Homosexual Marriage and Scripture as a Source of Morality

I was asked the following question:

Alonzo: in the South, where I was born & lived most of my life, the majority of people think that gay marriage is immoral because it says so in the Bible. How do you think I should I respond to that?

Well, "should" is an ambiguous term.

"Should" relates objects of evaluation (in this case, a response) to a set of desires.

What which desires?

Often, this can be answered by looking at the context in which the question is asked. It is much like asking for directions. If a person asks, "How do I get to the museum?" this invites the questions, "Which museum?" and "Where are you at now?". However, we can often answer these questions by looking at the context in which the question is asked. In a conversation about an exhibit at the Natural History Museum, we may assume that this is "the museum" in question.

The question could be asking, "What would be the most politically effective response where the goal is to get the person to support - or at least not oppose - a political objective, such as marriage equality?" If this is the question, it may be the case that the most persuasive response is built on a false premise or a convincing fallacy. If an officer in Exxon-Mobile were to ask the Public Relations department, "If I get challenged on global warming, how should I respond?" he is probably best understood as asking for a response evaluated in terms of maximizing profit - regardless of truth or logical soundness.

I am not offering this account to be pendantic. This is a property of the word "should" that is often overlooked and that causes confusion. Desirism provides an account of "should" that explains this ambiguity and provides a way of resolving it. It is one of the things that I offer as evidence that desirism provides a better account of "ought" and "should" than its competitors.

In this case, I am not a political strategist, nor do I want to be. That interpretation of the question would not fit this particular context. In this context, I will interpret "should" as one that relates the reponse to the goal of understanding the facts of the matter and reporting those facts to others.

In that sense, my response would be to say to this person, "You are mistaken. It is not the case that you hold gay marriage to be immoral because it is condemned in scripture. I can prove it."

When a person claims, "A implies B" you can disprove this by offering counter examples of the form "A and not B". So, if a person claims, "Homosexual marriage is condemned in the Bible; therefore I condemn it," this can be disproved by providing examples of X where X is condemned in the Bible but the agent does not condemn X.

Here, the question is, "Where do we start?" We've got things from making graven images to working on the sabbath to eating shellfish to touching the skin of a pig to wearing two types of cloth to the charging of interest (e.g., having an interest-bearing savings account).

With this, we demonstrate, "I hold that homosexual marriage is wrong because it is condensed in the Bible." is almost certainly false.

In fact, the opposite claim seems to me much closer to the truth. "I judge that the Bible condemns homosexual marriage because I hold that homosexual marriage to be immoral." This has the power to explain not only the person's views on homosexual marriage, but on a long list of other issues. It explains why they do not interpret scripture as condemning the eating of shell fish, working on the Sabbath, or collecting interest on a savings account, CD, or bond.

The fact of the matter is that - no matter what a person claims - they do not get their morality FROM scripture. They assign their morality TO scripture.

Where does these moral beliefs come from if they do not come from Scripture?

They are learned from one's environment - one's culture. In the case of homosexual marriage, in the south the majority of people have picked up a cultural prejudice against homosexual marriage. They have also learned the cultural art of assigning one's prejudices to Scripture by promoting or stressing those elements that support one's learned prejudices while ignoring parts that conflict with one's learned prejudices. Thus, they do not "see" in Scripture a condemnation for charging interest, eating shellfish, or working on the Sabbath.

While they claim to get their morality from God, they are actually getting their morality from their community and assigning their community's subjective opinions to God.

This response may not be politically effective, but it is accurate.

One can take the phrase, "In the South . . . people think that gay marriage is immoral because it says so in the Bible," and mark this phrase as "False". I know that a lot of people claim this, but observed behavior does not support this thesis. The response that a person who is interested in the truth and reporting to the truth to others would give to somebody who makes this claim would be, "No, that's not true. Here's the proof," and to go on from there.

A Trip Into Space - The Far Future

Today, to end my series on space development, I will engage in some wild and speculative prognostication.

Many space enthusiasts advocate colonizing the Moon or Mars. Some of this may happen, and I have no interest in campaigning against them. However, I think that this represents a planetary bias that humans will quickly outgrow. A time will come - assuming we do not destroy ourselves - when the bulk of humanity lives - not on planets or moons - but in space.

Space provides several advantages over any planet-based community. Not the least of which is - a person can pick their gravity. I mentioned the weights on the spokes of the near-earth-orbit colony. They move in to increase the rate of spin, and out to slow the community down. Modules can be put at different lengths from the center, so that one module can have half of the gravity of another. Non-rotating modules can be attached to the hub.

Another advantage is ease of travel. Give something a gentile nudge in the right direction, and it will eventually reach its (nearby) destination. Drastically changing orbits - going from low earth to gyosynchronous orbit - will take more energy. However, it will not take nearly as much as getting into orbit from a planet's surface.

A space community has constant or near-constant sunlight - thus a near-constant source of energy.

Finally, a significant advantage of space development is the availability of much more living space. With peak efficiency, there is enough material in the asteroid belt to construct the living area equivalent of 30,000 earths. Assuming gross inefficiency, we can see a future with 1 earth, 1 Mars, and 300 earth-equivalents worth of orbiting habitats. And this ignores the material found in Jupiter's moons or comets. Planet-dwellers will be a small minority of humanity.

I am not advocating this option. I am merely predicting. At the same time, I must admit to a lot of ignorance behind this prediction. What new inventions will come our way? What will result from blending human brains with computers? I will be the first to admit that these predictions are almost certainly wrong. But, it is fun to speculate.

Where will these communities be built?

To answer this question, we need to look at what humans value as a means and as an end. Much of this value is best obtained by close proximity to others and the benefits of trade.

I expect many of these communities to be built primarily near Earth, where it occupants can communicate with Earth and others in near-Earth space, visit others, and trade with others.

A commenter to an earlier post mentioned Larry Niven's "Ringworld" around the sun. This is far-fetched. However, a "Ringworld" around the Earth - a "Tubeworld" 71,572 kilometers in diameter (over 236,000 kilometers long) represents one possible future.

There will be other communities built in the vicinity of large asteroids, where mining communities last for centuries until the asteroid is gone and the community built from it remains. The larger the asteroid, the larger the community that is left behind.

In the longer-term future, I think I can predict what star humans will colonize first.

Proxima Centauri.

Over time, people will come to realize that there are four essential natural resources. Any place where these are found in abundance is inhabitable. These are protons, neutrons, electrons, and photons. Proxima Centauri itself is a source of photons. It almost certainly has stuff orbiting it - asteroids and comets that can provide protons, neutrons, and electrons.

Some day, an earth-based craft will arrive. It will enter orbit. It's occupants will go to work applying photons to protons, neutrons, and electrons, and a new community will be born. Given the slow rate at which red dwarfs consume fuel, the inhabitants of this system will see the Earth's sun grow red, burst into a planetary nebula, then shrink and fade from existence. However, they will have the potential to endure for tens to hundreds of billions of years, giving rise to other communities around other red-dwarf stars.

Except, that is far too far away for any reasonable predictions to be made. Just imaginings.

Tomorrow, I'll be coming back to earth.

A Trip Into Space - Geostationary Orbit

Today, I am continuing a series that I am writing mostly for enjoyment on the value of developing space.

I mentioned one important reason why a space station should be on an equatorial orbit - and why anybody intending on building a useful space station would focus on one in such an orbit. It is because one does not want to turn in space. Without an atmosphere, turning takes a lot of energy.

This is important because, above our low-earth-orbit space station, at an altitude of 35,786 kilometers, is Geostationary Orbit.

At this altitude, an object in orbit stays constantly above a fixed point on the Earth's equator. A satellite here orbits the earth as fast as the earth spins.

These satellites are in an equatorial orbit. The station in low earth orbit is a way point. Consequently, it is best to have the station in low earth orbit be in an equatorial orbit (or very close to it). This is the gateway to space.

You have left the rocket that brought you here from Earth a few days ago. You have spent that time getting used to space, perhaps being trained in some of the skills that are useful in space. Some people have trouble adapting . . . and may get sent home. However, we will assume that you have adapted well and you are ready to start work.

On your day of departure, you will board a space ship.

This space ship is not of a type often seen in science fiction (modeled too much after ocean-going ships). It will likely be a sphere - having the greatest ratio of volume to surface area, and no corners that the inside air pressure would want to push apart. Once on board, a rocket will fire, and you will be on your way to high earth orbit.

This resource is already being used for communication satellites and for some weather and earth monitoring satellites. It will be important for solar power satellites that beam their energy down to fixed fields on the Earth.

One of the businesses of space development will be the construction and maintenance of these satellites. In fact, the space habitat itself may become a communication hub (where the habitat picks up and rebroadcasts information).

These stations are above the Van Allen belts, which means that occupants will be exposed to cosmic rays. Protection from this and other forms of radiation can be accomplished with about 1 meter of solid mass. Any mass will do - though with mass having a greater density the shield can be thinner.

We can get this mass from asteroids - bringing them (or parts of them) into a high Earth orbit. The asteroid material would be pulverized and refined - with the useful material extracted, leaving behind large lump of tailings. These otherwise useless tailings can be used to make the shell within which our space inhabitants would live - perhaps being formed into a cylinder 3 kilometers in diameter and 20 kilometers long. The cylinder does not rotate; however, the community built inside would. That community would have three counter-rotating sections; 5 kilometers roasting one way, 10 kilometers rotating the other way, and the final 5 kilometers turning the same direction as the first five. This way, angular momentum transferred from the station to the shell will be cancelled out.

