What's Missing?

Over the course of 2018 several times I have been surprised by what I would call a lack of what I would call wisdom on the part of many middle-aged, highly educated people.

My definition of wisdom is the ability to synthesize or infer new knowledge with a high degree of probability/accuracy, based on a combination of general intelligence, education, knowledge, and experience.

What tends to happen with people who have a low ability to synthesize or infer new knowledge is they over-rely on education, or the views of highly educated, highly credentialed, highly positioned, high authority, or well known people. These people have no "B.S. Detector", and no "B.S. Flags" to throw. They are often accused of "living in a bubble".

Another related factor is a lack of breadth of vision, having blinders, or a lack of intellectual curiosity. I have seen people who should have a broad basis of life experiences who apparently have ignored many of them. They can't see that 2+2=4, not because they can't add, but because they so not see one of the components of the equation. Certainly political polarization, news/media polarization, and self-curated news feeds from social media exacerbate this problem.

This article by Jonah Goldberg explains the origins of "neoconservatism", and that it originated with former New Deal liberals who became dissatisfied with the Welfare State when they saw the unintended consequences it caused. In other words, these original "neocons" had wisdom (the ability to synthesize or infer new knowledge), and a breadth of vision (seeing the outcomes, not just the intent of the welfare programs), and as a result, were able to draw net-new conclusions of the efficacy of these programs.

This is a good example of a bubble being burst, or of blinders being ripped off:

At the 16 minutes, 38 seconds point, comedian Jeff Foxworthy explains meeting a 21 year old homeless man. Foxworthy, originally seeing a capable 21 year old thinks the young man should just "get a job", and go on his way. Then Foxworthy learned how the man became homeless as a result of drug abuse, and how the man became a drug abuser. The man's mother, brother, and father all committed suicide, and the man said he "got tired of hurting, and I just started getting high." To which Foxworthy comments: "And I'm looking at this kid and I'm thinking, I would have got high too."

In other words, before this event, Foxworthy saw the first "2" in the "2+2=4" equation (homelessness), but never saw the other "2" (drug abuse), and certainly not the other components of the equation (multiple family member loss). Granted, much of this is hard to see, so this is an extreme case.

But there are many times people don't notice things, don't pick up on things, or are just unware of facts.

The first example I saw in 2018 was a comment about the perceived need/requirement for a college degree. A friend posted on Facebook an article about some educational alternatives to traditional 4-year college, and a raft of comments ensued. Someone posted how it was impossible to get a job without a bachelor's degree, which was the antithesis of the original posted article. A debate ensued about people without degrees who had done well, and there were responses these people without 4-year degrees were the rare exception, and most people without 4-year degrees are working minimum wage service jobs. To which someone posted actual data showing only 39.4% of current working Americans have a 4-year degree or greater. The commenter had to pick their jaw up off of the floor--they had no idea. Apparently they did not have the wisdom to infer how many jobs there were out there that did not require a 4-year college degree (auto mechanic, electrician, plumber, HVAC technician, etc.), despite the fact they probably got their car serviced, had services done on their house by electricians, plumbers, HVAC technicians, etc. They probably had such blinders on they did not know people who were reliably middle class who did not have a 4-year degree, such as sales people, computer administrators, etc.

The second example were responses to a recent article about a 25 year old entrepreneur who managed his money very well. As many tech industry 20-somethings do today, he and four others rented a large house and split the rent, instead of individually renting apartments. To me, this was not unusual, because I had read articles about people who work for Amazon and Microsoft in the Seattle area doing this. Housing costs in Seattle are high, and it is much cheaper for four or five people to share a rental house, than it is for each to rent their own apartment. It is even cheaper than two people sharing a two-bedroom apartment. I also know people who do this in Metro Atlanta because they cannot afford to rent an apartment. It is fairly common. But apparently it is completely alien to many, who assume the only available housing option for 20-somethign with a 4-year college degree is a one-bedroom apartment. What is even more crazy is many of those commenting were likely in their mid-40s to mid-50s, and either were likely in a position to have considered sharing a two-bedroom apartment with a roommate, or were likely to have known someone who shared a two-bedroom apartment with a roommate.

Granted, the trend of two 20-somethings sharing a two-bedroom apartment was a 1980s thing. My college educated brother shared a two-bedroom apartment with a mechanical engineer who was a coworker when both were in their 20s, until the engineer got engaged. It was normal. It was in the booming 1990s economy when every college educated 20-something started getting their own private apartment.

