How space travel became the unofficial religion of the USSR | Hacker News Reader

How space travel became the unofficial religion of the USSR

calvertjournal.com

102 pointscodeas62 comments

This article fails to explore the depth of the connection between Russia and space travel. Long before the October revolution, Russian scientists like Kibalchich and Tsiolkovsky were obsessed with using rocketry to explore the cosmos.

They were just two members of a robust philosophical tradition, Russian cosmism, whose influence can still be seen today in the transhumanist movement. To many cosmist thinkers, space travel was not a "religion" in the cliched symbolic sense suggested by the article; it was the literal underpinning of their metaphysical beliefs.

Exploring space was considered, not just the fate of the Russian people, but the ultimate destiny for humanity itself.

> They were just two members of a robust philosophical tradition, Russian cosmism, whose influence can still be seen today in the transhumanist movement.

Source? I don't see any influence at all. When I read older transhumanist works like _Great Mambo Chicken_, Ettinger's _Man into Superman_, or even older than that like _The World, The Flesh, and the Devil_, or I read histories of the movement like Stambler's recent _History of Life Extensionism in the 20th Century_, I see absolutely no influence on Western transhumanism from Russians except indirectly through Cold War realities. Further, when I read the occasional summary or publication that filters through the language barrier about current Russian stuff like the 2045 Initiative, it feels like it's coming from a totally separate and disconnected world (for better or worse).

That there are similarities is not much of a proof: the possibilities of technology and science are the same everywhere, and so responses will likewise be similar. You don't have to have studied deeply in the Kosmism canon to think that it would be good if we didn't age, sicken, and die suffering horribly and that science might be able to do something about that...

The only attempt I've seen to actually show real links is Stross's lame blog post on it, which amounts to 'this is a little like that, this came before, therefore, this caused that' and is nothing more than a thinly-disguised 'post hoc ergo propter hoc'.

There is a certain special irony in debating the genealogy of an idea within a thread about Russian cosmism, given Vernadsky's belief in the noosphere.

Regardless, I didn't mean to imply that the modern transhumanist movement is merely an outgrowth of Russian cosmism. But the cosmist writings may be the earliest articulation of transhumanist values.

If someone finds a direct, linear connection between cosmism and transhumanism, I would love to hear about it. But I suspect that the same set of ideas has been developed independently multiple times.

Indeed, it would be problematic if they had only evolved within one nation, because that would imply that they were culturally contingent. If they are intrinsically sound, they should be available for discovery by diverse thinkers.

> Regardless, I didn't mean to imply that the modern transhumanist movement is merely an outgrowth of Russian cosmism. But the cosmist writings may be the earliest articulation of transhumanist values.

When people say "whose influence can still be seen today in the transhumanist movement", it seems reasonable to me to infer that they were indeed implying that if not an offshoot, there is still a lot of causal influence. If it was all a sheer coincidence, then 'influence' is a very odd word to use...

This does not seem like it should be controversial. Transhumanism is a direct outgrowth of Timothy Leary's 1970s "SMI^2LE" programme (Space Migration Increased Intelligence Life Extension), which in turn was directly influenced by L5 Society folks like Keith Henson and Gerald K. O'Neil. They, in turn, were directly influenced by Tsiolkovsky and other Cosmists. These influences were acknowledged by all parties involved.

> which in turn was directly influenced by L5 Society folks like Keith Henson and Gerald K. O'Neil. They, in turn, were directly influenced by Tsiolkovsky and other Cosmists. These influences were acknowledged by all parties involved.

Then it should be easy for you to show. I am fairly familiar with Henson and have read a number of his essays and emails from SL4 and Extropy days and I cannot recall a single instance showing that Tsiolkovsky had any particular influence asides from being, as I said, parallel developments. Eyes are a great idea, but that doesn't mean octopuses copied them from monkeys.

Got any sources? Sounds like a very interesting topic.

I have been stumbling through some of the original Russian-language texts. A lot of the passages go over my head, but it's a good way to pick up fun new words and phrases.