The metric for travel in space is called "delay-v" or "change in velocity". It determines how much energy is required to change something from its one orbit to another - from an asteroid's orbit to earth's orbit. On this metric, there are hundreds of known and thousands of unknown asteroids "closer" than the moon.

Nature itself is constantly making small adjustments to the orbits of these asteroids. Over time, these random changes bring some of them into a violent confrontation with Earth. Even ignoring everything said with respect to the usefulness of space development, we have many and strong reason to seek some influence over their orbits.

One option is to move them into a safe earth orbit where we can do something constructive with them.

One of the implications of this is that geostationary orbit will not only be the location for communication and power generation, but also for mining and manufacturing.

Communication, a source of energy to last billions of years, mining, manufacturing, earth defense, and "because it's there" - these are some of the high-value goods to be acquired in high-earth orbit.

A Trip Into Space - The Value of a Space Station

The value of a space station

In this trip into space, you so far remain on an observation deck at 0.6 G, enjoying a refreshing drink of your choice, looking out the window at the "bicycle tire" in space, where you sit on the inner rim. Space circles around you at the rate of 1 turn every 80 seconds.

The question arises, "What is the value of a space station?"

Many space enthusiasts, in defending their interest, will try to list a set of instrumental values. They may mention benefits of space-based manufacturing, where weightlessness allows for a better mixing of elements that tend to separate under the influence of gravity. They may mention the spinoff effects, as learning to do this motivates inventions having a use outside the space program.

Some of them are far-fetched rationalizations.

Many will point out, "Every dollar spent on the space program is spent on earth."

It is true that the people who built parts for the International Space Station and who will build the parts for the next space station live in cities on Earth and spend their money at stores on Earth.

However, this would also be true of a program that paid people to do nothing for an hour each day but stand in an empty room and stare at empty walls. They, too, would spend the money they are paid at local stores. However, it does not follow from this that their time is not wasted, and the program that pays them for this time is not a waste of money. People who take this to be a valid defense of a space program have let their passions crowd out their reason.

A space enthusiast may assert that paying people to learn math and engineering is certainly better than paying them to stare at an empty wall. However, it would not answer the challenge of why we cannot have them learn biology and medicine or better construction techniques here on Earth instead. People should be inspired by the challenge of growing food in a growing desert on earth, rather than how to build a community in space. These people still learn something useful - but they also do something useful with what they learn.

An understanding of the nature of value makes it easy to recognize a value that even space enthusiasts often miss - yet it is an important part of their own motivation.

Between 100 and 200 people have died trying to climb Mount Everest. The actual number depends on what counts as "trying to climb Mount Everest". These were young and healthy people. In addition to this cost, we must add the cost in terms of time, energy, and money that went into these expeditions. These people also improved themselves - educated themselves and promoted their physical fitness (and the fitness of those around them).

However, if we looked only at the utility - the usefulness - of spending a few minutes on one square meter of land at the top of Mount Everest, we could not explain this behavior. It has no gold or oil. Not does it have a natural resource such as "Zero Gravity" that can be harvested. The technology of mountain climbing may or may not have developed spin-off effects useful to all of humanity - this hardly seems worth the investment and certainly does not motivate much of it.

An often neglected answer is found in the famous quote of explaining his interest in climbing a mountain. "Because it's there."

This says that we are not to look at the value of mountain climbing in terms of its utility - its usefulness. Or, at least, not entirely in its usefulness. The value of climbing a mountain is found directly in the proposition, "I have climbed a mountain." The value of building a community in space can be found in part in making true the proposition, "We have made a community in space."

A person need not explain - and cannot explain - the value of eating a chocolate cake in terms of its usefulness. It is the eating of a chocolate cake that has value - not its effects.

To some, standing on the observation deck of a space station, watching the universe spin around it, and knowing, "I helped make this happen," is their chocolate cake.

Here, we can still ask whether it would be better to choose another accomplishment. "We have ended childhood malnutrition," or "We have halved illiteracy rates" are better goals than, "We have built a community in space."

Desirism actually invites this question. The value of living on and helping to construct a space station is determined by its relationship to certain desires, the value of those desires are further measured by their capacity to fill yet other desires. While living in space is chocolate cake to some people, is this a desire to encourage or discourage?

In an earlier post, I pointed out that if we were to give up things on the grounds that there are more important things to be done with that time and resources, that space development is far down the list. Sports, computer games, movies and television entertainment, jewelry, cosmetics, dining - all of these represent many billions of dollars and countless hours of labor that could go into "ending childhood malnutrition" and "fighting illiteracy". There are a lot of interests to condemn before we get down to condemning an interest in living and working in space.

On this matter, the desire to explore - to push beyond the horizon - has served humanity well. Without it, we would at best still be a small and impoverished tribe in Africa - and probably extinct. At this point in our history as a species, Earth itself is the equivalent of that valley where the mitochondrial Eve - the biological mother of all humans - was born. For us to lock ourselves on this planet is no different than that tribe locking itself in that valley.

If the call - or the biological nature - of those beings had been, "Do not venture beyond the valley until we have first solved all of our problems at home," it would have remained forever primitive, small, and vulnerable. The land outside the valley holds some of the opportunities for dealing with those problems. Confining everybody to the valley denies them access to those resources.

It would likely be counter-productive to squash this interest with condemnation and ridicule.

There are not only utilitarian reasons to promote the desire to explore and to push outside of our current boundaries, there are utilitarian reasons to explore space. We need energy and other resources - and it is better to harvest them from space than to cut greater and greater scars into the living earth. Space development has contributed directly to improvements in communication, weather and climate monitoring, land management, and GPS navigation. Space development will help to ensure the very survival of the human race, and secure it from harms inflicted by a vast and powerful universe entirely indifferent to its continued existence.

All of these things contribute to the value of a space community. Yet, it is a mistake to focus exclusively on these and to forget the fact that one of the reasons a space community has value is, "Because it's there."

A Trip Into Space - The Desires of the Rich

In my last post, referencing the economics of a space station, I mentioned the fact that there is more money to be had fulfilling the fewer and weaker desires of the rich than the more and stronger desires of the poor.

However, I want to add that "fewer and weaker" does not translate into "worse".

The quality of a desire is not determined by its strength or commonality. It is determined -like the value of all things is determined - by a tendancy to fulfill other desires.

Bill and Melinda Gates' "fewer and weaker desires" are fulfilled by helping to cure malaria and improve education. Their interest in doing good also motivates them to conduct research into what will do the most good. Warren Buffett's interest in doing the most good motivated him to take advantage of Gates' research and donate his money to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

It is important to note that there is a distinction between desires TO fulfill the desires of others and desires THAT fulfill the desires of others. There is no intrinsic value that gives a member of the first family of desires natural superiority over a member of the second family. All value that exists is in the form of a relationship between states of affairs and other desires. An interest in space for its own sake can have value in contributing to the defense of the planet from harms even though it may not be a desire TO protect the people on Earth from the dangers of space.

A small number of billionaires are investing money in space development. This includes Robert Bigalow's investments in inflatable space habitats. Elon Musk's interest in building a reusable rocket to lower the cost of access to space. Paul Allen's interest in winning the X Prize for a suborbital and rapidly reusable suborbital rocket. Richard Branson's interest in turning this into a suborbital business. And all of the rich people who are interested in buying tickets to visit space.

Insofar as the long-term survival of the human race, future access to natural resources such as clean energy and minerals without cutting deeper scars into the living ecosystems of earth, and the very survival of the human race may depend on the infrastructure and knowledge gained from fulfilling these desires, they may well qualify as desires THAT fulfill other desires.

There would be no reason to complain about differences in wealth if those who had wealth universally had good desires. In fact, we can trust the Bill and Melinda Gates' foundation to do far more good with $60 billion than any state program can do with several times as much. The state organization would have to worry about fraud and enforcement in getting the money, and in the several special interests groups that will try to channel it from that which will do the most good into the pockets of their constituents.

Evil arises from those who have wealth but do not have good desires - or who actually have bad desires. Chief among these include the desire is to form an empire and to act like ancient Roman aristocracy or feudal lords and ladies over the "serfs" that work their estates. It can also be found not so much the presence of a bad desire but the absence of a good desire - an utter disregard for the killing, maiming, and physical destruction that results from activities that put money on one's own pocket.

Here on the negative side we can also apply the distinction between a desire TO harm others and desires THAT harm other. Here, too, there is no intrinsic value that makes a member of the first family intrinsically bad and a member of the second family morally neutral. A person cannot absolve himself from responsibility for claiming, "But I did not want to kill and maim and poison others and destroy their propery. I just did not care about the fact that it was possible." We condemn the drunk driver - not for wanting to slaughter the family that they crash into on the highway, but for the disregard evident in putting them at risk. The head of the corporation unconcerned with the potential for his products to destroy classifies him as many orders of magnitude worse than any drunk driver.

In summary, an activity that fulfills the fewer and weaker desires of the wealthy is not necessarily bad. It depends on whether those desires themselves tend to fill other desires. Desires that contribute to access to resources such as energy, and potentially to the prevention of catastrophic disasters, would meet those standards.

A Trip Into Space - The Politics and Economics of a Space Community

In this series about that which has value in space development, I began you on a trip into space.

I have presented the value of a space station in equatorial orbit, understanding motion sickness, and developing the technology to build a modular rotating habitat.

Since then, I left you sitting in an observation room at 0.6 x normal earth gravity, on the inside rim of a bicycle tire in space. The tire is 2 kilometers in diameter, with spokes from the non-rotating hub to the wheel. From your perspective, the non-moving station arches across the top of the sky, while the Earth, moon, sun, and other stars rotate around a full circle every 80 seconds.

