Space Policy: The Undiscovered Country

Photo: NASA

Space, the final frontier…

In 1966 Star Trek began with those simple, yet ambitious words. Humanity in Gene Roddenberry’s universe reached a state of utopia on Earth, where money, famine, war and hunger no longer were issues by the end of the 21st century. Humanity in the 22nd century explored the stars beyond the Milky Way—to explore the next undiscovered country.

But now in 2017, that utopian future appears as distant as Alpha Centauri. The political climate in 2016 revealed the world recoiling from the globalist worldview that grew in the last decade to a nationalist worldview. It is not surprising that in 2017 space technology still focuses on activity on Earth.

While Richard Branson, Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos lead the charge in the private space industry, the lack of progress to lead humanity past the moon is astounding. It may be easy to point the finger at the decline of NASA’s space program, but the shift in NASA’s focus allowed private companies to provide much needed innovation in space technology, from rocket design to renewable space crafts.

At Mass Innovations Nights’ 100th event, space technology companies from the Greater Boston area showcased their products. Each company focused on problems on Earth – from mapping Earth’s terrain to satellite delivery and efficient satellite power storage. When asked about regulatory and public policy, the general consensus was that government regulation does not exist, unless it relates to borders. Space was the Wild West of regulation.

Many questions remain, however. What is the proper role of space policy? How should space related to the geopolitical issues? Is the world ready for space?

The conversation about space has not focused on humanity’s proper role. Many of the private companies today are operating around Earth’s orbit. For example, Richard Branson’s Virgin Galactic sends paying customers to tour Earth’s upper atmosphere. On the other hand, Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk’s ambitious mission to Mars currently includes the wealthy as future passengers. What is the ultimate goal of these space ventures?

Picture a future of space colonies operating from different countries, such as Russia, China, Great Britain, the United States and France. If humanity ventures into space with the current state of foreign affairs, space policy will become an extension of international relations on Earth. If the US and France were to go to war, will each corresponding space colony become entangled in the conflict?

As time passes, each colony will become more distant from each parent country. Will this lead to a series of war of independence resulting in the Earth’s space colonies branching into their own path?

There must be more progress in technology and social mores before humanity can become a spacefaring species. Space policy must not be neglected while scientists and entrepreneurs discover how to go far into space and back to Earth. Humanity must set goals for the next 50 and 100 years. Will humanity struggle to live amongst ourselves here on Earth? Or will space truly be the final frontier?

Advocacy's Technology Collaboration Misfire

     It has been a tough couple of months for the tech sector. These rough headlines shifted focus away from innovation and highlighted some structural issues in the industry. These issues are real, and must be resolved. While much of the industry grapples with these issues, it continues to disrupt long-standing industries from brick-and-mortar retail to transportation.
     Last week I attended two tech events that could not be more different. The Boston Innovators Group hosted a showcase Tuesday night of voice-driven technology from local startups. The next night Canopy City organized a panel of civil liberties advocates, government officials and startups to speak about Algorithmic Discrimination. The dichotomy in tone and attitude towards the tech sector (i.e. the technology and its actors) was astounding.
     Speakers at the Boston Innovators Group oozed in enthusiasm about the next generation of products powered by voice computing. From facilitating early childhood learning through a voice-powered teddy bear to the use of Amazon Echo at Intercontinental Hotels to optimize front desk utility, there was pure excitement in the room as attendees were amazed at how this technology could simplify their daily routines.
     On the other hand, most of the Algorithmic Discrimination speakers took a combative, anti-technology approach to deal with the faults of the industry. The advocacy groups proudly brandished their list of lawsuits waged against public and private sector organizations that have implemented big data in their decision making process. To put it mildly, attendees at this event were highly skeptical of the intentions of tech companies, and each anecdote about the evils of big data – from Idaho’s Medicare use of financial models to determine reimbursements to Chicago’s risk assessment profiles in policing – was met with nods of approval.
     To leap from these situations where people were wronged to call for full transparency of big data (i.e. using only open source data) is misguided. While it is easy to attack the tech companies who provide these solutions, we must look at those involved in the decision making process to implement these systems. These situations are rarely simple. Who were the decision makers that worked with the tech companies to find these solutions? How much research was conducted to find the best solution? Was staff using these solutions properly trained? What issues did they face prior to implementing these solutions?
     With all its faults, the tech sector will change the way we live. As technology evolves, new ethical dilemmas will arise. I had hoped to hear advocacy groups putting forward ways to collaborate with the tech sector, not threaten to file a lawsuit at each turn. As Intercontinental Hotels discussed the warnings their lawyers provided about which Amazon Echo products the company cannot use in hotel rooms, it is a positive sign that companies look to do the right thing.
     Is it the responsibility of the tech sector to foresee every single civil liberty new products assault? I posit that advocacy groups should work with technology companies to help create socially responsible innovation. At a time when extreme polarization has seized the national conscious on many issues, does technology need to be torn asunder by the same fate?