Artificial Intelligence - Who Is Elon Musk?

 

Elon Musk (1971–) is an American businessman and inventor.

Elon Musk is an engineer, entrepreneur, and inventor who was born in South Africa.

He is a dual citizen of South Africa, Canada, and the United States, and resides in California.

Musk is widely regarded as one of the most prominent inventors and engineers of the twenty-first century, as well as an important influencer and contributor to the development of artificial intelligence.

Despite his controversial personality, Musk is widely regarded as one of the most prominent inventors and engineers of the twenty-first century and an important influencer and contributor to the development of artificial intelligence.

Musk's business instincts and remarkable technological talent were evident from an early age.

By the age of 10, he had self-taught himself how program computers, and by the age of twelve, he had produced a video game and sold the source code to a computer magazine.

Musk has included allusions to some of his favorite novels in SpaceX's Falcon Heavy rocket launch and Tesla's software since he was a youngster.

Musk's official schooling was centered on economics and physics rather than engineering, interests that are mirrored in his subsequent work, such as his efforts in renewable energy and space exploration.

He began his education at Queen's University in Canada, but later transferred to the University of Pennsylvania, where he earned bachelor's degrees in Economics and Physics.

Musk barely stayed at Stanford University for two days to seek a PhD in energy physics before departing to start his first firm, Zip2, with his brother Kimbal Musk.

Musk has started or cofounded many firms, including three different billion-dollar enterprises: SpaceX, Tesla, and PayPal, all driven by his diverse interests and goals.

• Zip2 was a web software business that was eventually purchased by Compaq.

• X.com: an online bank that merged with PayPal to become the online payments corporation PayPal.

• Tesla, Inc.: an electric car and solar panel maker 

• SpaceX: a commercial aircraft manufacturer and space transportation services provider (via its subsidiarity SolarCity) 

• Neuralink: a neurotechnology startup focusing on brain-computer connections 

• The Boring Business: an infrastructure and tunnel construction corporation

 • OpenAI: a nonprofit AI research company focused on the promotion and development of friendly AI Musk is a supporter of environmentally friendly energy and consumption.

Concerns over the planet's future habitability prompted him to investigate the potential of establishing a self-sustaining human colony on Mars.

Other projects include the Hyperloop, a high-speed transportation system, and the Musk electric jet, a jet-powered supersonic electric aircraft.

Musk sat on President Donald Trump's Strategy and Policy Forum and Manufacturing Jobs Initiative for a short time before stepping out when the US withdrew from the Paris Climate Agreement.

Musk launched the Musk Foundation in 2002, which funds and supports research and activism in the domains of renewable energy, human space exploration, pediatric research, and science and engineering education.

Musk's effect on AI is significant, despite his best-known work with Tesla and SpaceX, as well as his contentious social media pronouncements.

In 2015, Musk cofounded the charity OpenAI with the objective of creating and supporting "friendly AI," or AI that is created, deployed, and utilized in a manner that benefits mankind as a whole.

OpenAI's objective is to make AI open and accessible to the general public, reducing the risks of AI being controlled by a few privileged people.

OpenAI is especially concerned about the possibility of Artificial General Intelligence (AGI), which is broadly defined as AI capable of human-level (or greater) performance on any intellectual task, and ensuring that any such AGI is developed responsibly, transparently, and distributed evenly and openly.

OpenAI has had its own successes in taking AI to new levels while staying true to its goals of keeping AI friendly and open.

In June of 2018, a team of OpenAI-built robots defeated a human team in the video game Dota 2, a feat that could only be accomplished through robot teamwork and collaboration.

Bill Gates, a cofounder of Microsoft, praised the achievement on Twitter, calling it "a huge milestone in advancing artificial intelligence" (@BillGates, June 26, 2018).

Musk resigned away from the OpenAI board in February 2018 to prevent any conflicts of interest while Tesla advanced its AI work for autonomous driving.

Musk became the CEO of Tesla in 2008 after cofounding the company in 2003 as an investor.

Musk was the chairman of Tesla's board of directors until 2018, when he stepped down as part of a deal with the US Securities and Exchange Commission over Musk's false claims about taking the company private.

Tesla produces electric automobiles with self-driving capabilities.

Tesla Grohmann Automation and Solar City, two of its subsidiaries, offer relevant automotive technology and manufacturing services and solar energy services, respectively.

Tesla, according to Musk, will reach Level 5 autonomous driving capabilities in 2019, as defined by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) five levels of autonomous driving.

Tes la's aggressive development with autonomous driving has influenced conventional car makers' attitudes toward electric cars and autonomous driving, and prompted a congressional assessment of how and when the technology should be regulated.

Musk is widely credited as a key influencer in moving the automotive industry toward autonomous driving, highlighting the benefits of autonomous vehicles (including reduced fatalities in vehicle crashes, increased worker productivity, increased transportation efficiency, and job creation) and demonstrating that the technology is achievable in the near term.

Tesla's autonomous driving code has been created and enhanced under the guidance of Musk and Tesla's Director of AI, Andrej Karpathy (Autopilot).

The computer vision analysis used by Tesla, which includes an array of cameras on each car and real-time image processing, enables the system to make real-time observations and predictions.

The cameras, as well as other exterior and internal sensors, capture a large quantity of data, which is evaluated and utilized to improve Autopilot programming.

Tesla is the only autonomous car maker that is opposed to the LIDAR laser sensor (an acronym for light detection and ranging).

Tesla uses cameras, radar, and ultrasonic sensors instead.

Though academics and manufacturers disagree on whether LIDAR is required for fully autonomous driving, the high cost of LIDAR has limited Tesla's rivals' ability to produce and sell vehicles at a pricing range that allows a large number of cars on the road to gather data.