You might see "ballast" on the spokes. These are heavy weights that can be pulled up to the center or lowered to the rim. These computer-controlled weights keep the station balanced. They can also be used to speed up the rotation (by drawing them closer to the hub), or slowing the rotation (by dropping them closer to the rim).

How is this community governed?

Political ideologies aside, we already know the form of government that will rule the first space communities. It will be governed like a ship. There will be a captain with near dictatorial powers, answerable to an earth-based authority. That earth-based authority will likely be a nation-state (e.g., China), a company (e.g., Bigalow Aerospace), or an international treaty-based organization. She will command a crew that makes up a substantial percentage of the occupants of the community. Everybody else will be passengers.

The rule of the station will be to obey the Captain in all things - and to obey the crew as they would the Captain. In the end, the Captain will have to demonstrate that there is some sense in which her commands were relevant to securing the safety or profitability of the ship and its crew and passengers. However, she will be given wide discretion in determining how to promote security, but profitability will be determined by the number at the bottom of the balance sheet.

If we are looking for an earth-based analog to what life would be like on board an orbiting station, perhaps the modern cruise ship would be best.

The passengers make the space station possible. It is from their pockets that the money comes to pay the salaries and other bills. "Crew" fits in the category of expense - and there will be pressure to keep the expenses as low as possible. On average, they will have very deep pockets. Space stations will cater to the very rich - people who have the money to do whatever they please. Those who are not spending their own money are spending corporate money on that which they hope to sell to others who have money, or they are spending government money extracted from the taxpayer. Potential items of value will include engineering research, medical research, zero-gravity (or low-gravity) manufacturing, space-based solar power, and communication services.

At this point, we need to introduce another relevant economic fact that is often overlooked. It has to do with the economic effects of differences in wealth.

In determining what type of goods and services to pursue, the space station management organization needs to look at who has - or who can acquire - money that they can be convinced to spend. This involves looking not only at who has the wealth - but who has wealth above and beyond that which they need to provide for the basics of such as food, water, and rudimentary medical care.

While the top 1% may personally own over 30% of the world's wealth, they own substantially more than 30% of that wealth that they can afford to spend after paying for food, shelter, and medical care. Consequently, an orbiting space community (indeed, all economic activity) is best aimed at serving the interests of the wealthiest people on the planet. The effect of unequal wealth distribution is to pull a great deal of economic activity away from serving the interests of those who have more and stronger desires but an inability to pay, and towards the fulfillment of fewer and weaker desires of those with an excessive ability to pay.

I am not saying anything at this point about the ethics of this fact. However, it is a fact. Wealth differences result in an economy that directs resources away from fulfilling the more and stronger desires of those who have less wealth and toward the fulfillment of the fewer and weaker desires of those who have greater wealth. Wealth differences exist. A real-world space station must be built in recognition of real-world facts or it will fail.

To reduce this post to its most basic point - the problems we experience on earth will not vanish above the stratosphere. The orbiting space station will have its own issues to deal with. There will be issues concerning the tradeoff between safety and cost. There will be under-paid and over-worked workers. There will be vast amount of resources devoted to fulfilling the fewer and weaker desires of those with wealth over the more and stronger desires of those who cannot pay. There will be problems with abuse of power. There will be rapes, murders, theft, and abuse.

At the same time we do research on the engineering problems that will be faced in a space station, the social and political problems deserve some of our attention as well.

A Trip Into Space - Low Earth Orbit Space Station

I am taking this week to talk about space development – looking at where research time and money ought to be going with the idea of developing a space-faring community.

I am doing this by taking you on an imaginary trip into space to live – to start a new job and become a member of a community in space.

You have left Earth and are now in low-earth orbit over the equator. As you drift to the orbiting space station, the captain has just turned on the seatbelt sign, directing passengers to strap themselves in for docking.

Outside your window, you can see the space station. But this is not your new home. This is just a stop along the way.

To understand what you see, here are some relevant facts about objects orbiting the earth.

Assume that you are standing in an object in low earth orbit over the equator, facing east (the direction of travel), with the earth below your feet.

There is another object orbiting 1 kilometer to your right.

Forty-five minutes from now, that object will be 1 kilometer to your left. Forty-five minutes after that, it will back to your right again. Thirty-two times per day, it will cross your path. If you are in its way (if it is not at the same time a little ahead of you or a little behind you, then there will be a collision.

If there is an object orbiting 1 kilometer above you then, slowly, it will drift further and further back. Objects in a higher orbit travel more slowly. An object 1 kilometer below you will drift further ahead – the way the inner planets in the solar system speed ahead of the outer planets.

Consequently, you should not expect to see a group of disconnected objects in space orbiting in formation over an extended period of time. When you look out your window, you will see a space station – a single object, perhaps with one or two space ships hovering nearby waiting to dock.

Another relevant fact is that long-term weightlessness is known to cause serious health problems. However, this long-term problem has a solution - a rotating community that simulates gravity through "centrifugal force". The simple fact is that until we have rotating space communities, people will not be living in space. At best, they will visit during short-term work assignments.

One of the reasons for this series (other than the fact that the subject interests me and I enjoy writing about it for its own sake) is to look at what is needed for space settlement. Where should we be investing our time and money?

From the first post - we should be developing a space station in a low equatorial orbit and the least expensive way to get there.

From the second post - we need to find answers to the problem of space sickness for a community whose members will transition from weight to weightlessness on a regular basis.

And we should be working on creating rotating habitats.

The simplest, least expensive form of rotating space station will take two habitats, connect them – perhaps even with something as simple as a set of cables around a central hub, and set it spinning. The resulting station would have a "dumbbell" shape - a sphere or set of disks at each end of a long bar - spinning in space like a baton.

A reasonable distance from the center hub to the outer habitat for the best effect will be about one kilometer. With a rotation of 270 degrees (three quarters of a spin) per minute, this habitat will simulate 0.6 G - which will balance the interest in preventing the harmful effects of weightlessness with the engineering reasons to keep the “weight” of the module, its contents, and the connecting material low.

The space station can be made modular, so that it can grow. A second dumbbell can be built and attached to the first to provide additional living and working space. These modules would be added in pairs of equal mass, perhaps connecting to the first in such a way that, eventually, the dumbbell space station becomes a wheel with spokes.

You will not be fastening one outside module directly to another. The outer module is actually travelling at a rate of more than 275 kilometers per hour in an arc around the central hub. Instead, one would need to set the two new modules spinning at the same rate as the station and then fasten them. Perhaps they will be set spinning on a short cable. Then, when attached, the connecting material will be lengthened as the new habitats move further and further away from the station.

This is going to be a serious engineering challenge – and something that we have many and strong reasons to investigate today.

While there is an interest in spinning the places where people live and work, there are reasons not to spin a lot of the mass that the station would find useful. The solar power arrays that feed the station, for example, would best be attached to the non-spinning hub so that the structure experiences less stress.

The best place for your rocket to dock with the orbiting station will be at this non-spinning hub attached to the center of the station.

After leaving the rocket, you will find your way to an elevator shaft, that will take you 1 kilometer “down” to the habitats. As the elevator descends, you will feel 60 percent of your weight return. Of course, it is not the case that all habitats must be the same distance from the center. Some can be built at 0.25 G, and perhaps others far enough out to simulate 1 G or more. What matters is keeping the wheel balanced.

To do that, there is a weight in the central hub that is shifted around to balance the movements of people and objects though the station. This is the same technology currently used to dampen the effects of swaying in tall buildings.

You have now finished the first leg of your journey. You are in a small room. After settling in to a small room, you have wandered into an observation station. From where you stand, the wheel of the space station – 2 kilometers in diameter – stays motionless “above” you. Meanwhile, the stars and the earth spin at a rate of 1 turn every 80 seconds – like the second hand on a slow clock. You can enjoy something to drink. You can use the bathroom. You can watch rocket ships as they dock and leave. As you do, you can recognize a difference between the long cylinders that travel to and from the Earth, and the stubby non-aerodynamic spheres that travel from station to station in space.

Enjoy your stay. We will be moving along shortly.

A Trip Into Space - Orbit

In yesterday’s post, I got you into orbit.

You are now floating above the equator. While you enjoy weightlessness, the pilot is checking over the systems after launch and making plans to rondezvous with the space station.

You are encouraged to remain seated until the ship docks with the space station. There are a number of reasons for this.

There will be a few rocket burns along the way. With every burn, everything floating in the cabin will approach the part of the ship opposite the direction of acceleration. If the pilot speeds up, everything floating moves towards the back of the ship. If the pilot slows down, everything moves to the front.

However, there will be long periods where no burn is expected. At these times, the captain will turn off the seat-belt sign and allow those who wish to do so to experience weightlessness. "You are now free to float about the cabin."

There is another reasons to remain seated, however.

Weightlessness itself is more than “floating”. If you are in a pool, floating, you weigh just the same as you do on land. The water is holding you up in the same way that a floor holds you up – it simply changes its shape fit your body.

Even a sky diver in free fall is not “weightless”. When the sky diver reaches terminal velocity, the pressure of the air blowing past balances the pull of gravity. The sky diver us still falling, but she has stopped accelerating.

To get a better idea of what true weightlessness is like, imagine falling with your eyes closed – with no wind or anything else actually telling you that you are falling. Still, nothing holds you up. Alternatively, if you have ever been flying and hit turbulence, those few seconds where it feels that the plane is falling away from you, you are approaching weightlessness. That feeling is what it will feel like to be weightless. Only, it never ends.

In space, you are in a perpetual state of falling.

