Credit: iStockphoto
I love our planet. I love its trees, its mountains, its oceans, its big beautiful skies and its extraordinary diversity of life. What we have on this world is precious — it's worth cherishing and nurturing.
But that doesn't mean I think that travelling beyond this planet is a waste of time or resources; or that I think we should instead focus on getting our world right before venturing into space. That's just plain silly: did we fix Europe before embarking for the Far East and the Americas? Did we perfect an idyllic nomadic society before leaving the African plains? Waiting to get our 'house in order' will achieve nothing but guarantee the demise and eventual destruction of our planet, our ecosystem and our species. Going into space is one of the best things we can do to save our world, and ourselves.
It's in our nature to venture out: since the dawn of our species, we have explored, adapted and expanded. In doing so, we have become the most powerful creatures on Earth, capable of splitting the atom and affecting the climate. Like a teenager experiencing the first flushes of hormones, we have felt powerful and invincible — then slowly grown aware that our behaviour and newfound strength can harm others.
It's because of our extraordinary success, our ability to harness resources and bend them to our will, that we are encroaching on our neighbours. We live in a closed system — the planet Earth — but often behave recklessly as if its resources are limitless. In the past, we've overcome these constraints by expanding into new territories.
The solution is not to abandon modern industrial civilisation: we're not going to give up our cities or technologies. In fact, without the large-scale mechanisation of industry, transport and agriculture, we would be unable to feed our massive and growing population. Going 'back to nature' may sound romantic, but would consign billions to starvation.
The first thing to do is reduce our impact on the planet: make technologies more efficient and our cities, transport systems and industrial processes less damaging to ecosystems. We rely on the web of life to sustain us: we need bees to pollinate, trees to make oxygen and worms to aerate the soil, or we would swiftly perish.
And after that? Do we mandate population controls? Do we nominate an arbitrary age at which people need to 'retire', as in the dystopian fictional vision of Logan's Run? Because populations will continue to grow, especially as child mortality falls and science finds ways of extending human lives. The logical thing to do is to expand beyond Earth: to build colonies on Mars, floating habitats in Earth's Lagrange orbits, mines on the Moon and the asteroids, and expand deeper into our Solar System.
It may sound unappealing to some. But so was the prospect — just a few centuries ago — of a long and arduous journey across treacherous oceans in cramped conditions, only to arrive in a harsh and unforgiving wilderness where conditions were difficult and starvation was a real possibility. And yet, tens of thousands of people set off for Australia and North America, among many other places, in search of a new life. Thousands perished. And yet, more came.
We need to expand into space because Earth alone cannot sustain us. Space provides a pressure valve, but exploring it will also ensure our survival. Because one day, a massive calamity will befall our world — an asteroid strike, ice ages, supervolcanoes, solar bursts or nuclear war — and we may disappear, or our civilisation fall.
Some ask: so what if humans pass into history? It's not just a tragedy for us, but also one for nature. Without us, there is no one to witness its infinite beauty; no one to marvel at a sunset, revel in a view, or thrill to the breaking of a wave on a beach. As the late astronomer and author Carl Sagan once said, "we are a way for the universe to know itself".
But we also deserve to continue because we have created things greater than ourselves. Not only scientific and engineering knowledge, valuable as this is — we have also created new and beautiful ways to see the world through art, music, literature and performance.
Think of the plays of Shakespeare, the concertos of Bach, the philosophy of Confucius, the epic poetry of Virgil, the suiboku ink painting of Shubun, the fado laments of Amália Rodrigues, the morality tales of Javanese wayang kulit shadow puppetry, the Islamic calligraphy of the Diwani Al Jali style, the novels of Cervantes, the harvest bhangra dances of Pakistan, the rhythms of the didgeridoo, and anything by Leonardo da Vinci.
Even if the cosmos is brimming with other advanced civilisations, we still deserve to be here. Nature in its diversity has made us as we are: we too are children of the universe, and have something to contribute.
Wilson da Silva is the Editor-in-Chief of Cosmos, and the past president of the World Federation of Science Journalists.
We aren't going to run out
We aren't going to run out of resources... Some resources are changed into less usable forms, but nothing is truly destroyed. We may tie-up a lot of resources in buildings, cars what-have-you, but they are still there. Even burnt fuel still exists as CO2 and other chemicals. The problem of resources will be in stretching available resources too thinly. Furthermore, our current use of resources does not prove that we will unavoidably destroy ourselves. By your own admittance we "KNOW" absolutely nothing about the future with certainty. Thus you cannot know that we will destroy ourselves. And no, you cannot make an observation about the future. The future has not happened yet so it cannot be observed You can only observe the present and make predictions about the future.
