Free sample! |
Going into space may be one of the best things we can do to save our world, and ourselves. 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.
Readers' commentsGoing into Space?The article is an astonish example of wishful thinking. Travelling across an ocean does not correspond to exploring space because the Earth-explorers knew that there was oxygen, fresh water and food available throughout the trip. On the other hand, in space the astronauts will quickly discover that there isn't any oxygen, food or water anywhere. Humankind has attained an unsustainable population on the Earth. Growth continues because humans are not wise nor skilled at self-restraint. Given that humankind's population is unsustainable, growth continues and space is not an option as a "safety-valve" ... what is going to happen? The human population will collapse. Our species could very well go extinct. Humans don't yet realize the full extent of humankind's damage to the Earth. Nor are most humans aware of the depletion of the resources which make technological civilization possible. Also, humans do not seem to notice that the natural forces of erosion are sufficient to demolish civilization just as they destroyed the interstate bridge. What does this mean? Technological civilization will end. Those familiar with history will know that global civilization is following a common. Civilizations grow, civilizations peak, and civilizations collapse. You are born, you become an adult, you grow old, and you die. Those who imagine that Nature is going to lose anything by humankind's extinction really need to look at the Earth and observe how humans have eradicated Nature everywhere. Humans are Nature's ultimate enemy and we are engaged in a fight to the death with Nature. Since Nature is 4 billion years old, I don't imagine that it will lose. What this means is that Homo sapiens must eventually go extinct. What, that is not possible? All of our closest ancestors have gone extinct. Humankind is not an immortal species. Technological civilization is not an eternal civilization. Humans have not transformed the Earth into heaven. The end of humankind is coming and there won't be any humans exploring and conquering space. Humans will lose dominance over the Earth and then our species will slip into the black hole of extinction. Nature won't much notice or care about the absence of a primate species. Everything that humankind has accomplished will be forgotten and lost forever. But at least humankind will leave some rare fossils in the geological record to testify of our existence on the Earth. Submitted by Visitor on 11 August 2007 - 11:05am.
Doomsayers Unite!#2: Your reply is an astonishing example of doomsaying and defeatist attitude. Barring an unprecedented massive global calamity like something the size of Mars crashing impacting earth, or the sun going nova, Humans will not go extinct. Of those two possibilities the first is mitigated by self-sustaining off-world colonies and the second is mitigated by traveling to the stars. Civilization as we know it may change drastically, 95% of the population could die in a disaster like an asteroid impact, supervolcano, or from simple starvation and disease, but we will not disappear. Your historical example of civilizations rising and falling is flawed in that the regimes and culture changed, but the people didn't just go away. Rome spread over most of Europe, but after it fell it was replaced by smaller empires, which were replaced by other empires, ad infinitum. Same goes for every other civilization on earth. We may not know what happened to civs like the Maya, but I doubt they just evaporated... Humans have an advantage that none of our predecessors had: We don't have to rely on natural evolution to adjust to our environment. We can use technology to construct suitable environments, wether it be at the bottom of the ocean, low earth orbit, the middle of antarctica, or the Sahara. Heck, we survived a lengthly Ice-Age with bear-skin and spear technology... Humans have a distinct knack for solving problems when it's our lives on the line, and I am convinced that if we have the will, we can overcome anything that stands before us. It may not be pretty, and many of us will die, but our species will live on. Fortunately most people don't share your "We are already dead" attitude, if they ever do, then it might just come true. Submitted by JKritner on 12 August 2007 - 7:40am.