So far, my favorite cosmist thinker has been Tsiolkovsky. It is amazing to recognize so many of one's recent intellectual realizations in prose that was written almost a century ago.

My pet scientific theory quantifies the capacity of a complex adaptive system to alter the universe, so I named it voltropy for 'volitional transformation.' That choice felt eerie when I discovered that the original Russian title of Tsiolkovsky's famous book, The Will of the Universe, is Воля Вселенной — which literally means The Volition of the Universe.

Who knows, if you can formulate a convincing enough narrative around it, "voltropy" might catch on. It has a nice ring to it, although that isn't a very scientific way to measure its quality of course.

A quick google search shows that Tsiolkovsky has English translations freely available on iTunes, will check it out. Thanks!

For future alien historians: Voltropy is measured by the increase in the total predictive accuracy of Solomonoff induction when the state of a system is specified. (e.g., before organic life, the composition of matter on earth provided virtually no information about the future of the galaxy, but that is changing as the development of space travel increases the probability that intelligent life will exert causal influence beyond the confines of our solar system)

Just looked up Solomonoff induction; assuming it's an accepted mathematical formulation of Occam's Razor, your definition of Voltropy doesn't sound like fringe science at all!

That's very kind of you. For the moment, it is fringe science because it's just my personal hobby. But I would not pursue it if I did not think there was really something there.

Solomonoff induction is obscure, but it has achieved broad acceptance within the fields where it is relevant. It's not computable, so most of the research is focused on finding the most efficient heuristic implementations.

Ultimately, the concept of voltropy doesn't really depend on Solomonoff induction though. That's just a convenient way of describing it. My real contention is that, however defined, there is some optimal program for accurately predicting the future given a fixed amount of data about the current state of certain systems within the universe. And the accuracy of those predictions is a function of the specified system's capacity for volition.

A "God" would have maximal voltropy, because it would be capable of imposing its desired state of the universe, irrespective of any other variable. A peacock has very limited voltropy, because it only has agency when certain strict environmental conditions are satisfied. A human has a greater capacity for adaptation to varied conditions, such as different temperatures or food sources, which is one (of many) reasons that a person would presumably have greater voltropy than a peacock.

In the vast majority of possible configurations of the external world, both would die instantly, but there are a greater range of possible worlds in which the human is able to exert agency. Knowledge of the human's state therefore conveys more information about the rest of the universe, because ceteris paribus there is a greater probability that the human will causally influence the future states of other systems.

Something implicit in my prior post, which I want to make clearer

My theory presumes that agents are defined by their respective utility functions. The information specifying those functions must necessarily be embodied within some physical substrate in order for an agent to operate within a physical domain. And thus, an optimally programmed Turing machine should be capable of ultimately ascertaining the utility function of a given agent when provided the states of the agent's constitutive variables. Once the utility function is derived from that information, it should be possible to predict the agent's preference with respect to various possible states of the universe. Solomonoff induction provides (at least) one means of converting that information into a probability distribution.

> Exploring space was considered, not just the fate of the Russian people, but the ultimate destiny for humanity itself.

This idea was created much later, when Soviet officials tried to ingrain Soviet space achievements in past history and build some kind of philosophical foundation.

Besides, originally (during Kibalchich and Tsiolkovsky) cosmism wasn't about space travel.

>Exploring space was considered, not just the fate of the Russian people, but the ultimate destiny for humanity itself.

Fascinating. I really do still think this is the case. We know so little and there are infinite possibilities out there for us in space.

Practically all of the economy of the Soviet Union was the military-industrial complex and that complex had to pretend it wasn't only that.

All industry was dedicated to manufacturing weapons - what was produced for civilians was a side-production and small part of the output.

For example - practically all of the aluminium in the Soviet Union was used for the military. And most of the aluminium was used for rocketry and aviation - again military. And you have a big cities like Dnipropetrovsk in Ukraine called Rocket city for having a huge concentration of such plants.

Now space exploration sounded good because it is one of the few areas the Soviet Union could compete with US AND it was convenient to explain why Socialism needs so many rockets.

The scientific progress might even eventually improve living standards might one wishfully think. Of course it didn't, at least it wasn't allowed to.

Eventually, most of the military-industrial complex was disbanded and it is only logical that the space cult was thrown in the dustbin on recent history.

Nowadays Russia has only a fraction of it is former military output and there isn't any point in pretending it is smaller, quite the opposite, the government think it is important to display it is military might.

Bold claims require proper sourcing. Otherwise it's perilously close to trolling.

Perhaps start by explaining why that complex had to pretend "it wasn't only that"?

Man, he is mostly right. Almost everything industrial in the USSR was either military, or dual purpose. E.g. in my home town huge chemical plant was supposed to produce chemical fiber, however if needed in 24 hrs it could be switched to produce explosives.

The plant wasn't pretending it wasn't only capable of producing explosives, it was actually producing fiber.

You wont't believe, but driving chains plant in the same location was capable to produce and fix damaged T-72s. Actually it still can, and current owner has a collection of Soviet tanks, driving on small parade on the 9th of May each year. UPD: have a look - T34 and ИС-2 on the backyard of Driving Chains Plant - http://www.gorod.lv/novosti/253080-v-daugavpilse-strelyali-s...

Thanks for sharing this

Was it in Chernihiv by any chance?

Never heard of ЗХВ-type plant in CHernihiv. There was one in Cherkassy, one in Svetlogorsk (Belarus), one in Sillamae (Estonia), one in Daugavpils (Latvia). Later two were sold for $1 to Tolaram Fibers, which basically shut down plants the next day and fired around 3500 people from each one of them in the 90-ies. UPD: there are others, but I do not know details. The design of the plant is 60-es. The one in Daugavpils built in 1963. Currently what remains of it is owned by french Rhodia.

That's true of many industrial process; they're often inherently dual-use and it's only a matter of time/effort before the hardware is re-purposed[1]. Fun Fact: if you're sophisticated enough to have an agricultural organophosphate pesticide plant making, say, malathion or diazinon (i.e. not particularly sophisticated), it's a straightforward process tweak using the similar chemical precursors to produce nerve agents like Sarin.

If you're interested in more, the Wassenar agreement[2] is the framework within which dual-use non-proliferation is dealt with. It's kind of daunting to see how much industrial output is considered dual-use.

[1] One should, of course, always be dubious of claims like "24 hrs" out of context. Such things are famously exaggerated and often posited on contrived pre-conditions like "all safety protocols ignored", "all raw materials and additional personnel already on site and ready" and "logistics infrastructure already converted to military needs".

[2] http://www.wassenaar.org/

That isn't a bold claim at all - there was a cultural battle on the world stage between the USSR and the US as to which had the better society. Being perceived as nothing but a war machine would have lost that battle for the USSR.

Any sources that USSR was a "war machine"? Being perceived by whom, where and when?

Please stop with this obsession with sources, unless you have sources to the contrary.

I never claimed that the USSR was a war machine. I was simply explaining why the complex had to pretend that it 'wasn't only that', as requested by abcd_f. If you accept that there was a cultural battle going on, this explanation requires no further sourcing. If you do not accept there was a cultural battle, I suggest a little Googling because this is not an extraordinary claim.

The issue is not the existence of the cultural battle, the issue are your claims that the USSR was perceived to be a war machine. Like if I claim that the US is perceived to be a war machine, I need sources.

Of course the US tries to say it's not a war machine, just like the USSR did, but just trying to say you're not a war machine doesn't actually mean that people think you're a war machine.

Nowhere did I claim that the USSR was perceived to be a war machine. You have not read the comments properly.

Military spending by the USSR was about 16% of GDP. US (and Russia today) is more like 3-4%, and that's very high by global standards. It's not quite "war machine" (the UK hit about 50% in WWII, North Korea sits on about 30%), but it was a huge amount.

