Every day we are beset by choices. From selecting what to wear, to choosing what (and where) to eat, to deciding to answer an email or interrupt a meeting to take a call, we weigh our desires against the perceived urgency or importance of each menu item each day offers us. In an earlier era, instead of carrying the burden of making a given choice, we might seek out our family patriarch, and let him make the decision. Today’s world values independence: those who defer choices we regard as weak, while those who seem to consistently make the right decisions we promote as leaders, regardless of the motivations that drive them. It goes without saying that, for one later judged by society to have made the wrong choice (regardless of his or her intentions at the time), the consequences can be terrible.
In section one of the original hardcover edition of If the Stars are Gods, Dr. Gregory Benford and Gordon Eklund present us with a mission to Mars which has suffered repeated misfortunes. The only survivor of the original survey team is not its leader, but Bradley Reynolds, a young astronomer. Bradley is intent upon carrying out the team’s original mission: to confirm the reports of life sent back by previous unmanned missions. But up in orbit, Major Paul Smith is alone, and needs another person to help pilot the ship back to Earth. Understandably, he wants Bradley to return immediately. When Earth appears to agree with Smith, Bradley is faced with a dilemma. Should he attempt to fulfill his teams’ original mandate, or should he, as a good team player, obey orders and return to the ship? If Bradley finds what he is searching for, society will judge him a hero; if he carries on and some new tragedy prevents his return to the ship, his decision will not only have cost him his life, but that of Major Smith as well.
Alone on Mars, Bradley Reynolds decides it is more important to honor his deceased team members (and everyone back home who worked so hard to get him there) than play it safe and return to the ship. He disobeys orders and continues the survey, only to be rewarded with an even greater dilemma.
Bradley discovers an old Russian probe, which has spread contaminants upon the surface of Mars. Are the supposed signs of life merely Martian mutations? Or is there life on Mars untouched by this contamination? Out of time and resources, he cannot make this determination. But what if his superiors (and the politicians) use his discovery to argue that all life on Mars must have originated on Earth? Like Matt Bowles in the novel Jupiter Project, Bradley Reynolds believes exploration is essential to humanity’s future. Thus, any action which endangers the space program must be wrong. Surely there is proof of authentic Martian life, which a subsequent team will find, he reasons. He thus decides not to report the discovery of the Russian probe, hoping that this lie of omission will lead humanity to find a greater truth.
Leaders occasionally make decisions based upon their beliefs rather than the facts at their disposal. The facts available to them are incomplete or misleading, they argue. Reality will prove out with their beliefs, and anyone who disagrees with them lacks vision. And strangely enough, sometimes the future rewards them for their decisions, despite all the facts that suggested otherwise. Was Bradley Reynolds right to put Major Smith’s life at risk and remain on Mars? Was he right to shield his discovery of the Russian probe from his superiors? While we might comfort ourselves with the knowledge that Bradley Reynolds is a fictional character, it seems likely that those we send into the darkness of space will face similar dilemmas.
Let us prepare them well, and be understanding of their human frailties.
No comments:
Post a Comment