Tesla is creating its own AI hardware in addition to its AI programming.

Musk stated in late 2017 that Tesla is building its own silicon for artificial-intelligence calculations, allowing the company to construct its own AI processors rather than depending on third-party sources like Nvidia.

Tesla's AI progress in autonomous driving has been marred by setbacks.

Tesla has consistently missed self-imposed deadlines, and serious accidents have been blamed on flaws in the vehicle's Autopilot mode, including a non-injury accident in 2018, in which the vehicle failed to detect a parked firetruck on a California freeway, and a fatal accident in 2018, in which the vehicle failed to detect a pedestrian outside a crosswalk.

Neuralink was established by Musk in 2016.

With the stated objective of helping humans to keep up with AI breakthroughs, Neuralink is focused on creating devices that can be implanted into the human brain to better facilitate communication between the brain and software.

Musk has characterized the gadgets as a more efficient interface with computer equipment, while people now operate things with their fingertips and voice commands, directives would instead come straight from the brain.

Though Musk has made major advances to AI, his pronouncements regarding the risks linked with AI have been apocalyptic.

Musk has called AI "humanity's greatest existential danger" and "the greatest peril we face as a civilisation" (McFarland 2014).

(Morris 2017).

He cautions against the perils of power concentration, a lack of independent control, and a competitive rush to acceptance without appropriate analysis of the repercussions.

While Musk has used colorful terminology such as "summoning the devil" (McFarland 2014) and depictions of cyborg overlords, he has also warned of more immediate and realistic concerns such as job losses and AI-driven misinformation campaigns.

Though Musk's statements might come out as alarmist, many important and well-respected figures, including as Microsoft cofounder Bill Gates, Swedish-American scientist Max Tegmark, and the late theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking, share his concern.

Furthermore, Musk does not call for the cessation of AI research.

Instead, Musk supports for responsible AI development and regulation, including the formation of a Congressional committee to spend years studying AI with the goal of better understanding the technology and its hazards before establishing suitable legal limits.

~ Jai Krishna Ponnappan

Find Jai on Twitter | LinkedIn | Instagram

You may also want to read more about Artificial Intelligence here.

See also: 

Bostrom, Nick; Superintelligence.

References & Further Reading:

Gates, Bill. (@BillGates). 2018. Twitter, June 26, 2018. https://twitter.com/BillGates/status/1011752221376036864.

Marr, Bernard. 2018. “The Amazing Ways Tesla Is Using Artificial Intelligence and Big Data.” Forbes, January 8, 2018. https://www.forbes.com/sites/bernardmarr/2018/01/08/the-amazing-ways-tesla-is-using-artificial-intelligence-and-big-data/.

McFarland, Matt. 2014. “Elon Musk: With Artificial Intelligence, We Are Summoning the Demon.” Washington Post, October 24, 2014. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/innovations/wp/2014/10/24/elon-musk-with-artificial-intelligence-we-are-summoning-the-demon/.

Morris, David Z. 2017. “Elon Musk Says Artificial Intelligence Is the ‘Greatest Risk We Face as a Civilization.’” Fortune, July 15, 2017. https://fortune.com/2017/07/15/elon-musk-artificial-intelligence-2/.

Piper, Kelsey. 2018. “Why Elon Musk Fears Artificial Intelligence.” Vox Media, Novem￾ber 2, 2018. https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2018/11/2/18053418/elon-musk-artificial-intelligence-google-deepmind-openai.

Strauss, Neil. 2017. “Elon Musk: The Architect of Tomorrow.” Rolling Stone, November 15, 2017. https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/elon-musk-the-architect-of-tomorrow-120850/.

Artificial Intelligence - Who Is Hans Moravec?

 

Hans Moravec(1948–) is well-known in the computer science community as the long-time head of Carnegie Mellon University's Robotics Institute and an unashamed techno logical optimist.

For the last twenty-five years, he has studied and produced artificially intelligent robots at the CMU lab, where he is still an adjunct faculty member.

Moravec spent almost 10 years as a research assistant at Stanford University's groundbreaking Artificial Intelligence Lab before coming to Carnegie Mellon.

Moravec is also noted for his paradox, which states that, contrary to popular belief, it is simple to program high-level thinking skills into robots—as with chess or Jeopardy!—but difficult to transmit sensorimo tor agility.

Human sensory and motor abilities have developed over millions of years and seem to be easy, despite their complexity.

Higher-order cognitive abilities, on the other hand, are the result of more recent cultural development.

Geometry, stock market research, and petroleum engineering are examples of disciplines that are difficult for people to learn but easier for robots to learn.

"The basic lesson of thirty-five years of AI research is that the hard issues are simple, and the easy ones are hard," writes Steven Pinker of Moravec's scientific career.

Moravec built his first toy robot out of scrap metal when he was eleven years old, and his light-following electronic turtle and a robot operated by punched paper tape earned him two high school science fair honors.

He proposed a Ship of Theseus-like analogy for the viability of artificial brains while still in high school.

Consider replacing a person's human neurons one by one with precisely manufactured equivalents, he said.

When do you think human awareness will vanish? Is anybody going to notice? Is it possible to establish that the person is no longer human? Later in his career, Moravec would suggest that human knowledge and training might be broken down in the same manner, into subtasks that machine intelligences could take over.

Moravec's master's thesis focused on the development of a computer language for artificial intelligence, while his PhD research focused on the development of a robot that could navigate obstacle courses utilizing spatial representation methods.

The area of interest (ROI) in a scene was identified by these robot vision systems.

Moravec's early computer vision robots were extremely sluggish by today's standards, taking around five hours to go from one half of the facility to the other.

To measure distance and develop an internal picture of physical impediments in the room, a remote computer carefully analysed continuous video-camera images recorded by the robot from various angles.

Moravec finally developed 3D occupancy grid technology, which allowed a robot to create an awareness of a cluttered area in a matter of seconds.

Moravec's lab took on a new challenge by converting a Pontiac TransSport minivan into one of the world's first road-ready autonomous cars.

The self-driving minivan reached speeds of up to 60 miles per hour.

DANTE II, a robot capable of going inside the crater of an active volcano on Mount Spurr in Alaska, was also constructed by the CMU Robotics Institute.

While DANTE II's immediate aim was to sample harmful fumarole gases, a job too perilous for humans, it was also planned to demonstrate technologies for robotic expeditions to distant worlds.

The volcanic explorer robot used artificial intelligence to navigate the perilous, boulder-strewn terrain on its own.

Because such rovers produced so much visual and other sensory data that had to be analyzed and managed, Moravec believes that experience with mobile robots spurred the development of powerful artificial intelligence and computer vision methods.

For the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), Moravec's team built fractal branching ultra-dexterous robots ("Bush robots") in the 1990s.

These robots, which were proposed but never produced due to the lack of necessary manufacturing technologies, comprised of a branching hierarchy of dynamic articulated limbs, starting with a main trunk and splitting down into smaller branches.

As a result, the Bush robot would have "hands" at all scales, from macroscopic to tiny.

The tiniest fingers would be nanoscale in size, allowing them to grip very tiny objects.

Moravec said the robot would need autonomy and depend on artificial intelligence agents scattered throughout the robot's limbs and branches because to the intricacy of manipulating millions of fingers in real time.

He believed that the robots may be made entirely of carbon nanotube material, employing the quick prototyping technology known as 3D printers.

Moravec believes that artificial intelligence will have a significant influence on human civilization.

To stress the role of AI in change, he coined the concept of the "landscape of human capability," which physicist Max Tegmark has later converted into a graphic depiction.

Moravec's picture depicts a three-dimensional environment in which greater altitudes reflect more challenging jobs in terms of human difficulty.

The point where the swelling waters meet the shore reflects the line where robots and humans both struggle with the same duties.

Art, science, and literature are now beyond of grasp for an AI, but the sea has already defeated mathematics, chess, and the game Go.

Language translation, autonomous driving, and financial investment are all on the horizon.

More controversially, in two popular books, Mind Children (1988) and Robot: Mere Machine to Transcendent Mind (1989), Moravec engaged in future conjecture based on what he understood of developments in artificial intelligence research (1999).

In 2040, he said, human intellect will be surpassed by machine intelligence, and the human species would go extinct.

Moravec evaluated the functional equivalence between 50,000 million instructions per second (50,000 MIPS) of computer power and a gram of brain tissue and came up with this figure.

He calculated that home computers in the early 2000s equaled only an insect's nervous system, but that if processing power doubled every eighteen months, 350 million years of human intellect development could be reduced to just 35 years of artificial intelligence advancement.

He estimated that a hundred million MIPS would be required to create human-like universal robots.

Moravec refers to these sophisticated robots as our "mind children" in the year 2040.

Humans, he claims, will devise techniques to delay biological civilization's final demise.

Moravec, for example, was the first to anticipate what is now known as universal basic income, which is delivered by benign artificial superintelligences.

In a completely automated society, a basic income system would provide monthly cash payments to all individuals without any type of employment requirement.

Moravec is more concerned about the idea of a renegade automated corporation breaking its programming and refusing to pay taxes into the human cradle-to-grave social security system than he is about technological unemployment.

Nonetheless, he predicts that these "wild" intelligences will eventually control the universe.

Moravec has said that his books Mind Children and Robot may have had a direct impact on the last third of Stanley Kubrick's original screenplay for A.I. Artificial Intelligence (later filmed by Steven Spielberg).

Moravecs, on the other hand, are self-replicating devices in the science fiction books Ilium and Olympos.

Moravec defended the same physical fundamentalism he expressed in his high school thoughts throughout his life.

He contends in his most transhumanist publications that the only way for humans to stay up with machine intelligences is to merge with them by replacing sluggish human cerebral tissue with artificial neural networks controlled by super-fast algorithms.

In his publications, Moravec has blended the ideas of artificial intelligence with virtual reality simulation.

He's come up with four scenarios for the development of consciousness.

(1) human brains in the physical world, 

(2) a programmed AI implanted in a physical robot, 

(3) a human brain immersed in a virtual reality simulation, and 

(4) an AI functioning inside the boundaries of virtual reality All of them are equally credible depictions of reality, and they are as "real" as we believe them to be.

Moravec is the creator and chief scientist of the Pittsburgh-based Seegrid Corporation, which makes autonomous Robotic Industrial Trucks that can navigate warehouses and factories without the usage of automated guided vehicle systems.

A human trainer physically pushes Seegrid's vehicles through a new facility once.

The robot conducts the rest of the job, determining the most efficient and safe pathways for future journeys, while the trainer stops at the appropriate spots for the truck to be loaded and unloaded.

Seegrid VGVs have transported over two million production miles and eight billion pounds of merchandise for DHL, Whirlpool, and Amazon.

Moravec was born in the Austrian town of Kautzen.

During World War II, his father was a Czech engineer who sold electrical products.

When the Russians invaded Czechoslovakia in 1944, the family moved to Austria.

In 1953, his family relocated to Canada, where he now resides.

Moravec earned a bachelor's degree in mathematics from Acadia University in Nova Scotia, a master's degree in computer science from the University of Western Ontario, and a doctorate from Stanford University, where he worked with John McCarthy and Tom Binford on his thesis.

The Office of Naval Study, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, and NASA have all supported his research.

Elon Musk (1971–) is an American businessman and inventor.