Some people will have difficulty when experiencing this. Some training is useful to get a person accustomed to the sensation. An airplane can simulate weightlessness for about 25 seconds. It is odd that this is called a “simulation”, since the passengers for those 25 seconds are actually weightless.

Even with training, it takes some professional astronauts several days to become accustomed to weightlessness lasting more than a few seconds. Not knowing which way is “up” (because there is no “up”) their brain struggles to make sense of these new sensations. As the trip to the space station continues, and the sensation of gravity remains absent, more and more fellow travelers will begin to experience increasingly severe motion sickness.

NASA gives a day or two for its astronauts to become accustomed to weightlessness. The best relief seems to be to remain still, eyes closed, and to not move one's head. Motion-sickness medication also works.

This is not only a problem for those who enter space. The best place to work and live in space is in an environment of simulated gravity. However, this means transitioning to weightlessness on a regular basis. Some people can work in a weightless environment by day and return to simulated gravity when their shift ends, but not many.

Solving this problem will reduce one of the most significant costs of living and working in space.

The best place to do research on these types of problems is in space itself. One needs to send people into space for a day or two to try different things. There is a chance, when space travel is more common, that medical science will find another solution - one that allows people to avoid these sensations entirely.

Another issue that will become apparent after a few minutes springs from the fact that we evolved in a gravity well. Our bodies evolved to push liquids to the head and upper body against gravity. These systems continue to work in space. The face becomes swollen as you feel a pressure of the blood (and other liquids) pooling in the head - much like the sensation of standing on one's head.

After a couple of hours, you will be asked to return to your seat for docking. The spaceship you are travelling in has drifted near enough to the space station to start docking maneuvers. You can see the space station out the window. I will describe it to you in the next post.

A Trip Into Space - Launch

This week I am going to have some fun describing life in space.

However, this will not be a frivolous waste of time. There are certain facts about living and working in space that have important implications for how we spend resources on that project. Some of these facts are ignored in our our current space program.

For example, we should be working towards an equatorial space station (a space station on an orbit directly over the equator).

One of the relevant facts is that we do not want to be making any turns in space.

An object in near-earth orbit is moving approximately 7.7 kilometers per second (about 17,500 miles per hour). Making a right turn requires twice as much energy as it took to get that object moving at this speed to start with (minus the effort taken to lift it). To turn an object 90 degrees to the right, one must reduce its forward speed from 7.7 km/s to 0.0, while increasing its speed to the right from 0 to 7.7. In an atmosphere, one can use drag and lift to bring about these effects. To reduce the need to turn, we should build things in their most useful orbit - and for big projects that is an equatorial orbit.

Another of these relevant facts is that the least expensive route from space into orbit starts with flying east along the equator on earth and ends at a space station in low earth orbit over the equator.

The reason is because an object flying east at, let us say, 350 miles per hour picks up another 1000 miles per hour just from the spin of the earth. This is how fast a spot on the equator is moving as the earth spins. This gives you your first 0.6 of the 7.7 km/s at a low cost.

These facts, and others argue that we should be investing in an equatorial space station - and that whomever does so first will have an advantage in controlling the gateway to space.

Given this fact, your trip into space will start at a space port near the equator. You will board what will be recognizable as a standard conventional airplane - wings, engine. You will take your seat, and extra emphasis will be placed on everything being secured. You will likely be required to put on a certified flight suit (overalls) before boarding - and may be at least advised to wear a mask that covers your nose and mouth.

You will take off, fly to the equator, and turn east - and climb.

Do not expect to be served anything on your flight that might produce crumbs or might spill.

When you are going as high and as fast as the plane can get you, you will be warned to prepare for launch. A last check will be made that everything is secure and everybody is fastened in their seats. There will likely be a countdown.

When the countdown reaches 0 you will become instantly weightless as the rocket separates from the airplane. While you drop, the plane that brought you climbs up and away. When you are clear of the plane, the rockets fire, pushing you back into your seat as if somebody sat a bag on your chest that weighs twice as much as you do.

This will last about 4 minutes. During that time the sky outside the window grows black, and the curve of the earth grows noticeable below you.

Then comes main-engine cut-off, and you will be weightless. The seat will actually push you up into your straps.

Anything that was not secured will start to float about the cabin. This actually creates a risk - since these things can be inhaled. The flight suit and mask are to both keep loose things from floating around the cabin, and to prevent people from inhaling things that are missed.

You will also likely be expected to wear a pair of diapers during your space flight. Leaving your seat to go to a weightless bathroom is going to be a real bother - and, in fact, create a risk for yourself and others. It would be best not to bother. Astronauts today are already accustomed to this. It is a very simple solution to a human need - and one where embarrassment is out of place.

Another problem that the space industry will have to deal with is the fact that this sudden change from 1G to 0G to 3G to 0G - with an extended amount of time in 0G - is not going to set well with some people's stomachs. Barf bags may be sufficient - though some people will not complete this maneuver successfully.

Science fiction has the luxury of simply ignoring unpleasant realities it does not want to deal with. Real space travel will not have that option. When people really go into space on a regular basis - these will be some of the realities they will have to deal with.

Well, you are in orbit now, with your fellow passengers. You are weightless. You will probably be free to move around the cabin, look out the window, and enjoy your flight. It will take several hours to rondezvous with the space station.

A Plan to Sell the Moon

My Wild Scheme - Auctioning the Moon

This post is fantasy - something I find pleasing to imagine but not something I expect to become real. However, it contains within it some important considerations on the nature of value - particularly as it relates to both space development and the care of young children.

Step 1: Create an international organization dedicated to providing children age 12 and under with proper nutrition, health care, and education.

Though I have some strong views about the nature of this organization - that nutrition, health care, and education all be guided by science rather than religion - I also recognize a political reality. This organization will represent a compromise among people with a wide variety of views and, consequently, will not be entirely pleasing to any one individual or group. The need for political compromise is a fact of life, and has to be admitted at the start.

Step 2: Fund the organization.

For funding, I recommend the following:

Give the organization an international license to sell property in space - on the moon, on Mars, the Martian moons, the asteroids, the moons of Jupiter and Saturn, and so on.

Let me present an image of the first auction.

The action is for the land in a block 100 kilometers wide and 100 kilometers long with the Apollo 11 landing site at its center.

16 square kilometers (4 km x 4km) at the center is not for sale. It is a historical preserve with the untrammeled Apollo 11 landing site at its center. No development is permitted.

20 square kilometers around this (the outer 1 kilometer of a 6 km x 6 km block at the center) is reserved for the association of property owners that is to be formed after the auction. I envision an association where each property owner is given 1 vote for each plot of land that they own - and residents (if there are any) also getting a vote. However, the details here - like those above - are subject to negotiation.

The remaining 964 square kilometers is divided into plots of land 100 meters wide and 100 meters long - a total of 964,000 plots of land.

These plots are all put up for sale in a huge auction. A bidding system is set up so that bidders can log in, identify a plot of land, and put a bid on it - similar to that which is already used in online auctions such as on e-Bay.

On the day the auction closes, the high bidders for each plot of land make good on their bid. The plots of those who do not make good on their bid go back to the international organization for the care, feeding, and education of children to be re-auctioned. The money collected is also handed over to the organization, with the highest bidder for each plot becoming the legitimate internationally recognize owner of that plot of land.

The property owners' association will collect dues from each property owner, as well as rents from the 20 square kilometers of land given to it, and from the sale of any goods and services it can offer on the market. The organization, for example, may arrange for a lunar orbiter to take very high resolution images of the moon and sell those images to property owners, or arrange for a lunar rover to land, or a sample-return mission, or even to send people to the area. It will also, no doubt, be involved in defending and defining certain rights and duties of the property owners in court and in internal negotiations.

The surface area of the moon is such that there can be 3800 auctions of this size. There can me 14,480 similarly sized auctions for property on Mars, 7480 auctions respecting property on Mercury, and 46,020 auctions for property on Venus - though its surface is so far out of reach. There can also be auctions for asteroids, property on the moons of the gas giants (e.g., Titan), Pluto and other Kuiper belt objects, the Oort cloud objects, and (though premature at this point) planets known to orbit other stars.

Of course, I am putting no weight on the claim that auctions must take the form of 100 meter x 100 meter plots. In fact, some auctions should not be auctioned this way. Small asteroids and comets should be auctioned off whole. Ice fields in the dark craters of the lunar poles should be auctioned by the patch (though particularly large patches should be auctioned in sections). The specifics of the auction are, like the other elements, subject to negotiation. However, the principle behind these auctions is that they are used to fund an organization that is dedicated to the feeding, care, and education of young children.

I tend to fit responses to such a plan into three categories.

The first category is the "devil is in the details" category. They concern disputes and concerns about how the details of the project. How should the auction be handled? What should be auctioned? What rights - exactly - does one person have? What powers would the property owner's association have? Who will have the responsibility to make laws governing this land? There are similar questions to be asked with respect to making sure that the aid actually goes to children and not to warlords. Which children? Who decides, and how do they decide?

A second category of responses is like the first, but it declares its problem to be insurmountable - and are offered as reasons to reject such a project entirely.

The third category of objections are objections in principle. "This project should not take place because there should not be any property ownership," or "The International Organization does not have a legitimate natural right to sell this property." This category provides an interesting framework for discussing moral and political theory.

Though, in the end, it must be admitted that this is a dream. It is a very good dream, but a dream nonetheless.

Desirism and Self-Sacrifice

A good person never sacrifices his own interests for the well-being of another.

