could be beta-tested in a controlled environment which they would have to be anyway, but avoiding life-threatening issues due to this simple fault is what would have to be ended before anything else. Philosophers and the R&D departments actively participating in A.I. would be the first to hear this information. On one hand, it’s purely technological but on a deeper level it’s effectively the creation of life, it’s a new creature in itself. The next on the list would probably be doctors as nanotechnology would skyrocket effectively revolutionizing modern medicine and other medical practices. Just think about tiny nanoscopic machines that could be utilized to heal and extend or prolong human life expectancy. After that, it’s a tie between militaries and politicians, as commercialization and militaristic use would be inevitable after A.I. became widespread enough, or it could end up being the first place it’s utilized.

Curiosity is defined as the urge to know more than what should be known or the nature of being so inquisitive on all matters. When children have such a character, they can be termed as disturbing and might face rejection from many people, especially the adults or are too engaged. However, when these children fall into the hands of people who can understand their nature and be ready to help them, they can perform and gain a lot from their nature. Therefore, the people surrounding a child can impact their curiosity positively or negatively. Apart from the surrounding people, education also has an impact on the curiosity of the children. This paper will discuss the impact of education on a children’s curiosity.

Davies, Bethan. “Essay Writing Technique.” Antarcticglaciers.Org, 2020, http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/students-3/study-skills/essay-writing/#:~:text=General%20technique,this%20is%20clich%C3%A9d%20and%20boring.

In this article, the author compared the definition of curiosity to explore, which are related to knowledge. The author tries to define the terms to create a distinction between them. Also, the author gives various definitions as given by various authors and how they relate the two terms. For example, Berlyne (1960) is mentioned to believe that curiosity is a prerequisite to exploration. The article terms curiosity as central to motivation; therefore, when one is curious about something, they are motivated to explore and settle their curiosity. The article lists different characteristics of curiosity: curiosity controlling behavior and curiosity ending after the exploration.

The article further describes curiosity from a historical perspective. It discusses the various historical development that the discussion on curiosity has gone through. First, philosophers and religious leaders discussed morals when experimenting in the laboratory using rats, among other discussions. The article records that the major challenges that have faces the researches in its cause. They wonder whether motivation is an inborn or an acquired characteristic. They also wonder whether curiosity is a primary or secondary source of motivation. It records some explanations given by various psychologists such as Freud, who compare curiosity to sex drive. The urge of a curious person can be derived away just as the sex drive is driven away because of the moral standards set by society.

Therefore, curiosity is a need that needs attention. If the urge is not attended, it can go away. Therefore, being a source of information can satisfy curiosity positively or suppress it negatively.

Engel, Susan. “Children’s need to know: Curiosity in schools.” Harvard educational review 81.4 (2011): 625-645.

In this article, the author discusses the various fields under which curiosity has been studied, including psychology and education. It makes a conclusion derived from the studies that curious students are better at learning than those who don’t have the self-motivation to acquire new knowledge. The article further relates the epistemic concept of curiosity to its effects on education. This concept is very relevant in the process of knowledge acquisition. The author terms it as a positive interaction between the epistemic concept and its performance in education. The author advises that more research should be directed to this relation positively as it affects a learner’s academic performance.

The article further gives the importance of curiosity to a child. Curiosity stimulates the child’s cognitive development, affects their information-seeking behavior, helps the child get their focus in life and work on it. When well settled in the childhood stage, it can affect the learning in their adult ages. The article further discusses the role of adults in maximizing the benefits of curiosity of the child. The adults are required to create an accepting environment for the curious children. This can be achieved by answering their many questions and allowing them to explore their interests. The article exemplifies the involvement of a parent’s dialogue with their children as an encouragement to ask more questions.

The article further gives the negative effect of school curriculum to curiosity. The article notes that curiosity. The curriculum directs all the students towards a certain path hence denying them a chance to explore their curiosity. This kills the child’s intrinsic motivation and makes learning a burden as they are not pursuing their interests.

Trautner, Tracy. “Developing Curiosity In The Young Child’S Brain.” MSU Extension, 2017, https://www.canr.msu.edu/news/developing_curiosity_in_the_young_childs_brain.

This article gives the importance of curiosity as giving the urge to explore, know new things and solve things. It mentions that people are born with curiosity as an intrinsic feature. Therefore, children are very inquisitive, but they also try to find answers to their uncertainties. The article mentions that curiosity prepares the brain for the acquisition of knowledge and emphasizes that people love learning what they are interested in. The article adds that through curiosity, people learn things that might not be necessary but prove important sometimes. The article adds that when children are curious, they tend to retain the information they acquire that satisfies their curiosity. It refers to research conducted by the University of California that found that learning and remembering are more effective when teachers relate classwork to unrelated things that students are curious about. It also notes that those students who are curious about something and learn about it remember the answer more. It quotes renowned geniuses such as Albert Einstein, who say that they are not special but just curious.

Berliner, Wendy. “‘Schools Are Killing Curiosity’: Why We Need To Stop Telling Children To Shut Up And Learn.” The Guardian, 2020, https://www.theguardian.com/education/2020/jan/28/schools-killing-curiosity-learn.

The article discourages ignorance of children’s personal interests and their questions because the curious students perform better in class. The article cites research conducted by the University of Michigan after an investigation in 6200 children. It notes that the article found out heat the disadvantaged children we better performers as their curiosity is attended to substantially. The article advises teachers that they need to solve the child’s curiosity instead of turning them down when they ask questions on things they need to know. The article observes that when children are born, they are very inquisitive as they want to know more, but once they get into school, their inquisitive nature drops at once. It notes that teachers play a great role in killing the curiosity nature of the children as most teachers discourage questioning.

The article notes that most schools do not have a systematic approach to attending to children’s curiosity, and it has been made an individual teacher’s responsibility. The article notes that when children are given resources that attend to their curiosity, they concentrate on them more and not on the other normal things. The article advises that teachers should encourage the children to ask questions as much as possible by finding a time of questions in their daily lives.

In conclusion, curiosity is a major determinant of the potential of a child. When curiosity is managed well, it can raise competent children who can do wonders in various fields. Therefore, teachers should use education to develop the children’s curiosity and not kill the motivation.