Elon Musk is an engineer, entrepreneur, and inventor who was born in South Africa.

He is a dual citizen of South Africa, Canada, and the United States, and resides in California.

Musk is widely regarded as one of the most prominent inventors and engineers of the twenty-first century, as well as an important influencer and contributor to the development of artificial intelligence.

Despite his controversial personality, Musk is widely regarded as one of the most prominent inventors and engineers of the twenty-first century and an important influencer and contributor to the development of artificial intelligence.

Musk's business instincts and remarkable technological talent were evident from an early age.

By the age of 10, he had self-taught himself how program computers, and by the age of twelve, he had produced a video game and sold the source code to a computer maga zine.

Musk has included allusions to some of his favorite novels in SpaceX's Falcon Heavy rocket launch and Tesla's software since he was a youngster.

Musk's official schooling was centered on economics and physics rather than engineering, interests that are mirrored in his subsequent work, such as his efforts in renewable energy and space exploration.

He began his education at Queen's University in Canada, but later transferred to the University of Pennsylvania, where he earned bachelor's degrees in Economics and Physics.

Musk barely stayed at Stanford University for two days to seek a PhD in energy physics before departing to start his first firm, Zip2, with his brother Kimbal Musk.

Musk has started or cofounded many firms, including three different billion-dollar enterprises: SpaceX, Tesla, and PayPal, all driven by his diverse interests and goals.

• Zip2 was a web software business that was eventually purchased by Compaq.

• X.com: an online bank that merged with PayPal to become the online payments corporation PayPal.

• Tesla, Inc.: an electric car and solar panel maker • SpaceX: a commercial aircraft manufacturer and space transportation services provider (via its subsidiarity SolarCity) • Neuralink: a neurotechnology startup focusing on brain-computer connections • The Boring Business: an infrastructure and tunnel construction corporation • OpenAI: a nonprofit AI research company focused on the promotion and development of friendly AI Musk is a supporter of environmentally friendly energy and consumption.

Concerns over the planet's future habitability prompted him to investigate the potential of establishing a self-sustaining human colony on Mars.

Other projects include the Hyperloop, a high-speed transportation system, and the Musk electric jet, a jet-powered supersonic electric aircraft.

Musk sat on President Donald Trump's Strategy and Policy Forum and Manufacturing Jobs Initiative for a short time before stepping out when the US withdrew from the Paris Climate Agreement.

Musk launched the Musk Foundation in 2002, which funds and supports research and activism in the domains of renewable energy, human space exploration, pediatric research, and science and engineering education.

Musk's effect on AI is significant, despite his best-known work with Tesla and SpaceX, as well as his contentious social media pronouncements.

In 2015, Musk cofounded the charity OpenAI with the objective of creating and supporting "friendly AI," or AI that is created, deployed, and utilized in a manner that benefits mankind as a whole.

OpenAI's objective is to make AI open and accessible to the general public, reducing the risks of AI being controlled by a few privileged people.

OpenAI is especially concerned about the possibility of Artificial General Intelligence (AGI), which is broadly defined as AI capable of human-level (or greater) performance on any intellectual task, and ensuring that any such AGI is developed responsibly, transparently, and distributed evenly and openly.

OpenAI has had its own successes in taking AI to new levels while staying true to its goals of keeping AI friendly and open.

In June of 2018, a team of OpenAI-built robots defeated a human team in the video game Dota 2, a feat that could only be accomplished through robot teamwork and collaboration.

Bill Gates, a cofounder of Microsoft, praised the achievement on Twitter, calling it "a huge milestone in advancing artificial intelligence" (@BillGates, June 26, 2018).

Musk resigned away from the OpenAI board in February 2018 to prevent any conflicts of interest while Tesla advanced its AI work for autonomous driving.

Musk became the CEO of Tesla in 2008 after cofounding the company in 2003 as an investor.

Musk was the chairman of Tesla's board of directors until 2018, when he stepped down as part of a deal with the US Securities and Exchange Commission over Musk's false claims about taking the company private.

Tesla produces electric automobiles with self-driving capabilities.

Tesla Grohmann Automation and Solar City, two of its subsidiaries, offer relevant automotive technology and manufacturing services and solar energy services, respectively.

Tesla, according to Musk, will reach Level 5 autonomous driving capabilities in 2019, as defined by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) five levels of autonomous driving.

Tes la's aggressive development with autonomous driving has influenced conventional car makers' attitudes toward electric cars and autonomous driving, and prompted a congressional assessment of how and when the technology should be regulated.

Musk is widely credited as a key influencer in moving the automotive industry toward autonomous driving, highlighting the benefits of autonomous vehicles (including reduced fatalities in vehicle crashes, increased worker productivity, increased transportation efficiency, and job creation) and demonstrating that the technology is achievable in the near term.

Tesla's autonomous driving code has been created and enhanced under the guidance of Musk and Tesla's Director of AI, Andrej Karpathy (Autopilot).

The computer vision analysis used by Tesla, which includes an array of cameras on each car and real-time image processing, enables the system to make real-time observations and predictions.

The cameras, as well as other exterior and internal sensors, capture a large quantity of data, which is evaluated and utilized to improve Autopilot programming.

Tesla is the only autonomous car maker that is opposed to the LIDAR laser sensor (an acronym for light detection and ranging).

Tesla uses cameras, radar, and ultrasonic sensors instead.

Though academics and manufacturers disagree on whether LIDAR is required for fully autonomous driving, the high cost of LIDAR has limited Tesla's rivals' ability to produce and sell vehicles at a pricing range that allows a large number of cars on the road to gather data.

Tesla is creating its own AI hardware in addition to its AI programming.