This is not because a good person is selfish. Rather, it is because a good person is a person that has those interests that tend to fulfill the desires of others. A good person may rush into a burning building to save her children. However, this is not an act of self-sacrifice. It is the best way available to her (we may assume) to realize her own interest in her children's well-being.

A good person has an interest in being somebody others can depend on and in being honest. He enjoys helping others, and prefers spending money to provide a child with medicine to prevent blindness to buying tickets to a local sporting event or concert. He is not giving up anything he values when he does this. Instead, he is realizing the things that he values - he is pursuing the things that interest him. It's just that what interests him are things that produce benefits to others.

This topic comes up because of a post I wrote on space development.

In that post, I discussed the claim that money sent on space development is wasted and we should worry about the problems we have here on Earth before spending money on a space program.

One of me answers to this assertion is to note that if we are looking for something to cut spending on so that we can "solve the problems here on earth," the space program sits pretty far down the list. I mentioned computer games, movies, sports, and dining. I added jewelry, cosmetics, and ocean cruises.

We can clearly argue that the making of a film version of "The Hobbit" can wait until we have solved sone of the problems here on Earth. The 3 to 4 billion dollars people will spend on movie tickets for the trilogy can help a lot of children.

This invited a criticism (often applied to act-utilitarian theories, where it is valid) - that the theory is too demanding. It seems that one must give up very thing that one enjoys as long as there is a hungry child in the world.

For example, this has been a constant criticism of Peter Singer's preference-satisfaction act utilitarianism. "One should always perform the act that satisfies the most preferences, regardless of whose they are."

However, desirism is not so much about what we should do as much as it is about what we should want. It is not about sacrificing an interest in seeing "The Hobbit" so that one can provide health care to a sick child. It is about being interested in providing health care to a sick child instead of having an interest to see "The Hobbit." The good person does not say, "I would love to see 'The Hobbit', but my money should go to feeding the poor instead." Instead, her interest in seeing, "The Hobbit" is like her interest in watching grass grow. She sacrifices nothing in refusing to see "The Hobbit" because she does not care to see it.

Because she has this particular set of interests, the world is a better place than it would be if she was somebody who wanted to see "The Hobbit" but cared nothing about the welfare of a sick child. People generally have more and stronger reasons to promote the first set of interests over the second, and to use praise and condemnation to realize this end.

I do not write this from a position of perfect virtue. I spend time doing things where I know there is little to no reason to praise people who have those interests. I can be found wasting time with a computer game where an interest in something else would be motivating me to do more good. I spend money on dining that could better be spent helping those who are starving. However, the quality of the interests I have does not change what people generally have reason to promote or inhibit through praise and condemnation.

However, my personal interests do not change the fact of what people generally have more and stronger reason to praise or to condemn. People, of course, want to see themselves as more worthy of praise and less worthy of condemnation. Consequently, there is a tendancy to adopt absurd arguments that boost the value of one's own likes. Yet, the fact of the matter remains stubbornly independent of the agent's personal interests.

Furthermore, it is a mistake to interpret this argument as claiming that, "We must force people to give up what they enjoy so that the resources can go to something more useful." It is, instead, an argument about which interests we have reason to promote and which we have reason to inhibit. If people enjoyed working toward better health care for all children a little more, and cared a little less about who will win the Super Bowl, so that they spend more time and money on the former and less time and money on the latter, the world would be a better place. But they are not sacrificing an interest in sports to provide health care for children. Instead, they would not have the interest in sports to sacrifice.

This is the way desirism looks at moral issues. A good person and the villain are alike in doing what they like. The difference is not found in what they do except insofar as what they do is a by-product of what they want.

How to Refute Desirism

Ultimately, desirism is built on the proposition that desires are the only end-reason for intentional action that exist. If one wishes to refute desirism there are two options:

One option is to show that desirism claims too much. The leading contender in this realm is "eliminative materialism" - the thesis that there are no desires. Here, the claim s that a modern theory of action - informed by neuroscience - will come up with a way to explain and predict behavior that makes no mention of "desires" or anything like them. When this happens, desires will be put in the trash bin of failed explanations such as aether, phlogiston, and demonic possession. Anything grounded on desires - such as desirism - will be trashed as well.

My sense is that desirism is most vulnerable from attacks from this direction. In fact, I expect findings in neuroscience will almost certainly require some modifications what we know about intentional action - resulting in some modification to our understanding of what desires are and how they work. Whether this will bend desirism past the breaking point remains to be seen.

In many cases, findings will only require a modification to desirism. For example, I typically assert that an agent acts to fulfill the most and strongest of his own desires given his beliefs. Technically, this is not true.

For example, I conveniently ignore the role of habit - which can cause an agent to perform an intentional action other than the act that will fulfill the most and strongest of his desires given his beliefs. I can switch two letters on the keyboard to my computer. My desire to type a post remains constant. Since I am the one that switched the keys, I know they have been switched. However, habit would sometimes cause me to press a key typing the wrong letter. My action in this case is not explained in terms of what would fulfill the most and strongest of my desires given my beliefs.

This does not threaten desirism. Habits - in addition to beliefs and desires - work to cause intentional actions. However, habits do not provide end-reasons for intentional action. That is to say, habits do not determine our goals. They simply establish a means to obtain those goals that require less mental energy than conscious deliberation.

I leave habit out of the picture because including it adds complexity without clarity. It is my version of the physics teacher's habit of talking about frictionless pulleus and massless strings. Yes, we know these things exist and they add complexity to the system. However, to understand the parts we are focused on (end-reasons for intentional action) we can ignore them for now.

This discussion of habit illustrates some of the components of a legitimate refutation of desirism. Habit provides a way of explaining a set of observable events that belief-desire theory cannot handle (typing the wrong key when the keys are switched). This gives us a reason to postulate habits. Somebody who wants to refute desirism will also need to come up with something - something real and observable - that desirism cannot handle.

The second form of attack against desirism holds that desirism claims too little. These attacks claim that there are end-reasons for intentional action in addition to desires. Examples include devine commands, intrinsic values, categorical imperatives, social contracts, and a natural moral law.

This is the most common form of attack against desirism. However, it is also the form of attack that I hold to have almost zero chance of success. What do these end-reasons for intentional action that are not a desires look like? How did they come into existence? How can we reliably detect them? Without answers to these questions and others like them - and without a set of real-world observations that these theoretical end-reasons explain - we can dismiss them as fiction.

The most common form for this objection to take is to argue that there are circumstances in which desirism implies S, and S must be rejected, and therefore desirism itself must be rejected. That is to say, the critic attempts to reduce desirism to an absurdity.

For example, the critic might invent a scenario where desirism supports slavery of genocide. However, we all know that slavery and genocide are always wrong, so desirism must be rejected. Therefore, desirism must be rejected.

My first answer will be to say, "I am still waiting for a demonstration of the existence of these other end-reasons for intentional action. What are they? How did the come into existence? How do we reliably detect them?" Critics always fail these tests.

What the critic usually gives us is a conclusion they do not like. It I settles their stomach and causes them anxiety. From this, they conclude that the conclusion must be false, and desirism must be rejected. Their argument tends to be convicing (while remaining invalid) when the listener or reader shares this sense of emotional anxiety over the possibility of accepting the conclusion.

However, there is no valid inference from, "I do not like your conclusion." to "Therefore, it is false."

In many cases, desirism cannot only explain this anxiety, but can justify it. We can perhaps invent a story where there are beings in that world that have no reason to reject slavery. However, this does not change the fact that the people reading that example and looking at the conclusion are beings that exist in this world. In this world, we have many and strong reasons to promote a strong aversion to genocide or slavery. Thus, we have many and strong reasons to promote in others a feeling of anxiety whenever they read a story in which the beings in that story have little reason to reject slavery or genocide.

Because of these reasons, we do not want to say that the genocide or the slavery in the story is "permissible". This implies that the reader or listener ought not to feel any anxiety or unease over the states that exist in the story. Yet, we have reason to worry about reducing that moral/emotional to slavery or genocide. We have reason to reinforce the feelings of anxiety over seeing the slavery or genocide in the story as "legitimate".

However, this means that we have many and strong reasons to continue to call the slavery or genocide in the story "wrong", even where the beings in the story have no reason to reject it. This is because we are not directing the word "wrong" at the beings in the story. We are directing it at our fellow readers - praising fellow readers who have a strong negative reaction to a story of slavery or genocide while condemning those who do not.

Consequently, there is no real-world observation in the fact of our feeling of anxiety over a story that reports to describe slavery or genocide as "permissible" or in our reasons to promote similar anxiety on the part of others. There is no real-world observation that desirism cannot explain.

This is what I am waiting for on the part of those who claim to refute desirism. "These are the observations that your theory cannot explain. Here is the end-reason for intentional action that I am using to explain it. Here is its description. Here's how you can find it in the real world."

I am looking for something more than, "Desirism implies S, and I don't want S to be true." Or even, "Not only do I not like your conclusion, I and others have many and strong desire-based real-world reasons to want others to dislike your conclusion as well."

Public Funding for Space Development

Government Funding for Space Development

This article concerns the case for the public funding of space development - a case that even a Republican should accept.

The main case is quite simple. Clearly it qualifies as national defense to protect the nation from an asteroid impact. It would be odd at best to argue that public funding can be legitimately spent in protecting the country from a missile launched by a foreign government, but not one launched by nature.

There are certain principles in play that argue for the use of public funds to provide for the common defense. The main argument concerns the difficulty in establishing a national defense that protects just those who pay for it, while leaving those who live next door undefended. A fire department can say, "We will not risk saving your house because you did not pay your dues," but the provider of an anti-missile defense cannot help but protect non-payers and payers alike.

