People aren't supporting Moon Plan

>Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 10:16:43 -0500
>
> >>
> >> I think what we may have to do is find a way to make space technology
> >> development intrinsically fun -- more fun than watching Star Trek and
> >> B5
> >> and even kibittizing on this list. OSCOMAK (or the ideas behind it
> >> presented by me at the last SSI conference) was a step in that way,
> >> although it has a long ways to go.
> >> http://www.kurtz-fernhout.com/oscomak/index.htm
> >
> > I most suredly agree, though I would use the word 'cool' rather than
> > fun,
> > because that seems to have more appeal with the masses :-) First you
> > have to
> > get those 'wage slaves' off their freakin couch where they are
> > watching the
> > motivation waster.
>
>The problem is that technology development is intrinsically hard work
>(I speak from experience here). Some people are able to take pleasure
>in the rewards of hard work, which means delaying gratification in the
>short term for a sense of accomplishment in the long term. Others are
>simply not able or willing to do so. The pervasive culture of
>marketing (creating "needs" which are little more than desires, like
>the "need" for fashionable clothing), discourages deferment of
>gratification, and any market oriented economy will always suffer from
>this problem. There are plenty of interests pushing to manipulate the
>mental/cultural environment in the direction of consumption, and too
>few countervailing forces. Unfortunately all the proposed
>society-level (as opposed to individual level) solutions seem to me to
>be worse than the problem. At the individual level the solution is
>relatively straightforward, and consists first of all of switching off
>the TV. I'm getting off track here a bit...
>
>Anyway, the need for deferred gratification rather limits the number of
>people who will participate (though the self selection process tends to
>prefer those who would be more useful to the project anyway). The
>other problem is that there are a lot of things people could work on as
>hobbies - why do the thing you prefer rather than some other cool
>thing? There are plenty of cool things people can work on, from
>building homebuilt aircraft (or submarines, hovercraft, bicycles,
>boats, etc.) to improving their homes, writing software, whatever.
>There has to be some sustainable competitive advantage for the proposed
>hobby technology development over all these other options. The idea of
>self sacrifice in a noble cause that one will never personally see
>completed is all well and good, but in practice very few people are
>willing to really stick with it, and every person who starts and quits
>before really advancing the project represents a drain on project
>resources.
>
>I'm afraid I'm rambling a little bit here. I've been thinking about
>these issues in depth for a couple of years, and haven't made great
>progress (actually, relative to where I started I've made huge
>progress, but much of that has been in understanding just how damn
>difficult the problem is). Anyway, suffice to say that I think
>volunteer based tech development needs to have frequent milestones
>which provide concrete positive feedback to the participants.
>Otherwise the venture will lose people to other more directly rewarding
>activities.
>
>......Andrew
>

Actually, I am of the belief that although leadership is very important, it
falls second to the nature of the project and the buy in from the potential
supporters and workers.

However, the most important thing is how encompassing the goals are. For
instance, if I decide to climb a moutain, say, Denali, but all I am focused
on is getting to the top of the first foothill, my overall goal becomes
subject to failure to a much greater degree: I feel 'done' when I get to the
top of the foothill, making me want to linger more and thus waste time; I
increase the potential for distraction as a result, possibly heading off
laterally instead of towards my real goal; and a host of other pitfalls and
eddies that sap energy and resources from my original intentions. This is
seen in practice if one looks at almost any endeavor, and gov't is one of
the worst perpetrators. Thus, setting, say, people on Mars as a goal, is
much better than just looking at the ISS as a goal. Though I've been very
brief and somewhat choppy with this analogy, I am sure a little brainpower
and applied experience would lead you to the same conclusion.

I think that Americans have become use to getting things easily, and when
something looks like it moght require effort, it is easy to just switch to
something else and rationalize. One could talk about sense of commitment on
the wane, or a social atmosphere that thinks personal accountability and
pride are bad things, but the end is jsut the same. And so we may doom
ourselves to smaller and piecemeal 'accomplishments', pat ourselves on the
back when no one is looking and think about how successful we are are while
others really challenge themselves and shape the future as a result.
Meanwhile, the Americans wallow in their lacadaisical society. I really fear
this if a larger goal is not set and real commitment thrown behind it. We
will become the stagnant pond.

As far as volunteer effort is concerned, my limited experience with it seems
to fit quite well with TangoMan's take on the matter. I believe that nothing
of true importance, especially with a time sensitive nature, can be
entrusted to it. It certainly will always be the rare exception to efforts
that are based on compensated work and clear, scheduled rewards.

Val