Humans are an Unprecedented Global CalamityDear Sir: The entire context of the wish to escape Earth and explore space is one of unprecedented human-generated catastrophe upon the Earth. The collective impact of Homo sapiens upon the Earth are about as positive as an asteroid impact. Those who wish for self-sustaining off-world colonies should wake up. Hasn't the Space Shuttle taught you futurists anything? The latest launch went off smoothly enough but NASA is rightfully worried about the safety of the shuttle. The process of going up into and returning from Space is only exceeded in danger by living in space. There is one, and only one, self-sustaining environment hospitable to humans in the Universe: the Earth, but humans are destroying this planet like suicidal fools. If humans have done such a terrible job living upon the Earth how is it possible that our species would survive for any length of time in space? Unlike the Earth, space is not bountifully supplied with oxygen, water and food. The harsh reality is that space lacks all of these things and several other things which are less famously vital to the survival of human life. You are right about one thing, 95% of the population could die. Yes, 95% of the human population will die. The human overpopulation is unsustainable at any population level exceeding (here's a guess) 100 million. Technological civilization and an ever-accelerating rate of resource consumption has allowed the human population to explode to 6.6 billion headed to 9,000,000,000. The end of technological civilization and the exhaustion of resources will rapidly return the global human population to that lower, (formerly) sustainable number. You are also correct in noting, "Humans have an advantage that none of our predecessors had: We don't have to rely on natural evolution to adjust to our environment. We can use technology to construct suitable environments ... " I have a bit of bad news for you. That which seems like a strength to you is actually a weakness, more than a weakness: Humankind's achilles' heel. Humankind's unwillingness to adapt to the environment renders our species dependent upon technologies which cannot help but fail. When the technologies fail the humans will face Nature in all of its harshness and suffer the indignities of Natural Selection on a massive scale. The statement, "Humans have a distinct knack for solving problems when it's our lives on the line ... " is an example of unscientific blind faith. It is analogoes to a young person saying, "If I haven't died yet, I will never die!" Everyone should know that this is a boast which Nature universally refutes, yet the youth continue to entertain it against all the contrary evidence. The unhappy Truth: Homo sapiens will survive until Homo sapiens goes extinct. A person continues living until that person dies. The attitude, "We are already dead" is perfectly consistent with the condition of this world and human nature. The animals are not so foolish (nor as violent nor as suicidal) as the Homo sapiens, so I am confident that they will survive. Humankind, on the other hand, is a species engaged in a reckless act of self-destruction. Humankind won't ever conquer Space, nor will humankind long endure on the Earth. Our species is an evolutionary dead-end and Nature's most recent extinction event. Nature will recover but humankind will go extinct. Too bad for us but the Earth won't stop spinning just because we are gone. The sun won't dim its light simply because another hominid species has gone extinct. David Mathews Submitted by Visitor on 12 August 2007 - 10:48am.
facing challenges but not dead yeti would agree with almost everything written by dave, with one exception. whilst humanity is without question moving in the direction of a self-inflicted extinction event, there is growing evidence that the thing which would save us is on the brink of happening - the very same thing that has always saved life, namely evolution in the face of survival pressures. the state of the external world is a reflection of the state of modern man's consciousness - the outer world reflects the inner. and actually, "consciousness" is just software, as anyone who has ever experienced a life-changing psychological insight will attest. the unsatisfactory nature of our current state of consciousness (human ego-consciousness) is only in recent generations finally becoming apparent. comparable to 1,000 years ago, most of you reading this will have immense personal wealth and power but are you fully happy? who here is happy with what they have got, and who still wants more? even though the planet is being raped of it's life-blood, we mostly feel that our consumption levels still need to increase somewhat before we will finally be satisfied. what's this saying about our state of consciousness? isn't the mess of the external world simply saying that we need to transform ourselves, not our outer circumstance, in order to find contentment and peace of mind in a sane, sustainable manner? it's a big psychological transformation that's needed - effectively giving birth to a new species. but the incentives to do it are increasing, and when the planet is fully raped and billions of people are starving, i'd say that the psychological pressure to transform and evolve will reach even higher levels. but a growing number of people feel that the human race will evolve and (some of us anyway) survive. there is another state of consciousness that humans are capable of operating from, and which would resolve all the problems. this state of consciousness has been the experience of a very select few people in history, but i believe these people were the forerunners of a new human species which is as fundamentally new to planet earth as human beings were to apes, and which (in a thousand years or so anyway) will "rule the earth". anyone interested should google on such terms as "evolutionary enlightenment", "psychological evolution" or simply just take the time to look at the core message of all the world's religions. junk all the stuff about magic, angels, gods sitting in clouds, try to ignore all the judgmental and bigoted nonsense that was added later and just try to get a taste of the actual state of consciousness the core visionary appeared to be operating from - persons such as buddha, jesus, krishna etc etc. there are more people alive today that are actually operating from this new consciousness than ever before. dave is right - it's going to get messy but as the leading shoot of evolution, and the only shoot of evolution capable not merely of being subject to evolution but actually rising above that, actually becoming the process of evolution itself become self-conscious (all jesus and buddha really were) mankind is not dead yet. but back to the original article - leaving earth to conquer space. bad idea in my opinion, where did the idea for the film "Alien" ever come from if the seed of the Alien monster as a human possibility does not exist within us all? "Alien" may well be the thing we need to run away from, but sadly the all-destroying Alien is within ourselves - our very own (current) state of ego based consciousness. let's try and get a bit of sanity going on planet earth before thinking of going elsewhere? Submitted by phil anderson on 12 August 2007 - 11:46pm.
