Thanks to Aron Sora of Trenton, NJ at Habitation Intention for responding to my previous post with this question:

Is it an either or thing? Will having a deep sea program prevent the development of a space program or visa versa. Are there enough resources during a Maslow window to support both?

In the 2015 Maslow Window — based on the last 200 years — I’m sure it will be both, but the emphasis will most likely be on space development and colonization; I think that’s the lesson of the 1960s.

I’ve been asked before by 21stCenturyWaves.com readers why we don’t focus on Antarctica or the Ocean Floor as our next Great Exploration — after all they are closer! I’m sure we’ll continue to internationally develop these areas, but one big hint for your question is that President Kennedy chose to send us to the Moon. That was, and still is the most exciting (especially for the general public) direction with the greatest potential for human expansion. You may be aware that in 1992, Marshall Savage started his proposed colonization of the Galaxy with Ocean Colonies on Earth.

What strikes me about Project Mohole is that Dr. Munk and his collaborators really felt a competition between their Earth Science and the Race to Space! You can still hear that sentiment today when some scientists complain about the cost of establishing bases on the Moon. Unfortunately, Mohole was an early casualty of the inevitable collapse of 1960s Maslow Window ebullience, triggered by the Vietnam War and political issues with Mohole’s prime contractor Brown & Root.

Coincidentally, in the late 1980s when I was assembling an international team for our studies of manned lunar and Mars missions at General Dynamics, we chose Brown & Root as our base infrastructure experts. They were great people to work with. My Houston trips were always fun because after meetings with our friends at Johnson Space Center, I’d usually stop by Brown & Root’s Houston headquarters and then visit Larry Bell’s Sasakawa International Center for Space Architecture at the University of Houston; enjoyed working with them!

Based on macroeconomic data and historical trends of the last 200 years (including the 1960s!), it’s apparent that declining financial or other resources do not directly terminate Great Explorations and MEPs. It’s the decay of widespread ebullience — the force that initially makes Great Explorations and MEPs seem irresistible to the general public through their ascent to higher levels in Maslow’s Hierarchy — that eventually causes their “surprise” demise.

Ebullience — the hallmark of a Maslow Window — is a very intense, widespread form of Keynesian “animal spirits” and is a rare phenomenon. In the last 200 years it has appeared only during the rhythmic, twice-per-century major economic booms that trigger Maslow Windows.

Indeed, recent international events show the U.S. and other countries are financially capable of investing a few hundred billion USD in a decade of large-scale space colonization at almost any time they choose to do so — based on $ multi-B expenditures on recent wars and “stimulus” packages. But widespread ebullience is caused only by a major economic boom — not the reverse — presumably because these are stimulating times when a majority of citizens sense they are actually getting ahead.

Keep in mind that Maslow Windows are times of societal ebullience when it’s felt that almost anything is possible. If you can’t personally remember the 1960s or haven’t read about it, you may not understand how exceptional it really was. To get the feel for the ebullience of the 1960s, I suggest you scan my post on “The Liberal Hour.”

By the way, I suspect that the Peary/Panama Maslow Window (~1903 to 1913) featuring Teddy Roosevelt, may have been the most ebullient decade in the entire history of the U.S. The world had just survived the Crash of 1893 and the associated deep recession (ending 1899), and the U.S. was getting used to being a major economic power. And they really felt they could do virtually anything.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS