The IPad's Fundamental Flaw is Also the Reason for the Downfall of NASA

The prize for this month's over-hyped non-event has to be the commercial release of Apple's latest tech gadget in search of a purpose, the (unfortunately named) "iPad". Since I've been bombarded by Apple's online viral marketing machine for at least two months now, I decided to shamelessly capitalize on the iPad's inflated search engine rankings myself and write a clever hyperbole using the iPad as a case-study for maybe the most fundamental shortfall in the US government space program. So what does a hyper-glossy couch potato prosthesis have in common with the US Space Agency you ask? More than you might expect actually.

Regardless of the iPad's technical specifications - or that it has menu animations so snazzy they could have their own "director's cut" - the fundamental flaw of the iPad (and the reason I'd never buy one myself) is this: it is designed for consuming content made by others, with no functionality to contribute content of your own. Using an iPad to connect to the internet is like sitting in a (very comfortable) chair, inside a (very nicely decorated) closed room, while a (very well dressed) messenger delivers you snippets of information about what is going on outside - based on his interpretation of what your interest are, and always willing to provide helpful guidance on what your interests should be, just in case you might stray from the advertised program.

The internet is what it is today, because it draws on the creativity and contributions of billions. Web destinations such as YouTube, Slashdot, Facebook, Wikipedia, Craigslist, or even Google itself are thriving communities because of the content created by users. Yet the iPad has no mouse, no (real) keyboard, no camera - its design philosophy is firmly rooted in making the consumption of content as convenient as possible, while spending no effort at the possibility of contributing content yourself. This device - while heralded to usher in a new way of using all the web has to offer - is in fact a step backwards to the "cable company content control model" that favors brain dead consumers over an active community of participants. It's so simple, a lobotomized monkey could use it; no thumbs required.

In those times when people still favored using their own brain instead of others doing the thinking for them, the word "consumption" used to describe a disease (tuberculosis), a common and often deadly infection with millions of sufferers every year. In today's world "consumerism" is an even more prominent societal disease, based on the systematic creation and nurturing of a desire to purchase goods or services in ever greater amounts, bordering on the ridiculous. Following the beginning of the 90s, for the first time the most frequent reason given for attending college in the US was "making lots of money", outranking previously dominant reasons such as becoming an expert in a field of study, or helping people to create a better society.

So what is it that NASA could learn from the iSuck adult pacifier? Just like the one-way street to the information superhighway, NASA has always been very much a top-down organization, with few opportunities for space enthusiasts to make valuable contributions. You are welcome to watch, and there are Space Camp visits where kids can play astronaut, but leave the serious rocket science to the professionals please ... NASA is an exclusive club, only the chosen get to participate. This approach wastes the creativity of the millions of worldwide space enthusiasts who would jump at the chance to make valuable contributions if given the opportunity. Rather than create a space program for the people, NASA needs to implement a space program created by the people. And if the ideas put forth by the community prove to be infeasible, then it should be NASA's mandate to educate those same people so their ideas will improve.

Companies like Google have been enormously successful in leveraging the energy of self-motivated contributors (think Google "Summer of Code" for example). As a public agency constantly competing for public support, NASA has done a dismal job of letting the public's interests direct its mission. If people show no interest in participating in a space program, then you are running the wrong space program. Not only is a space program directed by public interests guaranteed to be more successful in returning benefits to the public, but it would serve as an enormously powerful platform to encourage education.

The US has (de?)evolved into the largest consumer society in the world; climbing out of Earth's gravity well is just what's needed to turn around the trend of breeding a society of spoon fed debt slaves, to creating a society that encourages intelligent participation in shaping its own future.