I once wrote if Mike Judge's "Office Space" had been made in 1989 rather than 1999, instead of being Peter Gibbons next door neighbor, Lawrence would have been Peter’s roommate. Instead of both Peter and Lawrence each having their own, individual, one-bedroom apartments, they would have likely shared one two-bedroom apartment.

But still. Did these people not know somebody? Did they know people in high school who did not go to college, or did not get lucrative jobs out of college? Do they have current friends who have kids who maybe share an apartment or a house? Did they have a black-sheep cousin who is a blue-collar type? They probably did, but they have blinders on. They live in a bubble. Chances are, these are people who bought the home they are in by the debt-to-income ratio to what the mortgage lender said they would lend them. Or they are the empty nesters who if they relocate to a less expensive city buy a 6-bedroom house because they can roll the equity of their old house into the new house and take out a mortgage for the rest, based on the size of the loan the mortgage agent said "they could afford", despite the fact they could have bought a nice condo or townhome which would meet their needs and which they could have owned free and clear. These are probably people who lease rather than buy their automobiles. They are overconfident in their job security. And they probably are not saving nearly enough for retirement, but have every intention of retiring at age 62.

These people are going to get absolutely blind-sided by the wave of technology based disruption coming over the next dozen years. They are trusting "authorities", celebrities, and their own small circle of "friends". They are dismissing contrarians as cranks.

I once said I probably would rather be very poor, than very rich, because I know how to be very poor, but I have no idea how to be very rich. Many of the people I knew in high school came from lower socio-economic backgrounds, most of the people I knew in college were middle class at best. When the 2008 mortgage collapse happened, I remember talking with people from my generation in my military reserve unit. The prospect of another Great Depression was real, with possibility of many of use being thrown into poverty. In that discussion, we talked about who had grown up at some point in our lives, without certain things, such as no central air conditioning (all of us), no central heat (several of us), no cable television (all of us), no color TV (all of us). Sure, part of that was age. We were all born in the late 1960s. But much of it had to do with growing up in lower middle class or poor environments. And we all knew we would survive the looming economic armageddon, because we knew how to be poor.

Sidebar: I remember in college sitting on the stoop of my mobile home because it was so hot in that trailer in the afternoon when I got home from class, and I could not afford to run the one window unit air conditioner.

I really think everyone should experiment in being poor for a while. See how low you can get your electric usage one summer month. See how low you can get your grocery bill one month. Try living with your thermostat set for 65 degrees for the whole month of January. Think of it like a fire drill. You might lose your blinders. You might become wiser. You might find what is missing.

What should a "Space Force" look like?

For roughly the last 35 years, since the start of the Space Shuttle program in 1981 with its planned dual use launching both civilian military payloads, the latter including military-only crews from Vandenberg AFB's Space Launch Complex 6 (SLC-6, or "Slick Six"), and the establishment of Air Force Space Command in 1982 and later U.S. Space Command in 1985, there has been talk in the military and political circles about an independent "Space Force."

"Space Force" talk peaked at the end of the last century after the Clinton Administration and Congress chartered the Commission to Assess United States National Security Space Management and Organization in 1999. The commission issued its report in January of 2001, and not much happened.

The commission proposed several suggestions, including the idea of an independent Space Corps within the Department of the Air Force. At that time, Air Force Space Command (AFSPC) included the 20th Air Force and the USAF's ICBM mission. Since that time, Air Force Global Strike Command (AFGSC) was created to manage the nuclear deterrence mission and 20th AF passed to AFGSC. AFSPC took ownership of the USAF's Cyber mission and 24th AF, but this will be passed to Air Combat Command in the near future.

The move of 24th AF is likely due in part to congressional discussions about creating a sub-unified U.S. Space Command out of U.S. Strategic Command's Joint Force Space Component.

When one looks at the history of military space functions in the various military branches over the last 40 years, one sees the following areas of military space efforts.

The U.S. Navy gave over some of its space missions to the USAF. The Navy's Space Surveillance System (the "Space Fence") moved to Air Force control in 2004 and subsequently was shuttered in 2013. The Navy managed communications satellite programs remain with the Navy, as does the Navy's role in ballistic missile defense (BMD).

The U.S. Marine Corps has no significant space mission area, and only a skeleton staff at USSTRATCOM.

The U.S. Army's primary space related role is ballistic missile defense, which is significant. The Army contains the second largest military space organization in its Space and Missile Defense Command.

