Technological determinism goes aloft: notes on the human - machine issue in outer space exploration

On the new spaceship somebody, a mysterious `ankle', does everything for you. You just sit and watch. If something goes wrong, you don't need to worry, because there is no danger. `I, Master Computer, will take care of it. I have all the control programs I need, but if necessary, I'll turn everything off for you, or switch to sensor or engine reserve. I'll tell you what went wrong and how I corrected it. And you, `my intelligent passenger', can look at the data and give reports to the Ground'.

In this extract, the `mystery' of digital technology [Borgmann 2010] manifests itself by concealing operational procedures. While this regime assists disburdenment of the cosmonaut, it simultaneously separates him from the environment and pushes him into a passive role. In this way, commodification of technology manifests itself. Gradually, however, the space flyer mastered new skills - `like a blind man regaining his sight' [Lebedev 1988, 206] - that allowed him to be included in the feedback loop. The cosmonaut learned to anticipate and correct possible errors in the program itself:

Because of my experience I am now ahead of the computer and can foresee what it will do. It isn't a mystery to me anymore. Before, I couldn't think as fast as it did to know what was going on inside it. Suddenly, it would display some kind of error code, which I would try to figure out. While I was thinking, the machine would already clear the problem. Now I work quietly, with self-confidence; I see a display of parameters, evaluate them, and make estimation about the process going on. Now I even get some time to look at the machine from the outside. Does it really do the necessary operations in the best way? I look at it: Let's see now... this is going on; if this parameter is such and such, then that will happen. If this is a problem, I can reenter data into the computer. As a result I am beautifully able to remain constantly up to date and prepared for any maneuver [sic], such as engine firing or orientation keeping, without the hectic complication of continuous preparation [Lebedev 1988, 206].

Restoring shared time and space via conscious awareness and mastered calculative approximations, the spaceman eventually reestablished human positioning in regard to digital devices as a flexible and holistic thinker. Borgmann [Borgmann 1984, 41-42] emphasized the importance of skills that facilitate human `engagement' with the world and strengthen identities. Skills are requested in one's relationships with `things', while interactions with `devices' are typically non-demanding. A traditional stove that provided heating for the house had to be attended to by the whole family: firewood had to be prepared and arranged, and the fire had to be maintained. In this collaborative labour and familiarity with each other's functions, a social context was created. In contrast, devices are elements of the world of consumption. They foster a regime of facelessness (of both producers and consumers), division and decontextualization. The attempts of the Russian cosmonauts to regain meaningful control over digital technology should then be seen as an opposition to ethical commodification.

Similar practices of re-engagement can be found in the framework of the American space program as well. Thus, checklists utilized in space missions might be complemented by humoristic notes and drawings expressing support or greetings, functioning as a medium between the ground-based personnel and flying crews. From a different perspective, the astronauts themselves might alter instructions with cartoons, signatures and, at times, unauthorized materials to facilitate group dynamics during the flight [Hersch 2009]. In this way, checklists turn from unspecified `devices' into `definite things' [Borgmann 1984].

This study was devoted to the discussion of human - machine relationships as they played out in the context of the Soviet / Russian space program of the 1980s and 1990s. Distinct from the mainstream liberal-constructivism approach that focuses on the transformative agency of the individual and collective human actors pushing for particular value-driven goals that can or cannot account for the ideals of self- directedness and self-determination, I emphasized the shaping role of technology in space enterprise and in social development in general.

Borgmann's philosophical conception employed in the current study allows for a nonreduction's interpretation of contemporary social processes at different levels of sociality, with an emphasis on the ecological aspects of human existence (i.e. engagement with surroundings) and therefore is particularly helpful. According to `soft' determinism, technologization is relatively objective and self-propagating; technology increasingly becomes our ontology, defining and satisfying human needs [Borgmann 1984]. Having been interwoven with a desire for comfort - a form of `moral consumption' [Borgmann 2010, 33] - technological development leads to the alienation of humans from technical tools, each other and the environment. An alternative to the device paradigm is `focal life', which is aimed at restoring social `engagement' [Borgmann 2010, 34]. This move will require the re-embodiment and recontextualization of objects and practices as well as the restoration of their complexity and internal coherence. `Focused' things and events are not necessarily regions of pre- technological existence. Humans have to learn how to overcome (at least partially) ethical commodification without rejecting the benefits of technological progress. This, in turn, will transform human society as a whole: `It will produce fewer cars and more buses and trains; fewer jet skis, more canoes; fewer DVD's, more books; fewer iPads and more flutes and guitars' [Borgmann 2010, 34]. The reform of the device paradigm will, therefore, be in its restriction to the supplement position to give `focal life' a priority [Borgmann 2010].

In the field of space exploration, de-alienation can be achieved not only (or not necessarily) by making digital devices more user-friendly (for a related discussion, see Gerovitch: [Gerovitch 2015]). According to Borgmann [Borgmann 1984, 47], `friendliness' is just the mark of how wide the gap has become between the function accessible to everyone and the machinery known by nearly no one'. The alternative way, as demonstrated in the analyses, is a restoration of one's meaningful connectivity with social and physical reality.

The accumulated knowledge proposes a direction for anticipatory reflections around the role and place of technology in human history, including the future of manned spaceflight. Why send humans into outer space if the majority of outer space assignments can soon be carried out by technological agents? Humans might stay safe, without additional costs, at their terrestrial locations; here, they would monitor aloft robotic operations on the basis of visual and other types of data. With this scenario realized, we will know the cosmos mainly from pictures and mathematical representations, turning it eventually into something anonymous and superficial. We will perceive outer space and solar bodies though smart plans of their utilization, calculating and competing for the highest profit. In this context, the chances of our detachment from the extraterrestrial environment and its degradation will elevate. Therefore, manned spaceflight - an expansion of `the realm of human experience' [Mindell 2008, 270] - needs to be preserved as an ontological and ecological enterprise. By securing embodied and meaningful engagement with the universe, humans will promote conditions for maintaining the fullness of their own terrestrial existence and a healthy extraterrestrial milieu.

References

1. Arnould J., 2013. Tele-Reality: How Space Technology Transforms Human Perceptions of Space, Time, and Self. Astropolitics, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 231-237.

2. Borgmann A., 2010. Reality and Technology. Cambridge Journal of Economics, no. 34, pp. 27-35.

3. Borgmann A., 1984. Technology and the Character of Contemporary Life: A Philosophical Inquiry. Chicago; London, The University of Chicago Press.

4. Brown A., 2006. Assidents, Engeneering, and History of NASA 1967-2003. Dick, S.J., Launius RD. (eds.). Critical Issues in the History of Spaceflight. Washington, D.C NASA SP-2006-4702.

5. Clynes M., 1995. Sentic Space Travel. Cyborg Handbook. New York; London, Routledge.

6. Clynes M., Kline N., 1995. Cyborgs and Space. Cyborg Handbook. New York; London, Routledge.

7. Gerovitch S., 2006. Human-Machine Issues in the Soviet Space Program. Critical Issues in the History of Spaceflight. Washington, D.C NASA SP-2006-4702.

8. Gerovitch S., 2011. “Why are We Telling Lies?”: The Creation of Soviet Space History Myths. The Russian Review, vol. 70, no. 3, pp. 460-484.

9. Gerovitch S., 2014. Voices of the Soviet Space Program: Cosmonauts, Soldiers, and Engineers Who Took the USSR into Space. New York, Palgrave Macmillan.

10. Gerovitch S., 2015. Soviet Space Mythologies: Public Images, Private Memories, and the Making of a Cultural Identity. Pittsburgh, University of Pittsburgh Press.

11. Hersch M., 2009. Checklist: The Secret Life of Apollo's `Fourth Crewmember. The Sociological Review, vol. 57, no. 1, pp. 6-24.

12. Klein J., 2012. The Influence of Technology on Space Strategy. Astropolitics, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 8-26.

13. Krige S., 2006. Technology, Foreign Policy, and International Cooperation in Space. Critical Issues in the History of Spaceflight . Washington, D.C NASA SP-2006-4702.

14. Launius R., 2006. Compelling Rationales for Spaceflight? History and the Search for Relevance. Critical Issues in the History of Spaceflight. Washington, D.C NASA SP-2006-4702.

15. Lebedev V., 1988. Diary of a Cosmonaut: 21 Days in Space. New York; Toronto; London; Sydney; Auckland, Batman Books.

16. McCurdy H., 2006. Observations on the Robotic Versus Human Issue in Spaceflight. Critical Issues in the History of Spaceflight. Washington, D.C NASA SP-2006-4702.

17. Mindell D., 2006. Human and Machine in the History of Spaceflight. Critical Issues in the History of Spaceflight. Washington, D.C NASA SP-2006-4702.

18. Mindell D., 2008. Digital Apollo: Human andMachine in Spaceflight. Cambridge; Massachusetts; London; England, The MIT Press.

19. Roscosmos TV Space Dimension of Valentin Lebedev: An Interview. Video Series Scientists About Space, 2017. URL: https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=ZKCiGcBbb5s.

20. Savinyh V.P., 1999. Notes from the Dead Station. Moscow, Dom Sistemy Alisa Press.

21. Sadeh E., 2005. Viewpoint: The Evolution of Access to Space as an Idea and Technology. Astropolitics, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 305-318.

22. Sariak G., 2017. Between a Rocket and a Hard Place: Military Space Technology and Stability in International Relations, Astropolitics, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 51-64.

23. Siddiqi A., 2010. TheRedRockets'Glare: Spaceflight and the Soviet Imagination, 1857-1957.

24. Cambridge; New York; Melbourne; Madrid; Cape Town; Singapore; Sao Paulo; Delhi; Dubai; Tokyo, Cambridge University Press.

25. Shayler D.J., 2017. Linking the Space Shuttle and Space Stations: Early Docking Technologies . [S. l.], Springer Paxis Books.

26. Usachjov Ju., 2004. Notes of a Cosmonaut. Three Lives in Space. Moscow, Gelios.

27. Vaughan D., 2006. Changing NASA: The Challenges of Organizational System Failures. Critical Issues in the History of Spaceflight. Washington, D.C NASA SP-2006-4702.

Размещено на Allbest.ru