Musk stated in late 2017 that Tesla is building its own silicon for artificial-intelligence calculations, allowing the company to construct its own AI processors rather than depending on third-party sources like Nvidia.

Tesla's AI progress in autonomous driving has been marred by setbacks.

Tesla has consistently missed self-imposed deadlines, and serious accidents have been blamed on flaws in the vehicle's Autopilot mode, including a non-injury accident in 2018, in which the vehicle failed to detect a parked firetruck on a California freeway, and a fatal accident in 2018, in which the vehicle failed to detect a pedestrian outside a crosswalk.

Neuralink was established by Musk in 2016.

With the stated objective of helping humans to keep up with AI breakthroughs, Neuralink is focused on creating devices that can be implanted into the human brain to better facilitate communication between the brain and software.

Musk has characterized the gadgets as a more efficient interface with computer equipment, while people now operate things with their fingertips and voice commands, directives would instead come straight from the brain.

Though Musk has made major advances to AI, his pronouncements regarding the risks linked with AI have been apocalyptic.

Musk has called AI "humanity's greatest existential danger" and "the greatest peril we face as a civilisation" (McFarland 2014).

(Morris 2017).

He cautions against the perils of power concentration, a lack of independent control, and a competitive rush to acceptance without appropriate analysis of the repercussions.

While Musk has used colorful terminology such as "summoning the devil" (McFarland 2014) and depictions of cyborg overlords, he has also warned of more immediate and realistic concerns such as job losses and AI-driven misinformation campaigns.

Though Musk's statements might come out as alarmist, many important and well-respected figures, including as Microsoft cofounder Bill Gates, Swedish-American scientist Max Tegmark, and the late theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking, share his concern.

Furthermore, Musk does not call for the cessation of AI research.

Instead, Musk supports for responsible AI development and regulation, including the formation of a Congressional committee to spend years studying AI with the goal of better understanding the technology and its hazards before establishing suitable legal limits.

~ Jai Krishna Ponnappan

Find Jai on Twitter | LinkedIn | Instagram

You may also want to read more about Artificial Intelligence here.

See also: 

Superintelligence; Technological Singularity; Workplace Automation.

References & Further Reading:

Moravec, Hans. 1988. Mind Children: The Future of Robot and Human Intelligence. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Moravec, Hans. 1999. Robot: Mere Machine to Transcendent Mind. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Moravec, Hans. 2003. “Robots, After All.” Communications of the ACM 46, no. 10 (October): 90–97.

Pinker, Steven. 2007. The Language Instinct: How the Mind Creates Language. New York: Harper.

Why Is Space Exploration Important To Science?

The efforts of Virgin Galactic to open up the suborbital tourism industry and the ambitions of Space Exploration Technologies Corporation (SpaceX) to settle Mars are most likely to be featured in popular science and technology news, whereas current scientific exploration initiatives, such as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's Mars InSight mission, are less likely to be featured. 

Of course, this is reasonable given the fact that the founders of Virgin Galactic and SpaceX, Richard Branson and Elon Musk, are very well-known and vocal public personalities. 

Scientific missions, on the other hand, take a long time to complete and, with the exception of the brief thrill of mission launches (and landings, in certain instances), do not pique public attention. 

• (Of course, when things go wrong, as they did in Apollo 1, Apollo 13, STS-51-L (the Challenger tragedy), STS-107 (the Columbia disaster), or, less dramatically, the failure of the Schiaparelli lander, the public pays notice.) 

• Furthermore, the US and Luxembourg have enacted laws promoting commercial spaceflight. 

• The US Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act of 2015 promotes private business to develop capabilities related to space resource exploitation, such as lunar and asteroid mining, in addition to encouraging NASA to depend more heavily on the private sector for launch services. 

There are a variety of reasons for the increasing use of the private sector to provide services to and in space, but the most important one is cost. 

• Launching material into low-Earth orbit (LEO) is very costly, with prices ranging from 2,000 to 10,000 USD/kg (and much higher per-kg costs for missions to more energetically distant destinations, such as geostationary orbit (GEO), the Moon, or other planets or their satellites). 

• Space missions should become more inexpensive as a result of increased private sector involvement and competition in the design, production, and usage of launch vehicles and spacecraft. 

• This, however, raises concerns about what the primary goal of spaceflight is or should be. 

The current emphasis on commercial spaceflight indicates that spaceflight exists primarily to create new markets for economic activities. 

• Despite this shift in focus from national and international space projects to private efforts, the language surrounding space exploration has remained mostly unchanged since the 1960s and 1970s Apollo program. 

Whether one is advocating for increasing NASA or ESA budgets, withdrawing from the United Nations Outer Space Treaty and its restrictions on commercial exploitation of space resources, or speeding up SpaceX's plans to settle Mars, it is easy to predict the types of arguments that will be made: 

*that we need to explore space to save humanity from extinction; 

*that we need to use a reliable spacecraft to save humanity from extinction; 

*that we.. Will need to use/navigate Space to save humanity from extinction; 

*that we need to save all life in general from extinction.

• These and other factors tend to coalesce into a kind of "space advocacy bundle." 

• However, the reasoning that is often provided in support of these assertions (if any is provided at all) is frequently of poor quality and rigor. 

• It's almost as if speaking these "spaceflight facts" while defending spaceflight is a tradition, or a precept of some sort of spaceflight religion. 

• The issue is that proponents of spaceflight seldom attempt to gather facts to back up their different arguments. 

• Rather, space lobbying consists mainly of repeating a limited number of talking points again and over, perhaps with the help of astronauts, astrophysicists, or global leaders. 

Astronauts and astrophysicists, on the other hand, are not the best people to ask about whether spaceflight is educational or if humans have an inherent need to explore. 

