Why We Will Never Make it to Mars (as friends)
~1000 words. 4 minute read.
The longest simulation of a deep space mission lasted 17 months, roughly the duration for a Mars mission that will take about 520 days. The technological and logistical problems we need to solve to tip the probability of success our way hit all the points on the ‘Worthy Goal’ checklist:
Thrilling
Daunting
Important (You could argue about this one, but on a long enough timeline, we can maybe agree that humanity needs to leave this solar system eventually, and Mars could be the first stop on that roadmap).
Can we shoot pods of algae up there in advance to spark vegetation growth that will begin to produce an atmosphere? Should we begin sending construction materials and supplies now, so that the first landing group will have a ‘Martian IKEA’ waiting for them upon arrival?
It’s utterly fascinating to follow this topic, be it via fictional depictions (like ‘The Martian’, of course) or scientific exploration (I really recommend the ‘End of the World with Josh Clark’ podcast). And while technological progress promises eventual solutions to these problems, there’s one variable that won’t ever deliver perfect conditions: Humans.
‘High Conflict’ is the invisible hand of our time, according to Amanda Ripley, author of a book titled, well, ‘High Conflict’. To my fellow economists, this analogy to Adam Smith’s invisible hand of the market is obvious; as is the gravity of it: It implies a universal truth, a phenomenon with a life of its own, meaning we are not in control.
Fueled by attention economies, automation, globalization, badly regulated markets, and rapid social change, conflict has now transcended the issues and is becoming the driving force in society.
When we are swept up in high conflict, we don’t think of ourselves as angry or hateful, even if we are. We think of ourselves as right. It is no wonder then that NASA tries all it can to find candidates for its astronaut program who are conflict-tolerant, have delayed onset of high conflict symptoms, and are generally the kinds of people with few triggers. The sobering truth is that 520 days is longer than anyone can resist significant conflict, even an astronaut.
The Biosphere experiment ended with the crew at each other’s throats and the recognition that “humans are the most unstable element of a closed system.” The mission ended in sabotage when a few of the crew opened an airlock.
“Humans are the most unstable element of a closed system.”
There are two dangerous opportunities for the kind of conflict that we are simply pre-wired for to materialize:
High conflict amongst the crew members. This one is easy enough to understand, just remember last year’s Thanksgiving weekend with the extended family.
High conflict between the spaceship crew on the one and Ground Control on the other side, what NASA calls ‘ground-crew-disconnect’. In this classic ‘us-vs.-them’ scenario, both parties find themselves in a self-amplifying loop of building connection among their side at the expense of the other group.
Ripley calls this the Tar Pits and escape is almost impossible, especially when text messages with 40-minute roundtrip times are the only way of communication!
Now, this blog post, Ripley’s book, and countless space movies wouldn’t be complete without some way out. And just like in the best of space movies, the suspense comes from the solution being so very, very unlikely to play out.
We need to learn to listen. Not to agree. Just to listen. Because once the other side feels heard – that is literally all it takes – they willingly acknowledge their own inconsistencies. They become more flexible. They make more coherent and intriguing points. When we listen, high conflict turns into productive conflict, the kind we want to have.
A word of warning: I have committed myself to listening more and to working out three times a week. The listening journey is the harder one.