But this is off-topic. The point I was trying to make is that you claim that "there is nothing to know" about living in space because it is not possible to live in space. Obviously we are alive, and we are in space, (the whole earth) therefore it IS possible to live in space. You cannot refute that or you would be claiming that you are not alive. You still have not provided any proof that a space colony cannot be built. Yes, it would be expensive. Yes, it would take a long time to bring enough equipment that it would be able to survive on it's own. Yes it would take a lot of research and hard work. But none of that is impossible. I would never argue that it is practical, or that it will happen any time soon, but I claim that it is possible. Actually, you yourself are even working to try to make human civilization on the earth sustainable. Isn't that to say that you are claiming a space colony is unsustainable, while pushing do do exactly that on the earth? The earth IS a human colony in space, after-all. Not that we had any part in creating it. Your argument therefore is a contradiction of your own goals.
Well said...
Well said Al.
For further information on reasons and methods I would suggest "The Case for Mars: The plan to settle the red planet and why we must" by Dr. Robert Zubrin (B.A. in Mathematics, MS in Aerospace Engineering, MS in Nuclear Engineering, and Ph.D. in Nuclear Engineering). The vast majority of the technology discussed is current or near future and it is written so that it would not be completely over the average person's head.
David Matthews, a few courses in the sciences/math might be a good idea too. Also, try to keep any discussion peaceful. Your tone works against your position by turning your posts into a rant.
Between hubris & self-loathing
Wisdom lies somewhere between David Mattews & JKritner's comments. Integral to DM's comments is an intense self-loathing of our species, and he implies that this is the inescapable feeling when considering how out-of-balance we've made the Earth system. Meanwhile, JK is happy to defend the hubris that humanity is the ultimate emergent property of the Universe.
Truth is that so far we've found 100 billion stars in our own galaxy, 500 billion in the closest galaxy to us, and billions and billions of other galaxies. It's simply hubris assume that we're the ultimate (and sole) observers and creators in this complex and inconceivably massive Universe that we've only begun to understand. A bit of humility would come in handy here - sure we've accomplished some amazing technological feats, but modern materialist society has failed to consider the vital importance and finite nature of the Earth system from which we emerged.
Similarly, self-loathing will only serve to manifest a future that is less than optimal for ourselves or the other species upon which we're dependent for life. The key to our evolution is both competition *and* collaboration, and we simply must act on the understanding of the interconnection of all parts of the system. Compassion for ourselves and others is a core element of self-conscious evolutionary process. At the same time, self-loathing is just as dangerous as the naive hubris of believing that magic spaceships traveling hundreds of millions of miles are somehow equivalent to discovering landmasses on our own planet a few centuries ago. The metaphor, while romantically seductive, simply doesn't pan out given limitations of propelling our physical bodies into space.
Finally, regarding human spaceflight, I'm all ears and would love to be convinced, but da Silva's article re-asserts the same vague ideas that are commonplace to this argument. He implies that a balanced understanding of the unreasonableness of human space colonization is luditism, while assuming that our species is on an inevitable destructive trajectory on our own planet is a foregone conclusion. In the words of Bucky Fuller, we're ALL astronauts aboard this spaceship Earth. Let's focus on terraforming our own planet before foolishly pursuing immensely more complex processes on other planets that are much, much less compatible with our biological and psychological needs. And, btw, this is a mutually exclusive situation. By focusing on human spaceflight, the current administration in the US is slashing funding for Earth observing equipment so we can take care of our finely tuned spaceship in hopes of building another one elsewhere.
I have yet to read a convincing argument that there is anywhere else for us to go. It takes a light year to get to the Oort cloud that represents the outer edge of our own solar system, and Mars, the moon, space stations - they're pathetically poor options compared to our home planet. We should focus on sending our perceptual extension into our space (satellite, rovers, cameras, etc) to simulate exploration through increasingly advanced visualization and simulation technologies. I'm putting my bet on the fact that our simulation tools will increase much faster than ability to survive in the unwelcoming void of space, and that these will allow our consciousness too experience space travel as if we're there without cutting budgets for taking care of our own home.
To further explore how sustainability of the Earth system is related to space travel, see the Space Option at http://www.ours.ch/spaceoption.php
And to explore practical approaches to understanding the limitations of our finite system, I highly recommend the writings of Ervin Laszlow: http://www.wie.org/bios/ervin-laszlo.asp
cheers,
david
"Less Than Optimal" Future
Hello David McConville,
> Similarly, self-loathing will only serve to manifest a future that is less than optimal for ourselves or the other species upon which we're dependent for life.