My grandmother knew names and personal details of first 60 or so cosmonauts, had a notepad with all launch dates and was generally a walking encyclopedia on all things space. She was a housewife most of her life and a steam engine machinist in the 1930s. Not any sort of technical elite, nor even remotely interested in anything technical. Except for the space travel.

So, yeah, to say that space travel was a big thing back in Soviet times would be a major understatement.

The article is an exaggeration at least. "Space travel" wasnt' comparable with dialectical materialism(lead Soviet philosophical doctrine) in any way.

Interestingly, could be "american exceptionalism" called an "unofficial religion" as well? lol

"Exceptionalism" is not an American phenomenon. It just seems that way because America currently enjoys unipolar primacy, so it can put its ideology into action.

Most powerful nations have intentionally promulgated some form of exceptionalist ideology. Russians believe their country is exceptional because it alone can bridge the gap between Eastern mysticism and Western materialism. The Chinese believe their country is exceptional because of their civilization's unrivaled history. Brazilians believe their country is exceptional because it has blended more cultures and races than any other.

The examples go on and on... Japan, Korea, Germany, France, Italy, India... all have well publicized beliefs that some factor elevates their country above its peers. Given the ubiquity of this belief, I suspect that it has adaptive benefits for society, such as increasing social cohesion. (Or maybe it's just an innate human failing!)

There's a difference between a claim that a country is unique for some reason (everyone has one of these) versus thinking that this makes them superior or entitled.

American Exceptionalism even has a creation myth and a pantheon of gods. It's something else entirely.

> American Exceptionalism even has a creation myth and a pantheon of gods. It's something else entirely.

Are you referring to the American Revolution and the Founding Fathers? If so that sort of thing doesn't seem exclusive to American Exceptionalism...

"There's a difference between a claim that a country is unique for some reason (everyone has one of these) versus thinking that this makes them superior or entitled."

Rationally, yes.

Psychologically, no.

The latter counts for more.

Please explain the creation myth and pantheon of Gods?

By your own definition, last century saw overt nationalistic exceptionalism in at least Japan and Germany, also with an associated creation myth and pantheon of gods. Depending on how thin you want to spread it, I think there's a good case for throwing in Italy and Turkey/Ottomans and probably all the European colonial powers.

>Interestingly, could be "american exceptionalism" called an "unofficial religion" as well?

Hell Yea

The article seems to imply that any work of art created within the context of an organization must be regarded as propaganda by default. "The Mystery of the Third Planet" was produced by a studio, which according to wikipedia enjoyed an "unprecedented degree of artistic freedom" [1]. Yet this film is mentioned right after the remark that "children were a key target of propaganda with space-themed films and cartoons cranked out for a younger audience." I don't really disagree with this way of categorizing certain art as propaganda but I'd like to see the same line of thought applied more often to Hollywood.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuzmultfilm#History_during_t...

"Propaganda" is usually used to refer to attempts by a government organization to rally support behind itself and convince people that it is doing the right thing. It's pretty much implicit that a private company will try to gather public support by producing art/commercials/etc.

But most people feel a government should hold itself to different standards, and act on the will of the public rather than try to CREATE public opinion.

In the 1930's, the Roosevelt Administration was concerned with widespread corporate propaganda aimed at convincing the public that the New Deal would destroy the economy, and so it commissioned a series of rival videos meant to help steer Americans from being unduly influenced away from policies that would actually help them.

If (a democratic) government merely holds itself to the will of he public as opposed to seeking to create it, then someone will take advantage of the power vacuum, and I see no way that state or society would benefit.

Yes, and the article doesn't tell us how Soyuzmultfilm cartoons were dictated by government policy rather than influenced by a well established "unofficial religion."