In economics, this is known as the free-rider problem. The people who will get the benefit even if they do not pay have little incentive to pay. Their small contribution will not determine whether or not such a system is built, or whether or not their house will be protected. Consequently, there is little incentive to contribute.

To get around this free-rider problem, national defense is treated as a public good. Everybody - or everybody who has a surplus that they can share - is forced to pay "a fair amount" to make sure that national defense is not underfunded. We may dispute what a fair amount is - an equal dollar value for each person, a proportional amount of income, a proportional amount of property, a greater percentage by those with the most income reflecting the diminishing marginal value of their surplus dollars. However, regardless of the specifics, the principle is that the government forces people to make a contribution through taxes to prevent the underfunding brought about by the free rider problem.

The same argument apples to providing for a defense from criminals. A rapist, caught and confined to where they can do no harm, is a benefit for (nearly) everybody. However, it is a benefit whether one pays for it or not. This, too, generates a free rider problem. People have an incentive not to ay and simply harvest the benefits that come from the benefits of others. To ensure that police protection is properly funded, everybody is forced to contribute whether they want to or not.

Protecting the country from a spaced-based threat faces exactly the same free rider problem that we find in national defense. It is just the type of project that would tend to be under-funded as each individual sought to ride for free on the contributions made by those around them.

In fact, this applies to the scientific understanding of all forms of natural disasters. Protecting people from earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, sea-level rise, tsunamis, plagues, and tornados also suffers from a free-rider problem comparable to national defense. The government's responsibility to provide for the common defense applies equally to a defense from space-based and other natural (and global man-made) disasters.

The widespread destruction of a city when a hurricane breaches a levy is as much a legitimate cause for government concern as the flooding of a city when a terrorist breaches a levy.

It is important here to recognize that the space program provides protection from things other than space-based threat. Space-based weather monitoring - warning people of hurricane and other forms of extreme weather in time to save lives and property - has already provided a benefit far in excess of its cost. It also helps to inform us of the threat of global warming, and the climatic changes we can expect in certain parts of the world in time to avoid the greatest costs.

The national defense budget of for 2013 exceeds $500 billion. Republicans themselves embrace the arguments that at least some federal spending on a project such as this is legitimate and important. All of the arguments justifying a public national defense are applicable to providing for a public natural defense.

Of course, not everything that NASA spends money on can be defended using this argument. In fact, not everything NASA spends money on can be defended.

Alternatives to Spending on Space Development

Today, I will take up one of the most commonly heard objections to spending money on space development - that we have real problems on earth that deserve the money. The argument I will address says that we should cancel space development and use the money to fight poverty, provide education, clean up the environment, cure cancer, bring peace to the middle east, and accomplish any number of other tasks.

However, if we were to list the things that people waste money on - from most wasteful to least wasteful - we would find space development far down the list.

Here are some items that would be nearer the top of the list:

Video Games: Nearly $25 billion. This is half again as large as the annual NASA budget. While NASA uses the money to expand our knowledge and understanding of the world around us, the video game industry invites people to waste huge amounts of time accomplishing nothing of value. In fact, the greatest cost of the video game industry is not the billions of dollars spent on the games and game equipment. It is in the huge loss of (potential) labor hours and brain power on the part of people who are distracted from real-world issues by these game. They could otherwise have been spending a portion of that time educating themselves on real-world issues and working on potentially intelligent and informed solutions.

Movie Industry: $65 Billion. There is practically nothing in the movie industry that is of real value. Even when it deals with real-world concerns, it often misinformed and presents fallacious arguments - the most often form of rhetoric being an appeal to emotions that themselves are manipulated by editing, music, and other techniques.

Sports Industry: Over $400 Billion. Some of this money goes to promoting physical fitness. Yet, it is hard to deny that the money spent on the tickets to a football game can be better spent finding a vaccine for malaria. I know people who can cite sports statistics with ease who could not locate Afghanistan on a map.

Restaurant Industry: $600 Billion. Stop at the grocery store on the way home, pick up something to eat, save $20, and donate the money to cancer research. This amount wasted on the restaurant industry does not include the health care and other costs of obesity - which not only would include money spent on food one does not need (or food that gets thrown out), but avoidable health care costs as well.

Let's add vacation cruises, gambling, smoking and other forms of drug use, television (particularly sit-coms and "reality" television), cosmetics, jewelry, and food packaging.

There are countless other examples.

Defenders of these industries will often talk about the jobs created and their contribution to the economy. Yet, they seem to think that everybody in their industry would not be able to find work elsewhere. If we move $100 billion from the sports industry and used it to find child health care services instead, the sports industry will suffer a loss of jobs, but the child health care industry would likely have a few new job opportunities.

I will not pretend to be a paradigm of virtue when it comes to the proper use of one's time and money. However, objections that would take this form qualify as "ad hominem" arguments. Desirism admits that a person will aim to fulfill his or her current desires - good and bad. However, it further asks about the quality of the desires, measuring them by their capacity to fulfill other desires. It is almost certainly the case that if people (including me) liked computer games and dining less, and liked contributing to medical research and early childhood health care more, it would be a better world.

Any time and money that I waste on these things does not make false any of the claims that I have made in this post. It does not make it the case that there is any sense to the claim that the fate of the world depends on diverting a few billion dollars from space development - an industry with the potential to save the planet - and move it instead into "something else". There are trillions of dollars out there available to be moved from less useful activities, before one even begins to eye space development as a source of funds for these other projects.

Taking Care of What We Have

A comment on an earlier post represents a common attitude about the space program.

Breakerslion wrote:

Seems a lot easier to take care of what we have.

.

No argument was presented, leaving a response open.

There are three answers available. The first is that this is not an either-or question. In fact, it is not even possible to "take care of what we have" without a space program. Recall my earlier posts about the threat of asteroid impacts and other space-based threats. The dinosaurs were not particularly abusive of what they had. They also did not have a space program.

Remember, astronomers searching for asteroids are not asking, "Will we be hit?" They are asking, "Which one will hit us next, and how much time do we have?"

The second response is to ask, "What are your plans for taking care of what we have?"

When it comes it harvesting minerals and energy, we have two options - harvest them on earth, or harvest them off-earth. Every act of harvesting resources on earth is an act that cuts into a living ecosystem. Whereas every act of harvesting resources in space involves working in an area without life - without an ecosystem to harm.

Of all of the options available for energy, fossil fuels threaten global warming and oil spills, wind chops up birds, the waste from manufacturing solar cells is toxic, dams drown whole ecosystems. A solar powered satellite in space, built in space from material mined in space damages nothing on earth.

Beaming that energy down to earth might have environmental impacts on earth. However, a large amount of this energy can be used in space as well. Instead of beaming the energy to earth, it could be used to mine an asteroid, refine the metals, and use those metals in manufacturing. The manufactured items can be shipped to earth, saving the planet from the stress of all of the preliminary steps.

Besides, the people living and working in space would also be living and working without putting stress on the earth. Certainly, they will need to be supplied from earth at the start, but they will be working to reduce that dependency over time - if only to save on shipping costs.

In addition, one of the main technologies that will be developed in space will be recycling - recycling the air,the water, the bio-mass. For somebody who wants to "take care of what we have," these technologies would likely be seen as important.

In the future, when there are 10 million people living in orbiting cities, getting their energy from the sun, mining the asteroids, and farming climate-controlled and pest-free farming pods, then there will be 10 million people not putting a stress on the Earth. Then 100 million. Then, a billion.

I imagine the earth itself, someday, becoming an ecological preserve with the dirtiest and most destructive jobs moved off-planet. This is wild speculation - but it illustrates a point. The degree to which we get what we need (including places to live) in the dead of space, to that degree we can do a better job of "taking care of what we have" on earth.

Breakerslion also provided a distopian story and asked:

Extrapolate that to a whole lot of vacuum outside.

.

But that describes the Earth, too. A place to live with a whole lot of vacuum outside. If somebody has a problem living in a biosphere surrounded by vacuum, that is a very serious problem indeed.

Harvesting Asteroids

What is the carrying capacity of the asteroid belt? By this, I mean that irradiated vacuum-packed collection of rocks and gravel equalling 3 percent of the Earth's mass that orbits mostly between Mars and Jupiter?

It is probably in the trillions.

It has the capacity to be used to generate orbiting communities with a land surface area greater than that of 10,000 climate-controlled earths.  Growing areas can be made perfect for growing crops - with perfect temperatures, sunlight, and nutrients - all free of potential disease or pests.

It begins by taking an asteroid and using its material to build a shell in space. For simplicity, imagine a tin can kilometers in diameter and kilometers long.

Much of the mass for such a structure is its 1 meter thick shell - used to shield those inside from cosmic rays. This shell can be made of anything. There is no need to look for any type of special construction materials. All that us needed us mass - enough mass to stop most of the cosmic radiation that hits it.

This mass does not need to be set spinning. It simply floats in space. In fact, you would not want it to spin. Spinning that much mass will only create forces that will try to tear the cylinder apart. 

It's occupants will likely want an artificial gravity, however. That can be simulated by setting the structures inside spinning - like a roller coaster car on a track on the inside of the can. Made large enough, nobody will perceive the motion.

Physics being what it is, a spinning interior will transmit angular momentum to the exterior over time. This problem can be solved by having sections in the living area turning in opposite directions. For a 12 kilometer city, one could have the first three kilometers and last three kilometers spinning one direction, and the middle six spinning the other direction.

Constructed in this way, the material in the asteroid belt contains enough material to create the surface area equivalent of over 10,000 earths.

