According to the current theories regarding the physical state of the universe, at some point in the far distant future, the universe will fizzle out. A great literary tagline would be from TS Eliot -- and this is the way the world ends, not with bang but with a whimper. All energy across the entire universe would equalise, and all would become the background radiation that causes the white static on old television sets.
This is the 'heat-death' of the universe. It is not preventable. It will happen. In some odd number of trillion of years, unless we are wrong about the nature of physics (the second law of thermo-dynamics), the universe will stop. There will be no more useful energy, no more transfer from potential to actual. Nothing. It will just stop.
I worry about the heat-death of the universe because the question becomes, is it all worth it? This great experiment in meaning called humanity will cease; there will be nothing left, no one left to tell the stories to. History will no longer matter since history will stop. The matter of history, the energies in motion stop moving and time comes to an end.
So, is it all worth it? If it all ends in nothing, why do we bother creating and growing? To formulate it more philosophically, if meaning is entirely contained immanently, and all immanence will one day be dissolved, why bother? Now, there would be a radical approach that could define meaning immanently and still acknowledge the heat-death of the universe. But there is an entirely another plane to think about: transcendence.
Transcendence normally denotes something other than the universe: God, spirits, the supernatural. But for me, it is most interesting to deal with transcendence in immanence. The transcendences that reside within this mortal coil and its surroundings. Because in that case, there may be hope. It's all theories and speculations. All ideas and foreshadowings. All hopes and dreams. Is this the way the world ends? Could there be a world without end?
Such a world would be worth building into it, investing with our meanings, our stories, our energies, for we would last and join in a community of others coming before and going after -- from the last acts of love, peace, and compassion to the expiring of the last organism, praying in the silence of the void. To perhaps the whole resurrection of the whole cosmos, where all things are restored, newly created, bought back, are remembered. I do worry about the heat-death of the universe, but I also hope that there will also be something beyond the universe; Something, Someone, who loves and keeps this creation. Faith is knowledge of things not seen (or really seeable). And I hope for life abundant.
Monday, April 7, 2014
Tuesday, June 18, 2013
Space Colonisation: Logistics and Theory
In a conversation with a friend, we were discussing the issues of space colonization. In the following, I will be exploring the issues that we came up with. This post will be in three parts; the first will be a presentation about my understanding of the expense of space-colonisation, especially in light of finite resources on Earth. The second part will present a theory of governing and planning that could be used to further illuminate the justification of space colonisation. And the third will briefly visit the need for a moral evolution alongside the technological evolution that humanity has always already been experiencing.
The Space 'Trickle-Down' Effect
The story begins almost four billion years ago, when the Earth was hot; molten, to be precise. There was no crust, no atmosphere, no water, no life. But things began to change. The Earth cooled and volcanic gases started forming a proto-atmosphere, which wouldn't be 'breathable' for some time to come. Anyways, the more interesting part of the story for our purposes is the story arc for rocks. All iron-loving elements (the ones which bond extremely easily with iron) were drawn into the core of the planet by the molten lava and gravity. These included all the gold and platinum that were originally part of the Earth's formation. Economically speaking, the importance of gold and platinum is not in keeping the talents buried but their uses in transistors and other electronics that make modern life possible. So, where did all the gold and platinum we have on Earth today come from? Simple answer: asteroids. Asteroids carry the materials that enable modern life to function, and we are running out of those materials.
Before really entering into the space 'trickle-down' effect, I want to mention another part of the story that deserves some attention. Not only do the materials that we use in modern life come from asteroids, it is very possible that the proto-origins of life itself come from comets that crashed into the newly cooling Earth billions of years ago. This would mean that in going out to explore space, we are in some senses returning home. Perhaps there would be others to visit...
But now for the serious, cash-money reasons. Suppose you are a benevolent world-dictator. What would the economic and social benefit of investing in space-research and colonisation be? Well, for every dollar invested in NASA, for example, there have been eight dollars of economic return. That's pretty good. And the solutions that NASA has needed to solve problems of living in space have been able to be implemented on the planet to solve problems, such as water recycling. And the needs of potential colonies could be used to revitalise solutions on Earth, for example -- how do you grow food on the Moon? The water management systems or the hydroponics or the use of agriculture space could translate into solutions for feeding the growing population of Earth, which at its height could be around 36 billion, although we may level off at around ten billion. Anyways, as a benevolent world dictator, you could solve problems by creating the situations where new innovative solutions need to be found -- such as a moon base or a Mars colony or a Venusian cloud-colony. In developing technologies for space colonisation (which would have to be a slow process, starting with the local bodies in our solar system), there could be unexpected solutions to pressing problems. Being quite imaginative yet something already proposed: developing solar plane 'fields' in orbit, to provide power to 'dry docks' or other larger space-frastructure, could lead to the ability to send power (wireless) down to Earth to areas affected by natural diaster -- such as to a hospital that needs its machines to be operating. Now, not every problem can be solved by appealing to some futuristic space technology, but there are plenty that could be. There is another side to this -- using the already limited resources of Earth to fund such speculative and risky projects.