Very interesting article, it brought together a lot of things which I haven't thought about in years. Yet the word "propaganda" is a bit strong I feel. I was into many things as a end-of-Sovier-era kid, but have very fond memories of taking in Soviet sci-fi and generally futurist ideology. As a kid it has provided me with plenty of food for imagination and was all-around enriching. There are much worst things to surround your mind with, and plenty of things from modern capitalist pop culture are clearly inferior, I'm sure everybody can think of countless examples.

It loads up briefly—with an image visible, even!—then becomes a blank white page without JavaScript.

I just want to add that the same fascination with science and space created cinema masterpieces at least for that time. The special effects used in these 50's and 60's movies influenced Hollywood and helped to create such classics as Stars Wars and Terminator 2.

Lucas did see a number of German and Soviet SciFi movies before making Star Wars. Some of the influence in costumes and space ships is quite obvious.

Another very obvious influence on Star Wars, and specifically the attack on the Death Star, was the UK 1955 movie "The Dam Busters" about the real life WW2 Operation Chastise.

There are amusing clips on YouTube of Star Wars visuals and the The Dam Busters audio and vice-versa - the similarity is pretty close.

Edit: Correction 1995 -> 1955

1995? I think you meant 1955 :)

Could you provide examples of the Soviet films that were so influential?

1972's Солярис is a classic. It is far superior to the later American version directed by Steven Soderbergh.

Hollywood directly ripped that one off - Планета бурь by Pavel Klushantsev. It strongly influenced both Spielberg and Lucas, and Cameron too.

Yes, Planet of Storms and in general Klushantsev was the inspiration for Hollywood many directors.

https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ru&tl=en&u=h...

Even small things like Chewbacca which is derived from a Russian word for dog - Sobaka came from the same movie Planet of Storms where the dog helps the space explorer. The Terminator 2 final scene where the Arnold goes down in molten lava is taken from Planet of Storm similar scene... etc..

> Hollywood directly ripped that one off - Планета бурь by Pavel Klushantsev.

Really? That's some weird thinking - that Star Wars were 'ripped' from that B-grade movie.

Maybe by our modern standards. But the movie was so revolutionary at that time that it was edited, voice-overed and all the mentions of the Soviet actors removed, fake American names were added in credits. And I think some additional scenes were shot in US (source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planeta_Bur).

Another famous movie was edited by young Francis Ford Coppola (who was also inspired by Soviet cinema) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_Beyond_the_Sun

So basically a B-grade movie got cannibalized by low-budget horror director.

That's very far away from your original claim.

Mate, before Planet of the Storms there was no SciFi. This is the hollywood rip off I am telling about - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0059887/?ref_=tt_rec_tt This is the original movie - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0056352/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1 See for yourself.

George Lucas during his 1988 visit to the Soviet Union credited Pavel Klushantsev as the "godfather of the Star Wars"

Do you have any sources for that?

It is even in wikipedia. http://www.shadowlocked.com/201203302484/opinion-features/th... Documentary: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xthyi5_the-star-dreamer-rus... During one of his visits to Russia, Star Wars creator said that his dream was to meet the maestro Klushantsev. Film-industry functionaries just shrugged: "Who's that?" "Klushantsev is the God Father of Star Wars," answered Lucas.

A same article could have been written about the USA. Actually it would have made a bit more sense, since it could include pop culture references to actual space travel (e.g Star Trek, Star Wars, Battlestar Galactica etc. etc) instead of things like "The Guest from the Future", a TV series about time travel that mentions that there is a space port in Moscow of the future and some obscure cartoons (other than "The Secret of the Third Planet" I have not seen ones the author mentioned and, unlike her, I grew up in the USSR).

Not that I believe the cult of space exists in the USA, but the same stupid argumentation is more applicable here.

I was a zealot of it in my early school years. Much of my later disappointment with modern days Russia was allowing the Soviet space research programmes to collapse. Its a pity humanity will never again have Energia rocket. That one could reach Mars with 5tons of useful weight in 1991. In 2012 there was attempt to animate Energia, but 90% of it was constructed in Ukraine, and it is not an option today.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com