Spaceflight is one of my interests, but I get very irritated by the growthists who seem endemic in the space community (many are of a Libertarian or Conservative political outlook, which tends to encourage such a mentality). They believe the human population can (and should!) keep growing indefinitely if humanity can access resources in the Solar System (via asteroid mining, etc.). Of course, the technology to enable this is nowhere near developed (perhaps not before the end of this century, if ever), but they continue espousing their deluded fantasies. This article, “The Philosophy of Space” by Dennis Wingo is an example of such thinking.
The reason for human spaceflight beyond the pure adventure is as old as mankind, moving outward to build a better life and make money. Obtaining riches for God and country as well.
The mentality that has got humans into trouble before (the current economic crisis being one): greed and hubris.
I use the New Scientist issue as a foil as it pretty much represents the arguments today that descend from the Club of Rome study and those that advocate the contraction of our industrial civilization and perpetual life on our one small planet as the only possible future that we have. Space advocacy at its finest rejects the notions embodied in this mindset and lays down the gauntlet to posit that not only is the future bright, it is unlimited through the economic development of space, our solar system, and the incorporation of its resources into our economic system here on the Earth. Rather than belabor this through highly technical explanations, a vision of the Earth in the year 2100 is laid out for inspection to see if it is more desirable than the bullet points above for the year 2099.
The mindset he derides espouses the philosophy of not living beyond one’s means, and caring for the environment. It is a prudent and sustainable way to live. His philosophy is about greed and exploitation, whether of Earth or of the space beyond it. For the forseeable future we are confined to Earth, and it is beholden upon humanity to live responsibly.
I found this via “Dennis Wingo - Why Space? Why Now?” at NASA Watch. Most commenters agree with him; one posting as “Reality” offers an opposing view. Of course Dennis Wingo virulently attacks him two posts down (perhaps he does not want to see the truth). There are also comments at the Public Population Forum.
Good luck with that. Technology has produced more freedom, longer lifespans, and greater opportunity for humans than any other cultural construct in the history of the planet. As for Gaia, maybe she likes plastic and created humans just to make some for her. What you are attempting here is to use a “good panic” to achieve some quasi-socialist-neoluddite world that is optimum as you see it. We are approaching these problems as human beings to create the conditions for the continuation of freedom and the expansion of humanity into the cosmos.
Technology has also caused a lot of problems (I am not anti-technology, but anti-misuse of it). As for the frivolous comment about plastic, read this online chapter, “Polymers are Forever”, from The World Without Us. He then inevitably mentions the “freedom” word (it had to come out sometime). It’s the typical Libertarian mentality: do away with governments and regulations so you can do whatever the hell you want – they see space as the “next frontier” which will enable them to do that.
An extract from an entry at the Steady State Blog on the Space Cadet mentality that technology can solve anything. They don’t address the possibility of going into space to find more resources – but as I noted, the technology to enable that could be decades away.
Substitution
Objection: “As we use up resources, we will find substitutes or alternatives.”
Reality: This argument is akin to the technology argument – it rests on the notion of humans using their cleverness to solve the problems of over-consumption of resources. Although people have demonstrated some successes in finding alternatives to meet needs when resources become scarce (e.g., fiber optic instead of copper wire or particle board instead of timber), some materials and services are not so readily substitutable. What are the substitutes for clean supplies of fresh water, pollination, intact species habitat, or climate stability? Several characteristics of resource scarcity events are negative for long-term sustainability. Oftentimes substitutes are simply extracted from other areas of the planet to avoid local scarcity (e.g., oil from the Mideast nations to feed U.S. demand). Scarcity and price increases often provide an increasing incentive to liquidate natural capital (e.g., oil corporation profits when demand outstrips supply) even as alternatives are being developed. Substitutes are often not developed or manufactured sustainably. For example, in the search for a substitute for fossil fuels, renewable energy from biomass is spurring transformation of tropical forests into palm oil or sugarcane fields.
Case Study: What resources will be used as substitutes for Haiti’s forests and the ecological services they once provided? Economic growth on Haiti generated widespread deforestation, first through sugarcane planting, then through timber sales, and finally through subsistence farming and provision of fuel wood. Already impoverished, with only 1.4% of their land in forest, the citizens of Haiti face ongoing soil erosion, serious floods, and loss of biodiversity.
Technology
Objection: “Humans are clever. Our technology will allow us to manage any problems with resource use, energy, and ecological health.”
Reality: Some economists think that, because a particular production process can become more efficient (more output per unit of natural capital), there is no limit to economic growth. These economists and “technological optimists” are disregarding the second law of thermodynamics, the entropy law, which tells us that we cannot achieve 100% efficiency in the economic production process. When the entropy law is applied across all economic sectors, or in other words when the limits to efficiency have been reached, the only remaining way to grow the economy is by using more natural capital (including energy).
Case Study: Besides the limits to efficiency, there is another issue with technology. Societies have wielded it in many ways, some useful for long-term sustainability, and some harmful. When gasoline prices rose in the 1970s, automobile companies developed new technology to increase the efficiency of engines. Marked improvements in vehicle mileage occurred with a resultant drop in pollution from transportation. When gas prices dropped in the 1980s and 1990s, fuel efficiency in the United States stagnated. The technological improvements were used to provide increased horsepower to smaller cars and sufficient horsepower to big cars, trucks, and SUVs. Technology that could have continued to improve the fuel efficiency of the U.S. auto fleet was used instead to power bigger and faster vehicles, resulting in a less sustainable transportation systems and more pollution (e.g., smog and greenhouse gases). In addition, technology has widely been used to increase the liquidation of natural capital. Readily recognizable examples include technologies for logging and fishing.