Each square kilometer of surface area on the Earth is supported by 2000 cubic kilometers of material beneath it. In space, a city constructed as described will require less than 0.002 cubic kilometers of material per square kilometer of (interior) surface area. Undoubtedly, much of that material will go to things other than creating surface area. Half? 90 percent? Using just 1 percent of this material to create surface area means the equivalent of 300 earths.

Furthermore, the earth is made up largely of oceans, mountains, deserts, jungles, and other inhospitable places. The inside of a space city is built the way it's inhabitants want it to be built. The temperature, humidity, are all determined by public will.

This will also be true of the farming pods. There will be no drought. No plague of locusts. No"growing season" bounded by harsh winters where the land must sit idol. Not only are we talking about the surface area of 300 earths. We are talking about earths that are made up, 100 percent, of the best land in the best climate for living or growing food.

Consequently, we are talking about earth-equivalent of land areas that can hold far more than the 7billion people of Earth itself.

So . . . . 

300 earth-equivalent land area * 20 billion people per earth-equivalent (which is far less crowded than our current land area on Earth) = 6 trillion people.

Which is the carrying capacity of a collection of airless, radiated rocks in space.

And any asteroid turned into space cities is an asteroid that is not going to hit earth.

The value of a space program is found in the desires that it fulfills - the propositions P that are true in the program itself and the effects of that program. 300 earth-equivalents of living space is available as a consequence of the space program. It can be used to fulfill a lot of desires.

Space Impacts

What is the value of a space program?

Value is determined by a relationship between what is true of a state of affairs and its consequences and what people desire - combined with a second order evaluation of whether those desires themselves are malleable desires that people have reason to promote or inhibit.

Yesterday, I wrote about the desire-thwarting potential of an asteroid impact.

The main conclusion of yesterday's discussion is that there is a near-certainty of a future impact that it would be worth over $1 trillion to avoid. It is a mistake to think that astronomers are looking at asteroids to answer the question, "Will we get hit?" They are looking at asteroids to answer the question, "Which one will hit us next and when?"

However, the "present value" of avoiding an impact far in the future may be very low. Even if we were mathematically certain of an asteroid impact 1 million years from now, it scarcely warrents a lot of investment today. We are, for example, quite confident in predictions that the earth will be destroyed in about 5 billion years - but that does not justify any sort of panic today.

We will certainly need a space program at some time. It's worth will be in th hundreds of trillions of dollars. But maybe not today.

Yet, asteroid impacts are not the only threats we face from space.

Another is the threat of long period comets - comets whose orbits are measured in tens of thousands of years. Comet Hyukatake was discovered 53 days before passing within 10 million miles of Earth. It may have been discovered 53 days before hitting earth. Here, too, the threats of an impact are exceptionally low, but not zero.

Another potential threat comes from rogue planets. These are planet-sized objects that either formed in space like very small stars, or formed around a star but was ejected into interstellar space by the gravity wars with other planets. Astronomers estimate that there are more rogue planets than stars. They are difficult to see. Furthermore, they do not need to strike the earth to cause significant problems. Their mass would affect all orbits within the solar system. We may have cleaned out our orbital ring to some degree over the past 4.5 billion years, but it will not likely stay clean.

There is also the issue of a near flyby of another star. Fortunately, since stars glow brightly in the dark, they are easier to see. This, in turn, makes it easier to predict any stellar fly-bys. GL710, currently not even visible to the naked eye, will be one of the brightest stars in the sky in 1.4 million years as it passes a little more than 1light year away from the sun. It will have an effect on the Oort Cloud, potentially sending long-period comets into the inner solar system.

Of course, this easily qualifies as "too far in the future to worry about today."

While we are on the subject, I would like to mention another future impact - when the Andromeda galaxy collides with the Milky Way. This will throw the orbit of everything into chaos. This is worth mentioning, not because it justifies taking steps to protect our descendants from this collusion today, but to illustrate an obvious but often overlooked fact about space events compared to terrestrial events. It is a threat we did not even know about 100 years ago.

Space events are potentially very, very large. And the earth is very, very small. No earthquake, super-volcano, hurricane, or winter storm can carry the destructive (desire-thwarting) potential of events in space. Furthermore, the universe, like a lumbering giant in a field of ants, cares nothing about who lives or dies. If we want to survive, it is up to us to determine where the giant will step next and make sure we are not standing where it happens to be stepping.

The way we do that is with a space program.

This is at least some of the value of a space program.

The Cost of Asteroid Avoidance

The value of a space program, like the value of anything, is determined by the desires it fulfills or thwarts.

The meteor impact in Russia injured approximately 1500 people and caused tens of millions of dollars worth of damage. The asteroid that narrowly missed the Earth on the same day was three times the length - potentially 27 times the mass - of the Russian meteor.

The asteroid that missed us was approximately the same size as the one that created Meteor Crater in Arizona. However, the composition of the meteor is also important. Meteor Crater was created by an iron-nickle asteroid likely to survive its trip through the atmosphere in one piece. The meteor that hit Russia was a stoney meteor likely to burst in the air.

Of course, the composition of the meteor is also important. The meteor that created Meteor Crater in Arizona was the same size as the asteroid that narrowly missed on Friday, but was a nickel-iron meteor that tends to survive the atmosphere and hit as a solid chunk. The Tunguska Comet that hit in 1908 and destroyed over 2000 square miles of forest. It could ave destroyed 2000 square miles of buildings.

Unfortunately, as an argument for or against a course of action, these types of facts can be deceptive. Humans do a poor job at risk assessment. They tend to read numbers like this, measure the emotion generated by the numbers, and use that as their guide about what to do. This method is not only highly fallible - it is easy manipulated.

Those who have a stake in motivating others to act on the threat have a stake in presenting these facts in a context of, "OH MY GOD WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE!" while those who do not want money devoted to addressing the threat will focus on the low odds and, "You are more likely to be hit by lightning - or shot" (ignoring the fact that it is far less likely that a lightning strike or a gunman can wipe out the human race).

These types of decisions are not wisely trusted to the gut instincts of people reacting to a hyped up news event. It is a decision best made by a calculated decision of the risks and costs.

An example of the type of decision model I am talking about rational decision model for mitigating an asteroid impact can be found http://www.nss.org/resources/library/planetarydefense/2003-DecisionModelForPotentialAsteroidImpacts.pdf

This paper reports that the potential harm of all known threats are so unlikely that they justify no more than $10,000 in response. However, it does not address the question of the value of discovering a threat we do not yet know about - one that would justify a response in the range that exceeds hundreds of millions of dollars.

There is a nearly 100% chance that we will someday discover a potential impact worth a response in the range of hundreds of trillions of dollars (over several years). We have had several such impacts in the past, and it is almost certain that we will experience similar impacts in the future.

That is to say, if we were to map all of the asteroids and plot their moves well into the future, we will identify the next big impact worthy of a multi-billion (multi-trillion) dollar response. It is out there, waiting to be found. One of those big rocks out there will hit us someday. We just do not know which ones, or when. While many people probably think about this problem in terms of "Whether we will be hit," and answer, "Probably not," professionals in the field are asking, "Which one will hit us next, and when?"

It will be interesting when they announce, "The next big impact will be Asteroid A in on (date)"

Yet, even here there is an issue of applying a discount rate - representing the lower present value of things in the future. If we assume a 5% discount rate - a number I pulled out of the air but which illustrates the concern - a $100 trillion expense 500 years from now only has a present value of less than $800 dollars. There are moral issues concerned with discounting future interests; however, another interpretation of the discount rate is that we simply do not know what resources or interests a future generation will have (or even whether the future generation will even exist).

We may want to include in this the uncertainty over whether people in 500 years will have a space program. However, we are involved in assessing the value of having a space program. There would be a problem with arguing that "we should not invest money in a space program because we assume that future generations have a large and effective space program."

This post illustrates some of the types of concerns associated with determining the value of a space program. As in many things involving risk, gut feeling is not to be trusted. We spend huge amounts of money - and even spend lives - avoiding a very small chance of being killed by terrorists, while devoting significantly less money to avoid the much larger chance of being killed by the next pandemic or asteroid.

It is enough to say that those who think that investment in space development is a waste of time, and those who think it is clearly worthwhile, are - in many cases - both irresponsibly jumping to unjustified conclusions. It will take a fair amount of effort to determine the answers to these questions. It is not the type of issue where simple moral intuition is going to be a useful guide.

How is that space program coming along?

Last week's cosmic coincidence - the meteor airburst in Russia that injured over 1000 people and damaged property across thousands of square kilometers, and the near miss by an asteroid with over 20 times the mass - invites us to ask, "How is that space program coming along?"

Remember, if the odds against something happening are a billion to one in a given year, it has already happened four times in earth's history, and we are waiting for the fifth (on average).

Space development is something that I have spent some time studying. I would like to share some of those thoughts.

At the same time, I would like to use this as an illustrative example of how to look at a matter of public policy in the light of the theory of value I have been presenting in this blog. After all, the relevant question is: Should we have a space program, and - if so - what should it look like?

In this case, this is a particularly important question. We could well be discussing whether the human race survives, or whether all that remains is a collection of artifacts, perhaps to be discovered by a more successful species from some other planet.

All true value claims relate states of affairs to desires. To ask whether we ought to have a space program is to ask, "What reasons for action exist for the exploration and development of space?" Desires are the only reasons for action that exist. Therefore, to answer that question, we need to ask about the various "desires that P" and look at the propositions P that space development makes or keeps true - as well as looking at the propositions P it will make or keep false.

We also need to look at the moral dimension. For these various "desires that P", we have to ask whether the desire itself is malleable. Can the desire be strengthened or weakened and, if so, what reasons for action exist for strengthening or weakening it?