Education scientists, sociologists, psychologists, and evolutionary biologists are the people to talk to. In most of space advocacy, there is a lack of attention to acceptable sources of evidence. 

• And if you're someone like me, who thinks that spaceflight is very essential but that its significance should be proven via sound argument, you'll be disappointed with the present state of space advocacy. 

Philosophers are trained to pay close attention to the outlines of logic. 

• That is, they tend to concentrate on the formulation, judgment, and assessment of arguments in considerable detail. 

• As a consequence, philosophers have a proclivity towards adopting exceptionally high criteria when it comes to accepting and rejecting ideas. 

• As a philosopher, you may assume that my skepticism of fundamental spaceflight rationales stems only from disciplinary prejudice. 

• And, while I intend for this essay to contribute to professional philosophical debate, the majority of what I have to say will be accessible, meaningful, and relevant to people from a variety of disciplinary and vocational backgrounds—from planetary scientists to political scientists; from astrobiologists to anthropologists; from space program employees to lawyers and legal scholars. 

To put it another way, the reasons for rejecting most fundamental principles of space advocacy, and the arguments I'll give in their place, should persuade more than simply my fellow philosophers. 

• They should be appealing to anybody interested in space exploration who is also interested in the development of beliefs based on reason and evidence. 

• With any hope, what I have to say will persuade many of those who are skeptical about spaceflight's usefulness. 

• But, whether or not my personal findings are eventually accurate, I will consider this article a success if it inspires people to think more carefully about spaceflight and its significance. 

So, what justifications do I want to provide in favor of spaceflight? In a broad sense, I view this as an ethical issue. 

Spaceflight, in my opinion, would actualize or promote something very beneficial, namely the creation of scientific knowledge and understanding. 

• To put it another way, by "scientific knowledge," I mean a firm belief in a field of science that is supported by the best evidence available; by "scientific understanding," I mean systematic knowledge of a topic or theory in a field of science, as well as the ability to apply that knowledge in appropriate situations. 

• As a result, I will argue that spaceflight is an important and productive means of expanding our knowledge and understanding of ourselves, our planet, our Solar System, and our Universe. 

• Scientific knowledge and understanding are not only intrinsically valued (i.e., useful and worth pursuing for their own sakes); they are also instrumentally valuable (i.e., important for the ways they contribute to general society welfare and development). 

• Neither of these things is intrinsically significant; instead of discussing the significance of possessing and using scientific knowledge and understanding, we might discuss the importance of, for example, being the types of people who seek scientific knowledge and understanding. 

When it comes to theoretical disagreements in normative ethics on the ultimate nature of good or wrong behavior, I try to retain as much neutrality as possible. My idea poses a number of issues. 

To begin with, the word "spaceflight" is too broad. 

• Crewed and robotic exploration of the space environment, human space habitation, suborbital space tourism, space resource extraction, Earth observation from space, military and commercial satellite services, and so on are all part of it. 

• Do I mean to support all of these activities equally, or just some of them, when I say that spaceflight should be supported because it adds to the creation of scientific knowledge and understanding? My response is that this funding is limited to just those initiatives that are most likely to make a significant contribution to science. 

As a result, I will not advocate for spaceflight in general, but rather for activities like Earth observation and robotic and crewed scientific research missions. 

Commercial and military spaceflight operations, on the other hand, are morally capable of much less. 

• It is therefore alarming that the public seems to be much more interested in SpaceX and the possibility of forming a new branch of the US military dedicated to space security than in all of the great work being done by space scientists at universities and space organizations across the world. 

• More importantly, my viewpoint has implications for what activities should be prioritized when it comes to space exploration and usage. 

• There is a considerable danger of conflict between scientific and non-scientific applications of the space environment. 

Scientific applications of the space environment are linked with higher benefits, therefore they should be favored if they clash with other proposed uses of space.

That is, scientific goals should take precedence over, or even take the place of, commercial goals. 

• If we had to choose between sending a mission to an asteroid to mine it for metals or other resources and sending a mission to an asteroid to research its composition and learn about the Solar System's early history and development, we should choose the latter. 

• Importantly, my prioritizing of scientific applications of the space environment is time-limited and based on (what some would consider) cautious predictions regarding spaceflight technological development. 

• Throughout, my emphasis will be on current spaceflight as well as the “near future” (which I take to extend two centuries into the future). 

I believe that no game-changing spaceflight technology will emerge fully within this time period. 

That is, I will assume that we will not develop technologies that are more akin to science fiction (warp drive; wormhole travel), that the frequency of space launches (and crew complements) will not increase by more than one or two orders of magnitude, and that interplanetary transit times will remain relatively constant. 

Outside of these restrictions, I cannot promise that I would argue a similar set of findings, albeit I do so very cautiously in the Epilogue. 

This leads us to the second issue raised by my position: 

Is it true that scientific understanding and information are useful in the manner I've suggested?

Is it worthwhile to pursue scientific knowledge and understanding for its own sake? 

Is it possible that their efforts will result in a variety of additional social benefits? 

Most readers, I believe, would agree that scientific knowledge and understanding are beneficial in these respects. 

• However, this is another area where space enthusiasts prefer to give minimal assistance (as well as by science advocates and philosophers more generally). 

• While it is intuitively true that scientific information and understanding are important both intrinsically and instrumentally, I would rather show rather than presume their worth. 

• As I'll explain shortly, these are not easy jobs. 

A third concern is: 

What are the benefits of utilizing spaceflight to produce scientific knowledge and understanding vs the benefits of using spaceflight for other purposes? 

My goal, as I stated before, is to demonstrate why scientific spaceflight should be prioritized above non-scientific spaceflight. 

• However, this seems to be difficult to sustain since non-scientific spaceflight is supported by significant responsibilities other than those connected to research. 