phil: >i would agree withphil: >i would agree with almost everything written by dave, with one exception. > even though the planet is being raped of it's life-blood, we mostly feel that our consumption levels still need to increase somewhat before we will finally be satisfied. What bugs me most is that few single humans can survive on their own (without other humans, not without the rest of nature) anymore. If you would place a human (me) in a forest, I'd probably even be too stupid to find out which stuff is edible. Or be bitten by a snake I'd have spotted miles away in a previous life. What's more, some countries actively _prevent_ you from trying to be self-sufficient: Camping in public places? Can't do that. _Parking your car_ in public places overnight and sleeping in it? Can't do that. Just staying (without anything but your body and clothes) in the same public place all day? "What are you doing here? Move on." Instead we rent/buy-with-debt our places of residence (= places we sleep at) and enslave ourselves by it. Depressing. And do you know how to plant plants and nurture them and take care of them until they are ripe? I don't. And I wouldn't know where to learn it in the town I am. >isn't the mess of the external world simply saying that we need to transform ourselves, not our outer circumstance, in order to find contentment and peace of mind in a sane, sustainable manner? I agree. >Let's try and get a bit of sanity going on planet earth before thinking of going elsewhere? The good thing about not being a single being anymore and about time making sure that not everything happens at once is that we can try both things simultaneusly and over and over again. ;-) Submitted by Danny Milosavljevic on 13 August 2007 - 4:08am.
Actually there are a numberActually there are a number of people who have given thought as to the maximum *sustainable* human population. I have seen estimates from them in the range of 1-2 billion, but given that we have overshot that number by quite a bit, it is possible that we would undershoot on the way back down due to a degraded environment. This doesn't change what you say above of course. I agree with most of it - I just wanted to chime in and say that we don't need to guess what that value would be. If I had to guess, the first resource to be exhausted will be oil (http://www.oilcrashmovie.com/index2.html), but even if by some miracle we get past that one, there are other resource limitations that humankind will face in the decades to come. Submitted by Visitor on 13 August 2007 - 2:12am.
I agree about the resources,I agree about the resources, but there are two items we can not live without. Water and clean air. Life can not exist without water. Keep in mind, heat evaporates water. Pollution creates a barrior that keeps the heat generated from the rays from escaping, it increases our temperatures. More pollution, more heat. Temperatures will disrupt the natural balance of nature and it will self-destruct, in reverse. Example: Timing of new life, birds for example, are born 2 weeks earlier. No, big deal? Well, their food source is still on time. TWO weeks later! So, you end up with a high death rate of birds. With no birds, more bugs. But it doesn't end there. Problems start stemming off both ends and we have a very bad chain reaction. Granted, I know most things will take a long time to impact up, but some won't. Do you know how long it will take with the lost of the bees? And they are not the only ones we need to worry about. Nature is more delicate than people think. And yes, I know we have a lot of other BIG problems right now, but this is not one we can ignore. We can turn it around too, if we make a stand. The ones resistant are big corporations and people with resource guzzling toys. This problem is as dangerous to your famlies as any terrorist in the world. You might want to sit back and think about it. Submitted by US Citizen 07 on 14 August 2007 - 2:25am.
Homo sapien doom?Space is there so we must go, just as the mountain was and the ocean. It is in our nature to explore and ask questions about our enviornment and how it works. Extinction of our species is a possiblity, there are always possiblities. We (humans) need to look ahead, and strive for a better future wherever it may be. Never give up your imagination of what might be. Submitted by michael broyles on 15 August 2007 - 2:52am.
|
COSMOS newsletter!Receive regular updates highlighting the latest in science from COSMOS. |
||
Opening eyes
Thanks for that and the longer version,had to read it again.Always had a question mark over exploration outside our planet,waste of resources etc.What you have written is why we are here,is what we are!!