What mission areas should a Space Corps encompass? Should it include the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO)? Should it include ballistic missile defense? Should it include the ICBM deterrent force? All of these are subjects for debate, but from these we can assume a reasonable maximum scope--all of the above, less the Navy's operational BMD role, host base responsibility for Kirtland Air Force Base (currently under 20th AF), and the 582d Helicopter Group (under 20th AF). The Navy's Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System is simply a capability of the Aegis Weapon System and cannot be divided from its fleet defense role.

Who would lead such an organization? The obvious choice would be the current 4-star Air Force Space Command commander, who would become the commandant of the Space Corps. The deputy could logically be the current 3-star Army Space and Missile Defense Command commander, but promoting him or her to a 4-star grade equal to other service deputies. Of course both of these leaders would move to the Pentagon where the new service would be headquartered.

That creates the following as a potential U.S. Space Corps organization:

 

Air Force and Army personnel associated with the new Space Corps would be assigned, with the former Army personnel ultimately transferring to the U.S. Air Force after a transition period.

A period of transition would allow moving Army Space Cadre and Army Space Operations Functional Area personnel, and Air Force space and missile primary AFSC personnel, who currently are assigned outside of the prospective Space Corps units to move into the Space Corps.

Likewise, those who are serving in space and missile roles who do not maintain a space or missile primary MOS/AFSC would be given time to return to assignments associated with their primary MOS/AFSC.

A challenge for Army personnel is this connection of modern BMD personnel to historical Air Defense Artillery Branch. The 100th Missile Defense Brigade, the operational BMD unit of the Army Space and Missile Defense Command no doubt has personnel who shift between the national missile defense roles and theater Air & Missile Defense and Air Defense Artillery organizations. This is why the majority of the personnel who move to the Space Corps via inter-service transfer need to be from the Army Space Cadre. Certainly some exchange postings could be made available, more initially, fewer later, to ease the separation of theater and national missile defense roles.

The small number of uniformed Navy personnel associated with the new Space Corps should be given the option of transferring to non-Space Corps related positions on their next move, but those with space related specialties should be allowed to transfer to the Space Corps.

Finally, decisions would need to be made regarding supporting MOS/AFSC positions as to who would transfer to the Space Corps, and who would remain with their parent services. Most of these are traditional host installation support roles, such as a civil engineering and security, as well as traditional personnel and administration positions. As an independent service within the Department of the Air Force, at least initially the host installation support positions could remain with the Air Force.

The initial total end strength of the Space Corps will be 20,000 to 25,000 (depending on the level of host installation support personnel transferred), and will likely have 30-35 general officers leading the various headquarters.

Some host installation support and medical support should remain within the Air Force to minimize unnecessary duplication. Officer accession and senior officer professional military education should continue to be a part of the Air Force, while enlisted professional education and mid-grade officer professional education (Command and Staff College) should be tailored to the needs of the Space Corps. Enlisted accession could be co-located with Air Force enlisted training but operate separately.

This is most interesting. And it is not the half of it.

This is most interesting. And it is not the half of it.

Updated April 10, 2024.

Why We are Alone in the Galaxy | Marc Defant | TEDxUSF

EDIT: I noticed TED has "flagged" Dr. Defant's video, apparently due to questions about some of his scientific claims. Here are links to the three topics he speaks to:

The creation of the solar system, and dating due to calcium–aluminium-rich inclusions in the Allende meteorite:

Allende meteorite

Calcium–aluminium-rich inclusion

Aluminum-26 production from a stellar evolutionary sequence

That said, Dr. Defant is incorrect when he says "all" of the elements in the periodic table beyond hydrogen and helium were generated by supernovas. Some scientists believe lithium was created prior to star formation, and most scientists believe medium weight elements up to iron and nickel were created in stars. The process that creates the elements from beryllium to nickel is called stellar nucleosynthesis. This is also called the "slow process" or the "s-process." However, some scientists believe the initial phase of a supernova (the collapse of the star) creates conditions to fuse iron with other elements to create some of the elements heavier than iron. This is called the "rapid process" or the "r-process." The supernova explosion then releases the elements into the void of space. 

Stellar nucleosynthesis

Many scientists now believe elements heavier than iron and nickel, especially very heavy elements like platinum, gold and heavier could only be generated in a neutron star. That a supernova collapse is not powerful enough to cause the r-process, and instead the intense gravity of a neutron star is able to do so. However, given the high gravity of a neutron star, the only way these elements could be released is by the collision of two neutron stars (a kilonova). This most likely occur in a binary neutron star formed for the collapse of a binary star system. However, neutron stars are the remnants of a core of a star that went supernova, so perhaps Dr. Defant consolidated these topics for the sake of time. 

