Stephen Hawking recently said we humans should begin serious consideration of and planning for colonization of space. Why? “The survival of the human race depends on its ability to find new homes elsewhere in the universe because there’s an increasing risk that a disaster will destroy the Earth…” He’s absolutely right. So what is the controversy?
To begin with, this is what appears to be causing most of the ruckus:
“It is important for the human race to spread out into space for the survival of the species,” Hawking said. “Life on Earth is at the ever-increasing risk of being wiped out by a disaster, such as sudden global warming, nuclear war, a genetically engineered virus or other dangers we have not yet thought of.”
On its surface, the statement seems rather innocuous and sensible. Despite that, both PZ and Chris Clarke take him to task for many reasons. I’m sure there are others who are doing the same thing, but I’ve not stumbled upon their work as yet and thought these two examples were good enough for a response.
Again: So what is the controversy?
First, it would seem the idea of colonizing space is racist and elitist, not to mention innumerable other -ists as soon as someone can come up with the definitive list. I disagree on principle and agree on execution. Freedom and equality were once elitist and racist, yet that didn’t stop us from pursuing them for everyone — and now look where we are (much further along in that regard while still needing to make significant progress). Had we just thrown up our hands in exasperation and said such things should never be pursued, where would we be now? The same can be said for owning property, having a job, owning a car, voting, and a great many other aspects of life which we now take for granted. Perhaps they did start out as items solely for the upper echelon. Progress must start somewhere, does it not, even if in its initial stages it smacks of elitism, racism, sexism, or whatever other -ism you want to apply? This argument is moot and empty.
Second, advocating that we refrain from pursuing this endeavor simply because we need to address issues here at home is defeatist. Instead of trying to address all of the diseases we have on our plate right now, why don’t we stop everything and focus our resources on one at a time? For instance, until we have a cure, let’s force all medical and research personnel to work on cancer. Everything else can wait. With all of our resources pooled toward that end… I think you can see why that’s a silly argument. I agree that Earth has many problems, and humanity has even more, but do we stop planning for the future just because we see problems right now that haven’t yet been fixed? Perhaps it will be too late to save our species if we fail to address this need simply because we feel the problems here at home require the attention that might otherwise be diverted.
Third, do we really want to use the failed Biosphere experiment as a catalyst for lack of action? Do we always throw up our hands in defeat and stop trying when failure besets us? Hardly. It seems to me that the very definition of progress is controlled by failure, that trait of our being that often pushes us to keep trying until we succeed. The “golly, it didn’t work” excuse is cheap and offensive when it comes to science.
Fourth, Hawking is not advocating this endeavor simply because there is a threat of man-made destruction in our future. I agree his list consisted mostly of anthropogenic concerns, but these are also at present living in the forefront of human thought. They are ideas that people can grasp, understand, relate to, and otherwise comprehend as threatening. Were he to identify examples heretofore not vividly in the forefront of our collective consciousness, fewer people would have a frame of reference and could more easily dismiss his call to action. After all, we have Iranian nuclear concerns and man-made global warming always in the news. I believe it was quite sound for Hawking to use these common issues to punctuate his meaning. Failing to do so could have been seen as theoretical gibberish from the scientific community.
Fifth, Hawking clearly opens the door to insert causes for concern not already cited. He specifically said we must consider “other dangers we have not yet thought of.” What of a meteorite impact, an eruption of the Yellowstone supervolcano, a catastrophic solar event, or the emergence of a new super disease that causes a pandemic? That’s just a list off the top of my head — and they’ve obviously been thought of. Hawking correctly pointed out that his list of examples included items we had considered but that there were a great number of possibilities hitherto unknown to us. Advocating that we ignore these possibilities is self-destructive.
Sixth, and probably most surprising, Chris makes clear that such action as attempting space colonization is somehow tantamount to trying to save cockroaches. If we are indeed unworthy of saving, then this discussion is only academic, as is addressing global warming, nuclear arms, and everything else. Just let it all happen so we’re killed sooner rather than later. I wholeheartedly disagree with him in this regard, however, and that despite my agreeing that we humans are in fact a significant problem here on Earth. But we are not the only problem our species is facing. There certainly would be concerns about spreading our destructive ways to the heavens. Is this reason enough to cast our entire species aside and leave our fate to whatever might befall our little corner of the solar system?
Seventh, we already know continued exploration of the cosmos will require us to venture out from our home, that something as simple as gaining a deeper understanding of our own solar system calls on us to get away from the Earth-centric model of existence. This is a simple fact. Would it be easier to search for life on Titan or Enceladus or Europa or any other body in our neck of the universe if we had bases of operation offworld? Absolutely and undeniably! This aspect isn’t even related to saving us from possible disaster, yet it is as compelling a reason as any to venture out and to gain a foothold beyond our own planet.
Eighth, PZ very surprisingly discourages such ideas because it would inevitably lead to separate evolutionary paths for those who leave our planet. Can’t the same be said for those who move out of the city, or to a different country, or anywhere else on this planet that is outside of the normal human habitats? Or am I missing something about how we have so many different races within Homo sapiens? Is evolution, or the threat of separate evolution, reason enough to condemn us all to possible annihilation? Is it reason enough to discourage exploration and colonization of the great beyond? Of course not, and it shocks me that he would infer as much. We as a species will continue to evolve and grow and change. Can any one person, or any number of people, truly believe that we should try to limit that process, to control it and subjugate it based on our own worries that we might be spinning off a new life form?
Ninth, despite my own disillusion with humanity as a whole, I believe we as a species have tremendous potential and are indeed worth saving. Sure, we’ve made a mess of things here on our own planet and we have a lot of societal problems that need to be addressed, but do those considerations mean we should not try to save ourselves by expanding our reach into the universe? Of course not. We are not talking about colonizing Mars next year or next decade (although we absolutely should be in serious planning and preparation by then). We are talking about a process that will in fact take much time, possibly centuries, to accomplish. Do we sit on our hands now and do nothing? I would hope not.
Tenth, and perhaps this should have been first in the interest of full disclosure, Stephen Hawking is a personal hero of mine; he is someone I look up to and admire. There is at least a small bit of defense of personal interest in my response to what I see as wholly inaccurate, scientifically unsound, and generally “tempest in a teacup” mongering by two people I also admire and follow closely.
Ultimately, I am both shocked and dismayed at their responses. These are men I look to for critical, progressive, open thinking. Despite coming to expect that, what they have demonstrated here is the opposite. It is precisely the kind of thinking they would otherwise condemn.
Hawking is right, although his 20- and 40-year timelines are likely too overzealous and unrealistic. For the sake of our species, not to mention the sake of future exploration of the cosmos, we must branch out from this rock. That anyone could find reason to argue against the idea is both disappointing and revealing.