One of our most important responsibilities is to guarantee the human race' long-term existence. 

We must try to establish permanent, self-sustaining human civilizations in space since people cannot live on Earth indefinitely. 

• Another important responsibility is to ensure and enhance humanity's material well-being. 

• Because Earth's resources are finite, we must turn to space to meet humanity's resource requirements. 

• While it is admirable to utilize space to create scientific knowledge and understanding, it takes away from the far more important goal of guaranteeing human existence and well-being. 

The appeal of my point of view is therefore determined by two factors: 

First, the case for space science is greater than previously thought. 

Second, the reasons for other kinds of spaceflight are weaker than previously thought. 

I believe that human survival and well-being are more important than scientific knowledge and comprehension, regardless of circumstance. 

• As a result, I will not argue that duties to guarantee human existence and well-being are less than a duty to seek scientific knowledge and understanding. 

• However, the strength of our responsibilities in reality is highly dependent on the circumstances. 

As a corollary to the notion that "ought implies can," if we don't have any practical, cheap methods of fulfilling a duty—even a very strong obligation—then the obligation isn't strong or overpowering in reality. 

• Meanwhile, if we have an effective, inexpensive method of fulfilling a duty—even a little one—the power of that obligation grows in practice. 

• If it can be shown in the near future that spaceflight either fails to guarantee human existence entirely, or does so in an ineffective and cost-effective manner, then there is no strong or overwhelming responsibility to utilize spaceflight for this reason. 

• At the same time, if it can be shown that spaceflight is a cost-effective and efficient method of producing scientific knowledge and understanding, we will have a greater obligation to utilize spaceflight for this reason. 

I want to establish the relative importance of the value of space science using this kind of argument. 

Many of the typical space advocacy arguments are examined and rejected here. 

The first is the claim that spaceflight is educationally inspirational, implying that money spent on spaceflight boosts student interest in STEM subjects (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics). 

Unfortunately, there are few obvious beneficial links between STEM undergraduate and graduate degrees and spaceflight funding. 

As a result, we lack the statistical data needed to construct a causal case that spaceflight has a significant effect on students' educational choices. 

 

The second argument is that spaceflight will provide answers to universally important issues, such as the genesis of human existence and whether or not alien life exists. 

• Despite the fact that there is a scarcity of survey data on these subjects, the evidence available suggests that most people are uninterested in what science has to say about the origin and spread of life. 

• Humans have a natural need to explore, which supports human space exploration and colonization, according to a third of the conventional rationales. 

• Several genes have been linked to exploratory behavior (which mainly refers to activities like local reconnaissance) and historical human migration, according to genetic and anthropological studies. 

• However, these links do not prove that people have a natural need to explore, since research shows that characteristics like inquisitive behavior were chosen for after previous migrations, rather than driving them. 

• There is currently no documented genetic or biological foundation for the notion that people have an inherent need to see what lies beyond the horizon, much alone expand out into space. 

A fourth argument is that, in order to prevent stagnation, human civilization need a new space frontier. 

The settlers would face a difficult environment while conquering the Martian frontier. 

• This would compel them to improvise, invent, and adapt in ways that would teach the rest of mankind important lessons about science, technology, and democratic government, much as the conquest of the American West did for the US. 

• This kind of thinking is not only historically questionable, but it also drastically underestimates the potential for space colonization to teach unwanted lessons. 

For example, inhabitants on Mars may embrace dictatorial or totalitarian forms of government in order to live under the instantly deadly circumstances. 

• Instead of fueling democratic culture, the outcome may be an exercise in human misery. 

The tenebrous nature of these rationales serves as the foundation for the essay's positive goal, which is to articulate and defend the worth of space research. 

The first (and most philosophically technical) job is to provide a case for the inherent worth of scientific knowledge and comprehension. 

• In this paper, I address various disputes in current epistemology about the value of knowledge and understanding. 

• The value of knowledge is mainly determined by the value of genuine belief, while the value of understanding is determined by the value of true belief as well as the value of cognitive accomplishment. 

The main challenge at hand is to defend the inherent worth of both genuine belief and cognitive accomplishment. 

• I propose that each value may be proved using a broadly naturalistic method to explaining intrinsic value attributions, according to which an item is intrinsically valuable when it is appreciated for its own sake as part of the best explanation of a scientifically involved activity. 

• This test is passed when genuine beliefs and cognitive accomplishments are valued for their own sake. 

True beliefs and cognitive accomplishments, in particular those linked to science in general and space science in particular, are therefore inherently valued. 

• We must take up the challenge of defending the practical usefulness of scientific knowledge and comprehension. 

Increases in scientific knowledge and understanding contribute to societal development, according to the underlying premise. 

• Furthermore, scientific exploration and study have a significant role in increasing scientific knowledge and comprehension. 

• This is because scientific inquiry is essential for gathering new data and evaluating current scientific ideas, concepts, and hypotheses. 

Because space exploration is a kind of scientific exploration that is particularly likely to contribute to scientific advancement, it is implicated. 

Also, the importance of democratic governments' obligations to fund scientific research. 

I argue that democratic governments have a responsibility to promote scientific research when it promises to contribute to the democratic process in particular, significant ways, based on recent work in social epistemology and political science.

• Through many instances, space science contributes significantly to the democratic process and, as a result, should be promoted by democratic governments. 

• In discussions concerning the logic and scope of planetary preservation measures, we need to talk about the importance of science. 

Contamination of the space environment by biological and other agents poses distinct difficulties. 

We can't rule out the possibility that any possible finding of alien life is a very costly false positive until we can be certain that Mars or other places haven't been polluted by terrestrial species. 

• As a result, different rules are implemented by space projects to reduce the danger of contaminating areas of interest in the hunt for alien life. 