How are heavy elements formed in neutron star collisions?

Regardless, if the medium weight elements were generated in stars and release via supernovas, and there is no consensus on the supernova collapse creating heavier elements, we also needed nearby neutron stars and a collision between two neutron stars to give our solar system the elements from copper to uranium. We know a kilonova seeded our stellar nebula, because we have very heavy elements from silver to uranium in the Earth's crust. When you look at the abundance of elements in Earth's crust, while iron is plentiful, once you move above iron in atomic weight, the rest of these heavier elements make up less than one-half of one percent of the elements in the Earth's crust.

Visualizing the Abundance of Elements in the Earth's Crust

(Source: Visual Capitalist)

Copper and tin are incredibly important elements. They are the key elemental metals used to form the alloy bronze, and as such were key to the bronze age. It is possible tin and lead were created by the s-process, and some believe copper came from the s-process, but others believe copper came from the r-process. Tin is considerably heavier than copper, with an atomic number of 50, meaning it was even less likely to be created in a supernova. Bronze was the basis for hard metal tools like nails, spearheads, plows, etc. Iron is more prevalent in the Earth's crust, but iron requires considerably more heat to shape and purify (through heating and hammering). The earliest bronze dates to 4,650 BCE, while the earliest shaped iron dates to about 2,000 BCE.  The historical "Bronze Age" is pegged to 3,300 BCE to 1,200 BCE, which gave way to the "Iron Age" in 1,200 BCE. Regardless of how you measure it, for about 2,000 critical years, the only metallurgy that existed in human society was done with copper and tin.

It seems highly possible there could be planetary systems created with only the medium weight stellar elements, and few heavier elements. But if there was no copper, any intelligent life would have to go from a stone age to an iron age, and have to figure out how to smelt iron. Without iron, anything requiring hardness would need to use stone or pottery. There would be no opportunity to create metal nails or spikes until iron was mastered. It is possible an intelligent society would develop enough skills in an extended pottery age to transition to an iron age, but this seems less likely, because the uses of pottery and iron are very different, unlike the transition from bronze to iron. There is a significant chance an intelligent society without copper and the opportunity for a bronze age would never perfect iron smelting, and instead remain stuck in a stone age.

But back to the not one, but two cosmic events, a nearby supernova, and a nearby collision of two neutron stars (which could be remnants of the same nearby supernovas that contributed the lighter elements), to Dr. Defant's original point, that would be incredibly rare. Even if there as a nearby binary star system, with nearly simultaneous supernovas, each leaving behind a neutron star forming a binary neutron star, that then merged and released heavier elements, while this is an easier explanation, it is also rare. Far more rare than just a nearby supernova. The possibility of a single wandering neutron star colliding with a single nearby neutron star, given the average diameter of a neutron star is about 12 miles, seems an almost infinitesimal probability.

The next point Dr. Defant makes is the rise of the mammals being a direct result of the extinction of the dinosaurs:

The Rise of Mammals

And then there is the East African Rift directly triggering the evolution of bipedalism in great apes and rise of pre-humans:

Did tectonic rift push apes and monkeys apart?

How a changing landscape and climate shaped early humans

But wait, there's more!

Where is Everybody? Why Haven't We Found Extra-Terrestrials?

A little more on this. The Earth and the Moon are a system. The Moon does not neatly orbit around the center of mass of the Earth. Instead, the center of mass of the Earth, and the center of mass of the Moon, both orbit around the center of mass of the pair (the barycenter). This wobbling makes it much harder for an object being pulled towards the center of mass of the Earth-Moon system to follow a straight line. All of that extra mass out there is pulling an object away from the center of mass of the Earth-Moon system.

SkyMarvels™ EARTH-MOON BARYCENTER (celestia celestia4all)

As an example of how this works, look at the crazy, almost half-century trip of Apollo 12's third stage. It was fired out into a heliocentric orbit around the Sun, but kept getting pullled back into the Earth-Moon system's gravity well into a geocentric orbit around us, then ejected out into a heliocentric orbit again, and then back into geocentric orbit. It is like a piece of driftwood bobbing along a tideline in the ocean, sometimes getting pulled away by one current, sometimes by the other.

J002E3 - Wikipedia

But wait, there is even more!