A less-than-optimal future is exactly what humankind has as a result of humankind's reckless destruction of the Earth. Humans have spent at least 10,000 years engaged in a fight to the death with Nature. We have attained absolute dominance over the Earth at the expense of rendering the Earth into a depleted, polluted, horrendous sewer of a planet.
In other words: The Earth ain't utopia now, and the Earth will never become a utopia.
As the Bible (and other religious texts and ancient mythology) asserts, the pre-human Earth was a Garden of Eden. Humans have taken Nature's carefully constructed world and pretty much destroyed everything, rendering the planet into a desolate, sterile, inhospitable and hellish place.
Look at all the suffering which occurs on this planet every day. Billions of humans are impoverished, lacking the basic necessities of life, afflicted by disease, threanted by violence, subject to exploitation, oppressed and enslaved (when employed).
We are living in the worst possible world. Any further effort along this path of self-destruction will only serve to exterminate Homo sapiens from the Earth. Humankind is unique among the animals in that the species is afflicted by suicidal tendencies.
Destroying the Earth for profit, power and pleasure ... this is the path to extinction. Those who want to leave the Earth will discover that no matter how distant they might travel they still carry within in the fatally flaws inherent in human nature.
Human life is not well suited to space. Human life is also -- alas -- not well suited to the Earth. Nature will exterminate us and the Earth will become a better place by our absence than it ever could by our presence.
If you want to save humankind from extinction you shouldn't head out into the harsh deadly vacuum of space. You must fix the fatal flaws and suicidal tendencies and self-destructive addictions of human nature. If you cannot fix human nature, know for certain that humankind is a lost cause, an evolutionary dead end, and a species which will soon become extinct.
The animals never made any of these mistakes. That is why the animals have survived and prospered on the Earth for millions of years.
David Mathews
David Mathews' Home Page
weaponry into livingry
David,
The human race is part of nature. Unfortunately, the dualistic, nihilistic, and absolutist terms you're using seem to result in your own isolation and disillusionment. Do you have any productive suggestions to "fix the fatal flaws" or are you just anxiously awaiting our demise?
By dismissing the past 10,000 years of human culture as a "fight to the death" with nature and proclaiming that human life is "now well suited to the Earth" you are ignoring the empirical evidence of the incredible gift of our own existence. Like our fellow Earthians (ie all of the other species), we emerged from this system - we are not separate from it. Cultures throughout history have been based on an understanding and appreciation of this. The Earth system is *perfectly* tuned to support our continued evolution. However, modern materialist societies have foolishly taken this for granted and sought to exploit the system as an infinite resource. Inevitably, we've realized that this "resource" is indeed finite and that we've reached the limits to growth of our current trajectory. Ironically, your argument that we're living in the "worst possible world", if believed, is the best reason to try to escape.
But focusing our time, energy, and resources on propelling our physical bodies is a naively limited view of space exploration, and a distraction from the real work that needs to be done. We should simultaneously work to design innovative and sustainable technological and cultural frameworks (via projects like the http://www.edenproject.com and http://www.worldchanging.com) while developing our unmanned space exploration and remote sensing technologies in the most efficient, useful, and productive ways possible.
cheers,
david
Homo Sapiens part of Nature, Technology is Not
Hello David McConville,
> The human race is part of nature.
Not according to the vast majority of humans who have decided, collectively, to destroy Nature at whim for the sake of temporary and easily squandered benefits.
Those who wish to leave the Earth are wishing to abandon Nature. As you should know, Nature inhabits the Earth. Outside of the Earth, there is no Nature whatsoever, just the sterile cold black vacuum of space. It is an environment which is not hospitable to human or any other form of life.
> Unfortunately, the dualistic, nihilistic, and absolutist terms you're using seem to result in your own isolation and disillusionment. Do you have any productive suggestions to "fix the fatal flaws" or are you just anxiously awaiting our demise?
Is there any way to beat a nuclear bomb into a plowshare?
I believe that human nature is fatally flawed and that the only possible solution to this problem would require a complete redesign of human nature on a species-level scale. This is the sort of task which only a God could accomplish.
Nature has a way of fixing fatally flawed species. It is called "natural selection" and extinction is its traditional methodology.
If humankind would prefer to avoid extinction, I encourage humankind to reform itself. If humankind cannot reform itself, the species will justly join the ranks of the extinct. You know that all of our closest evolutionary ancestors are already extinct? That sort of information would serve as a warning to an intelligent animal, but somehow the message escapes humankind.