In other words, can a space program give us what we want and, more importantly, can it give us what we should want?

One argument I sometimes hear says that we should not explore space because the heavens belong to god and we ought not to be trespassing. The puzzle of property rights in space is an interesting one and our potential relations with other species is an interesting one. Furthermore, it is likely that there are resources in space that we have reason to think of as already owned by creatures not of earth. However, there is no god and our actions do not trespass against any imaginary being.

In a related argument, some argue that we do not need a space program to prevent any large scale disasters because god the creator would never allow us to be destroyed - not unless it was a part of a plan, in which case it would be wrong for us to interfere. Both of these claims are claims of pure fantasy. We have no magical divine protection against forces of nature with the potential to destroy the planet - or at least all human life. All that we have is our own ability to learn about them before it is too late and to prevent or weaken their effects if possible. If the human race does suffer a violent end due to some cosmic event, it will not be due to a "divine will" but bad luck potentially augmented by basic human ignorance or foolishness.

Another claim I sometimes hear is that an untouched asteroid, moon, or planet has intrinsic value. As soon as humans touch it, this value is destroyed and can never be restored. However, nothing has intrinsic value. The untouched moon only has value to the person who desires it. Here, we need to ask whether we have reason to promote or to inhibit this desire for untouched asteroids. Given that untouched asteroids have no desires of their own, and no living thing on them has desires, and given the large set of human desired thwarted by an aversion to putting marks on moons and asteroids, this "desire for an untouched moon" counts as an evil - as a desire we have many and strong reasons to condemn.

On the other side, there is no intrinsic value in exploration either. Exploration has value only insofar that, for some desires that P, P is true in the act of exploring or its consequences. On this measure, the desire to explore likely has value. It has fulfilled other human desires in the past and will likely do so in the future. It is a desire to be encouraged through praise, not discouraged through condemnation.

However, space exploration costs money. The resources spent in making or keeping P true through space exploration for any desires that P are resources not being spent on making or keeping Q true for any desires that Q. Famine, drought, poverty, disease, the ravages of war and criminal activities, other natural disasters, all thwart a great many desires. The argument can be made that the resources spent on a space program would be better spent on a health program, or an energy program, or a peace program.

That might actually be true - though no other program would be worth much if the human race itself were to be destroyed. But, then, what are the odds of that happening?

So, these are the types of considerations that are relevant to space development. They will help to tell us not only whether we should have a space program, but what form it should take. They also tell us something about how to apply desirism to an actual policy issue. I will look at these types of considerations in some detail in the posts that follow.

A Non-Religious, Non-Evolutionary Account of "Ought"

I have spent a couple of weeks now arguing that the claim that evolution cannot account for (prescriptive) morality is no myth. I wish to conclude this series by offering an account of (prescriptive) morality that requires neither a god nor evolution.

It begins with a community of two or more creatures that act to realize ends or goals and that has at least one malleable end. They may have evolved. They may have been created. They may simply popped into existence. None of that matters.

Person A says to Person B, "You ought to do X."

Person B asks, "Why?"

The only legitimate answer to this question, “Why should I do X” is to provide a reason for intentional action that exists.

If A gives an answer that is not a reason for intentional action this - by definition - will not identify a reason for B to do anything. It is just an empty fact.

If A gives an answer that identifies a reason for action that does not exist (e.g., "because it is intrinsically bad,") then this fails to provide a real reason to perform a real action. B can answer, "That is not true. There is no god to displease."

People give a lot of reasons for intentional action that do not exist. They point to what they call divine commands, intrinsic values, categorical imperatives, the will of the impartial observer, the opinions of imaginary people behind an imaginary veil of ignorance. None of these are real. None of these provide a real-world reason to perform or refrain from a real-world action.

Desires provide the only reasons for action that exist.

Desires are propositional attitudes. That is to say, a "Desire that P" is a piece of programming in the brain that motivates an agent to act (that is to say, provides an agent with a reason to act) so as to realize any state of affairs in which P is true. The agent takes making or keeping P true as an end, consults his belief, and makes a plan for realizing P (or preventing the realization of not-P), if possible – assuming that more and stronger desires do not outweigh this particular interest.

So, let's go back to answering B's question, "Why?"

The answer must tie the recommended action to one or more desires (a reason for action that exists). It must take the form, "Because P is either true in X or some consequence of X" for some desire that P.

One distinction we must make is a distinction between the reasons for action that exist, and the reasons for action that a particular agent (in this case, Person B) actually has.

A significant difference between these two types of reasons is that B will only be (directly) motivated by any desire (reasons for action) that he has. In fact, any action motivated by a desire that is not B's desire is not his action. It belongs to the person whose desires motivated it.

If A relates X to a desire-that-P that B has, then B – as soon as he realizes the truth of A’s claim, has a motivating reason to do X. However, if A relates X to a desire that Q that C has, then B is open to answering with a shrug of the shoulders and, “So?”

This “desire that Q” that C has is not a direct motivating reason for B to act to realize Q. However, it is a motivating reason for C to take action to cause B to choose that which would bring about Q.

C can pay B – “If you act so as to realize Q, then I will act so as to realize P where you desire that P.”

C can threaten B – “if you do not act so as to realize Q, then I will act so as to realize not-P, and you don’t want that.”

These, then, provide two "reasons for action that exist" for B not to respond to “You ought to do X” (where C has a desire that Q that is either true of B doing X or some consequence of B doing X) with a shrug. This fact tells B that he is potentially in a position to obtain a reward for doing X or to suffer a cost for not doing X.

A third option is for C to alter B’s interests or desires so that B wants to do those things that would result in realizing Q – assuming that C has some method available to do this.

More specifically, where B has malleable desires, C has a motivating reason to change B’s desire-that-P into a desire-that-P’ where the desire that P’ (unlike the desire that P) will motivate B to act in ways that realize Q.

B can still answer the claim, "You ought to do X" with a shrug - up to the point where C is successful in modifying B's desire-that-P into a desire-that-P'. After that conversion takes place, B has a motivating reason to do what he ought.

Let us assume that B has a reward system, where a reward can cause in B a desire that P’, and a punishment can cause on B an aversion to not-P’. C has a motivating reasons to use reward and punishment to cause B to have a desire that P’ (or an aversion to not-P’).

Let us then add that praise works as a reward, and condemnation works as a punishment. Now, C has a motivating reason to use praise and condemnation as tools for promoting in B a desire that P’.

Finally, let us build praise and condemnation into the meaning of this specific sense of 'ought'. In this sense, “You ought to do X” means, in part, “Praise be to those who do X .” and “Those who would not do X are hereby condemned”.

Finally, we will add one more stipulation - that this "ought" refers not to C's desires alone, but to what people generally have reason to praise or condemn. In this sense, where A says to B, "You ought to do X", he plants a flag and says, "People, look here. Among you are many and strong reasons to praise those who would do X, and condemn those who would not do X." If this is not true, his claim would be false.

Now we have built a sense of “ought” – tied to praise and condemnation – where “you ought to do X” says nothing about what B has a reason to do, but instead refers to what people generally have reason to praise and condemn. B can still shrug his shoulders and say, “So?”. However, B cannot deny the fact that people generally have reason to praise those who do X and condemn those who do not. That is to say, he cannot deny, “I ought to do X” even though he may not care.

Furthermore, B does have a reason to be somebody that others have reason to reward praise and avoid being somebody that others have reason to condemn. More generally, he has reason to be somebody that others have reason to reward and to not be somebody that others have reason to punish. Consequently, a shrug of the shoulders and an answer of, “So?” to “You morally ought to do X” may be possible, but rare.

We can also add that, for many possible desires, there are those that even B has reason to promote (using reward and punishment) – such as an aversion to acts that cause pain, an aversion to lying, and a desire to keep one’s promises. In these cases, A and C can honestly assert, “People generally - even you - have motivating reasons to promote a desire to tell the truth and an aversion to lying."

Here, then, is a sense of “ought” that is not necessarily tied to what an agent does desire, but very often does have some links to an agent’s actual desires. Instead, it is tied to what an agent “should desire” – that is to say, what people generally (often including the agent herself) has many and strong reasons to cause people to desire using the social tools of reward (such as praise) and condemnation (such as punishment). Statements using these terms not only report these facts but, at the same time, attempt to mold those desires by building praise and condemnation into the very terms themselves. Thus, "You ought to do X" works directly on the reward system to promote that which is praised and inhibit that which is condemned.

How much of this does evolutionary psychology account for?

Actually, at its most basic level, evolution accounts for none of it.

Even in a universe in which no living creature exists, it would be true that IF there was a creature with a desire that Q, and a second creature with malleable desires, then the first creature has a motivating reason to cause the second creature to acquire a desire that P' where Q becomes true in realizing P'. No evolutionary history – no chain of evolutionary facts – would change this.

Of course, evolution has a great deal to say about the fact that there exists a creature with a desire that P, and a second creature with malleable desires, the specific strength and object of the desire that P, and the mechanisms through which other desires can be changed. Consequently, evolutionary psychology has a lot to say about desires people actually have the most and strongest reasons to promote or inhibit.

Think of the eye. How much is evolution responsible for he principle of optics that govern how light behaves as it passes through matter with different densities? Answer: none. How much is evolution responsible for the development of an organ that uses these principles - however imperfectly - to provide an entity with information about its surroundings? Answer: A great deal.

The proposition that evolution cannot account for morality is no myth; it is a fact. However, the proposition that evolution created beings capable of using morality is not a myth. It is a fact.