Jupiter shepherds large transient objects (asteroids) into a belt outside the orbit of Mars. The very large mass of Jupiter, well outside of the inner Solar System, is a unique and very good thing for us fragile creatures on the Earth. Notice the Asteroid Belt is not a neat circle in between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter, it is very different. That will be explained in the post that follows.

The asteroids of the inner Solar System and Jupiter

Jupiter 'shepherds' the asteroid belt, preventing the asteroids from falling into the sun or accreting into a new planet.

Now, the above video is beyond cool, because it illustrates four of the five Lagrange points (L1, L3, L4, and L5).

Lagrange Points: Parking Places in Space

In addition to shepherding space objects, Jupiter "Hoovers" these objects just like Earth's Moon.

Here Joe Scott of "Answers With Joe" explains the "Rare Earth Theory", which includes the role of Jupiter at the 9:09 mark:

Joe's video goes much further than this blog post on the habitability of planets within the Milky Way galaxy, and the role of Earth's magnetic field. Check it out.

Basically, the "Habitable Zone" is protected by Jupiter, we have Earth at an ideal distance, with the right chemical composition, and we have our own Moon as a terminal defense system.

There are two additional important considerations.

NASA has discovered many exoplanets. Some of these orbit cool stars, such as "Red Dwarf" within a "habitable zone" which is much closer to the star. This arrangement can lead to tidal locking, which is problematic.

Tidal locking

Tidal Locking Could Render Habitable Planets Inhospitable

Another consideration if a planet is close to a cool star is the planet could be exposed to high high levels of radiation. Both tidal locking and high radiation are factors in the TRAPPIST-1 plantary system discovered in 2015.

TRAPPIST-1

The topic of radiation brings up the final point of a planet capable of supporting life. Of the solar system's three inner planets in or near the "habitable zone" (Venus, Earth, and Mars), only Earth has a magnetic field. Earth's magnetic field deflects harmful high-energy cosmic rays coming from the Sun away from the Earth. Mercury has a magnetic field, but is too close to the Sun to be habitable. Jupiter has a magnetic field, but as a gas giant is not considered habitable.

[Edit: Added 11/26/19]

Most of this post has dealt with what it takes to form a stable solar/planetary system capable of supporting life. However, life is complicated, and no scientist has figured out abiogenesis (life from lifelessness). But even with that spark of abiogenesis, how does complicated and sophisticated live emerge? The assumption has been Darwinian Evolution. Indeed Darwin's theory is the nexus of what today is called "neo-Darwinism." However, some believe neo-Darwinism has breached the limits of mathematics. This excellent discussion with David Berlinski, Stephen Meyer, and David Gelernter, which was triggered by David Gelernter's article "Giving Up Darwin", is worth a listen:

I often like to joke if life were easy, we would all have green thumbs. Anyone who has had a tried to keep a house plant or a goldfish alive should realize even in a stable biosphere, life is fragile.

And all of this first presumes a stable universe, where all of the key physical forces are balanced so that atoms form and matter condenses into stars and planets.

I am not suggesting any conclusion from all of these comments and videos except one: Life is incredibly rare and precious. Far rarer than many believe. It is certainly possible someday we will find evidence of primitive life on Mars, but Mars was unsustainable. It is certainly possible someday we could terraform Mars, but the terraformed Mars will not last. Because its gravity is low and it has no magnetic field, its atmosphere will dissipate, and in a hundred, thousand, or ten thousand years, it will be back to what it is today. Besides, if we ever have the technology to terraform a planet, we will be able to fix any problems on Earth.

[Edit: Added 12/22/22]

Having further researched some of the early cosmological events, I now think the Earth, with a very small amount of critical heavier elements which could only be manufactured in a neutron star, and released by a collision with another neutron star, and the critically important nature of copper and tin in metallurgy and the rise of civilization, is even more rare than I first thought. It is very likely there are planetary systems with no elements above nickel in their crusts. There may be intelligent life on these planets, but they would likely be trapped in a stone age forever. On the bright side, they would never develop nuclear weapons, and likely not even develop cannons or firearms, so they could have less chance of destroying themselves, but it would also be harder for them to feed themselves as they never would have bronze plows. Certainly, without copper, they likely would never be able to build a radio transmitter to send a signal SETI could pick up.

[Edit: Added 3/22/24]

I updated several links due to some dead links and some URLs changing. No content was changed.

[Edit: Added 4/10/24]

I added an additional depiction of the asteroid belt to show the main belt as well as those shepherded by Jupiter.