The purpose of this artificial moon? Well, the Chinese city officials claim their faux moon will serve solely to act as source for gathering light to reflect down upon their city at night, thereby eliminating the need for electrically powered street lights. This sounds plausible and is maybe not an entirely 'bad' thing from an energy conservation standpoint, right? But what about the other ramifications of such a BIG artificially imposed man-made structure looming in earth-orbit space? Surely we cannot entirely dismiss the potential for weaponizing such a space-based structure? And how about the fact that the artificially imposed light source might actually be considered a form of light pollution from certain perspectives (e.g., an influx of super-imposed light would greatly hinder star-gazing into the nighttime sky). And wouldn't they have to change the children's nursery rhyme to "I see the moons, the moons see me?" ; ) One wonders exactly how bright (in terms of lumen) this moon's artificial light would be? Then there are "biological clock" issues. Meaning, would the net result of this additional artificially imposed light be something akin to near 24-hour daylight cycles witnessed by those living in Alaska and the like? What long term impacts would this extended light cycle have on biological processes, people, animals and plants alike?
At the conclusion of my pondering all of the above, I am left wondering: if we look the sum of our modern-day technology are the collective benefits derived from our technology --the whole spectrum from cell phones and social media to faux moons and everything in between-- a net-sum 'good' or 'bad' thing for our society as a whole? Beauty as well at truth lie in the eyes of the beholder, I suppose. But at some point, don't we have an obligation to begin an honest discussion about the long term ramifications of where we are headed, and more importantly where we want to be headed, technologically speaking? And then, of course, there is the whole issue of 'governments' having the monopoly on scientific investigation. We, in the United States, have this 'control' with respect to the government funding dispersed via National Science Foundation --offshoot of 'National Academy of Science'-- which is responsible for driving, funding and deeming credible the larger portion of scientific research, particularly at the University level. Then of course, there are the numerous other government funded contracts to private corporations and some universities --I happened to work on one of these in my earlier college days. One could argue that such 'regulation' --mostly by way of controlling funding for research-- is not necessarily beneficial to the overall process of scientific discovery from an outcome bias and limitations standpoint (e.g., 'climate change' study). Creativity and innovation, not to mention objectivity, from what I have personally witnessed function best outside the rigid confines of a bubble, any bubble. One wonders if government 'oversight' of the process of scientific discovery also does the people a disservice by biasing/controlling the information that actually reaches average citizen with respect to specific scientific discoveries --most especially in the absence of a robust media coverage ... for media benefits from an apocalyptic take on science, do they not? That is to say, a worried audience is more likely to tune into to news coverage each day, aren't they? I would argue further that in the absence of a truly informed citizenry, the voice of "we the people" is diminished. What say you???
10/28/2018 Well, it may be awhile before we have to worry about China launching its faux moon? But at least the Chinese get some credit for trying to decentralize government control of some science-based entities.
No comments:
Post a Comment