> By dismissing the past 10,000 years of human culture as a "fight to the death" with nature and proclaiming that human life is "now well suited to the Earth" you are ignoring the empirical evidence of the incredible gift of our own existence.
What sort of gift is that? Humans are most prone to giving other species the gift of extinction. To our own species we give the gift of perpetual warfare. To Nature humankind gives the gift of pollution. To ecosystems humankind gives the gift of total eradication.
Yeah ... humankind is God's gift to the Earth.
> Like our fellow Earthians (ie all of the other species), we emerged from this system - we are not separate from it.
If that is the case then why is it that this miserable animal wants to leave the Earth, abandon Nature, and attempt to live in the desolate sterile lifeless expanse of space?
> Cultures throughout history have been based on an understanding and appreciation of this. The Earth system is *perfectly* tuned to support our continued evolution.
True. Western civilization has eradicated all of these cultures for the sake of land, wealth, natural resources, and sheer bloodlust.
> However, modern materialist societies have foolishly taken this for granted and sought to exploit the system as an infinite resource. Inevitably, we've realized that this "resource" is indeed finite and that we've reached the limits to growth of our current trajectory.
True. This is the fatal flaw of capitalism and Homo sapiens. This is the flaw which leads our species to extinction.
> Ironically, your argument that we're living in the "worst possible world", if believed, is the best reason to try to escape.
The Earth has become "the worst possible world" simply because of humankind's collective actions. Regarding the wish to escape: Nature wishes that humankind would escape from the Earth and never come back. Nature has become weary of our presence.
But where will humankind go? The number of hotels, restaurants, gas stations and grocery stores diminish dramatically after a space craft has passed the moon. The number of lakes, oceans, forests, and edible plants & animals decrease dramatically once a spacecraft has passed Mars.
Where will humankind go? Humankind has nowhere to go. Humankind evolved on the Earth, humankind destroyed the Earth, and humankind will go extinct on the Earth. What is a major tragedy for humankind is just another day on the Earth. Nature has existed for billions of years. Nature has witnessed billions of species go extinct. The loss of a primate species is no great loss from Nature's standpoint (nor even from God's).
Humankind is nearing its dead-end. Humankind won't recover. But Nature will repair the Earth, repopulate it with new species, and flourish again for millions of years after humankind is gone & forgotten.
David Mathews
What anthrocentric trash.
No other species has learnt not to adapt to their surroundings but to adapt their surroundings to suit their needs to the extent that we have.
Garbage. We didn't "learn to adapt" - natural selection adapted us. As for modifying the environment, photosynthetic algae did all the work to transform the environment from a low-energy anaerobic metabolism to a high-energy oxidizing one, making oxygen-breathers like us possible. You owe your ability to think faster than a sack of rocks to photosynthetic slime and mold.
We should go into space, but because its there, because we want to, because we're curious, because we want the elbow room, because it would be fun, because we could learn new things and make new discoveries, etc ... not because of some quasi-religious "it would be a tragedy for nature" argument that makes us look like foolish impractical dreamers.
Better to work on justifying space on a long-term economic basis. That will actually make it happen, because humans are greedy SOBs, and if you can prove to them that they can make more profit by going off-planet, it'll happen.
Life expands
The surface of this planet is saturated with life, life then generates intelligence to space travel to other planets, that's the same thing life has been doing for all the times, expanding, not big deal, it's just natural, it's called evolution.
Nothing wrong with expanding, but avoid exponential growth
As Daniel Quinn has pointed out in his excellent novel "Ishmael", growing as a species is fine and dandy as long as you don't wage war on your surroundings.
Totalitarian agriculture (that's the term he uses for our way of life as a global culture, being totally dependent on the massive surplusses our food production yields) is the fire burning beneath our cultural cauldron, causing us to overrun the planet, its resources and most other species sharing it with us.
It's obvious this way of life is not sustainable in the long run by *any* ecosystem, be it planet earth or even the universe itself, as it results in a massive population growth (you first need massive food production surplusses in order to start and maintain exponential growth), so I'd suggest solving this problem first before we take it with us into space as a cultural meme. The solution could be to manage (and limit!) our food production in a meaningful manner to stop this exponential population growth.
Humanity is not exempt from ecological laws and causalities, even if our culture teaches us otherwise ("pinnacle of creation", anyone? ;-)
Check www.ishmael.org if you'd like to find out more about Dan's excellent books.
All the best, uwe
Symphonies of Bach?
Bach may have written a symphony or two, but he wasn't especially well known for writing in that musical form. Perhaps you meant symphonies of Beethoven? Or Mozart or Haydn (arguably the first successful composer of symphonies) or Brahms or Mahler or Sibelius?