• However, it has only been acknowledged in the last three decades that anything of ethical importance might be on the line. 

• Perhaps planetary protection is required, not only for the purpose of the scientific quest for life in space, but also for the sake of any indigenous life that may be discovered in these settings, even if it is just microbial in nature. 

Arguments have been made that any alien life discovered would be inherently valuable, and that therefore protecting this worth is the ultimate goal of planetary protection. 

• While I will reply to some of the objections leveled at these arguments, I believe that a focus on preserving alien life for its own sake narrows the scope of what should be stated regarding planetary preservation ethics. 

• The intrinsic and instrumental values of knowledge and understanding that may be produced via scientific study of the space environment are among the other values that must be safeguarded in the space environment. 

We owe it to future generations to protect possibilities for scientific exploration and study that advance our knowledge and understanding of the space environment. 

This highlights a far wider responsibility to safeguard the space environment from contamination or disturbance, since much more than astrobiology and the hunt for alien life is at risk. 

Any space habitat, planet, moon, or other celestial body has piqued the attention of the space sciences as a whole. 

• Because scientific exploration is most successful in pristine settings, we should presume that space habitats are of interest to research unless the contrary is proved. 

• We need to talk about how my perspective on the importance of space research and planetary preservation fits into a discussion of two topics that are presently getting a lot of attention in public debates about space exploration: space resource exploitation and space colonization. 

• I believe that space scientific goals should take precedence over commercial exploitation of space and its resources, and that we should reject any efforts to modify or replace the Outer Space Treaty, which is considered to ban commercial use of space resources. 

Those advocating for regulatory relaxation often argue that development of space resources would save mankind from the many costs connected with terrestrial pollution and resource depletion. 

• The aim is that by using space resources, such as those found on the Moon and near-Earth asteroids, we will be able to supply mankind with more raw materials and energy while also relocating polluting industry into space. 

• Against this, I argue that there are significant limitations on the amount of space resources that may be accessed. 

While the resources of space are staggeringly enormous in theory, they are non-renewable and restricted in reality. 

• According to current study, the total volume of water that might be melted from lunar polar ice, as well as all of the water that could be mined from asteroids that are as energetically accessible as the Moon, is only approximately 3.7 km. 

• This contradicts the idea that space resources are unlimited or capable of relieving us of the need to fight pollution and resource depletion on Earth. 

While we have a significant social responsibility to prevent terrestrial contamination and alleviate the consequences of resource depletion on the ground, we cannot successfully meet this commitment by exploiting space resources. 

As a result, this is a use of space that we should forego for the time being in favor of our duty to maintain space for scientific research. 

Against space colonization, there is a fundamentally comparable space scientific defense. 

• The seeming need to seek permanent, self-sustaining space colonies is motivated by a strong responsibility: the need to guarantee the long-term survival of the human species—or, as Tony Milligan puts it, the duty to prolong human existence. 

• There are two types of arguments here: an in-principle argument that says space colonization is eventually essential for extending human life, and a pressing argument that says space settlement is urgently important for prolonging human life. 

I agree with the in-principle conclusion and defend it against various arguments, including those that throw doubt on the existence of a moral duty to prolong human life. 

However, I will argue that space colonization is not required immediately (i.e., in the near future) since most significant risks to human survival (asteroid collisions, ecological collapse, and so on) may be handled more effectively via other methods. 

For example, if you want to reduce the danger of human extinction due to an asteroid collision, the greatest thing you can do is increase financing for asteroid detection and diversion programs. 

This would not only reduce the danger of human extinction more effectively, but it would also be considerably less expensive. 

We can maintain the space environment for scientific research for the time being since there is no urgent or imminent need to settle space. 

• However, space colonies will be required in the long run, which raises the issue of whether future generations of space-dwellers should be subjected to the circumstances of life in a space colony. 

• In most cases, life in space will include living in artificial habitats (which would be necessary to protect settlers from the intensely hostile environments found throughout the Solar System). 

Life in a space habitat, in contrast to living on Earth, would be extremely limiting, both physically and emotionally, and would provide inhabitants with minimal privacy and limited options for education, profession, and sexual relationship. 

• This exposes space colony as potentially exploitative of those born into the community, who may have no option but to live in inhumane circumstances. 

As a result, one of the criteria for morally acceptable space colonization is that the settlers can offer sufficient assurances that their offspring would not be subjected to undue exploitation. 

• In the epilogue, I re-emphasize the significance of research and provide a short discussion of how loosening some assumptions (about time horizons and technological capabilities) may impact our space responsibilities. 

• What emerges from this is the lasting significance of scientific research—not only for current civilizations, but also for any future society that may arise in the space environment. 

Scientific knowledge and understanding are very useful to anybody interested in establishing and maintaining human existence in space, regardless of their inherent worth. 

Indeed, the democratic argument for funding scientific research is much stronger in the case of space civilizations, which will be far more reliant on research for survival and development. 

• As a result, scientific information and insight, particularly that gained via space travel, will continue to be valuable to human civilization. 

• When it comes to choices regarding spaceflight funding priorities, spaceflight mission goals, and legislative and other policy efforts, science is and should remain the most important stakeholder. 

Commercial spaceflight has a lot of promise for lowering launch costs and increasing payload capacity. 

• However, it should be encouraged to remain a handmaiden to the space sciences rather than being pushed to become an invasive species that competes for resources with space research. 

As a result, I hope that this article serves as a compelling, enlightening, and philosophically satisfying foundation for reclaiming the attention that space science seems to have lost to the "New Space" movement, but that it well deserves.

~ Jai Krishna Ponnappan 

You may also want to read more about Space Exploration, Space Missions and Systems here.