But you wouldn't have to. As Planetary Resources (one of the asteroid mining companies) rightly proposes, all the materials you would need to develop a space-frastructure that could facilitate space colonisation are to be found in space -- the hydrogen for fuel, water, the metals for construction, etc. The investment that the surface would need to do would be an initial one, but one that would pay back its dividends a hundred-fold.
To close this section, I want to note that this would be far easier with a handy thing called a space elevator, since the most expensive thing to do is fly out of the atmosphere. This would make it cheap. I may have a post in the future dealing with the engineering feats and possibilities of a space elevator, yet everything that I've proposed could still be done without one. There is a space 'trickle-down' effect, which has already impacted our lives -- imagine if we start investing in it again?
Playing the Long Game
Given all that was said above, the ability to solve the problems of today's world rest in the resources located outside of it. We've gotten ourselves into this mess, and there are going to be consequences. The inertia of such a system cannot come to a grinding halt without serious consequences. Not only do we need to manage our resources better, we will need to expand the collection of those resources and the variety of them. But to address a theory.
The theory is simple. Given a certain present problem, there are a number of potential solutions to be actualised. Increasing the temporal distance to the problem (the more future the problem) the more potential solutions there will be. So, a problem today may have only two potential solutions but one in a hundred years today has two hundred ways of addressing it; as time decreases to that point, the number of solutions do as well. For example, the availability of clean water. This is a problem situated out a few decades, although some repercussions are already being felt. There are a few potential ways to solve this problem -- increasing water usage efficiency (but that just extends the lifetime of the supply we have), breakthroughs in desalination techniques, or importing water from supplies around the solar system; just to name a few. Now, the best way forward would be to actualise all three of these. But in actualising some of them, different problems would be address -- increasing desalination techniques and technologies might lead to figuring out how to convert solar energy into usable energy more efficiently or how to address the acidification of the world's oceans, etc.
So the second premise of this theory of governing, for it is about how humanity governs itself and plans for its future, is that in attempting to solve future problems before they arise, current problems are addressed and are solved. This is a great gift of the faculty of the imagination. We can imagine problems and solutions, and when they are actualised, new solutions to old problems are found. This can also be seen from the economic data presented above -- we derive $8 of economic benefit for every $1 invested in space programs. Space colonisation would be a slow process, starting off with a few bases nearby -- in orbit, the Moon, Mars, Venus, the asteroid belt. But to get to these, the stepping stones would create many new technologies and possibilites.
The Gift of Prometheus
A problem remains. Humanity's tendency of environmental destruction testifies against launching out into the rest of the universe -- wouldn't we just mess things up there as well? Would the advances in technology not aid our progression but merely continue to weaponise the human race with more and more means of destroying itself? Does the bone turn into a spaceship without any sort of moral evolution as well?
According to Plato's interpretation of the myth of Prometheus, humans were gifted with fire before they were gifted by Zeus with politics, the art of living together from which all moral and ethical codes derive. The use of myth shouldn't dissuade us from looking at the fact that Plato is onto something here -- our technological evolution always outruns our ethical and moral sensibilities. This is speaking generally. The classic example is from the Manhattan project, in which there were objections to using the Bomb, but the general populace and those making military decisions did not have the same qualms. There are other examples, but the point is that the threat still remains. If we ever develop the technology to venture among the stars, that technology will come with a price -- an ever increasing ability to destroy ourselves and our planets. Humanity is in need of a moral evolution; perhaps in breaking through to our proto-primordial home will help bring that about, but nothing is certain. Will our technics always outstrip our politics?
Conclusion
The original questions posed by my friend are still to be answered: is it right to pursue space colonisation would those choices could lead to the neglect and death of at least one consciousness? There are many ways to address this question, and the foregoing has been an attempt to provide some justification for a policy of space colonisation, but ultimately the answer rests in what school of philosophy we are aligning ourselves. To the pragmatist, space colonisation should make a lot of sense. To the Levinassian, perhaps not so much, although there may be a place for interpretation. As a final reminder, every choice we make does have ethical repercussions, and my sponsoring one child means that I don't sponsor another. That is to say, we cannot save every one, but we can save some, and we should strive to save all -- the impossible task. There are not orders of magnitude if consciousness is infinite, which the Levinassian holds, but I am advocating a philosophy of action, which I believe Levinas would approve of. Let us act and boldly go.
The Space 'Trickle-Down' Effect
The story begins almost four billion years ago, when the Earth was hot; molten, to be precise. There was no crust, no atmosphere, no water, no life. But things began to change. The Earth cooled and volcanic gases started forming a proto-atmosphere, which wouldn't be 'breathable' for some time to come. Anyways, the more interesting part of the story for our purposes is the story arc for rocks. All iron-loving elements (the ones which bond extremely easily with iron) were drawn into the core of the planet by the molten lava and gravity. These included all the gold and platinum that were originally part of the Earth's formation. Economically speaking, the importance of gold and platinum is not in keeping the talents buried but their uses in transistors and other electronics that make modern life possible. So, where did all the gold and platinum we have on Earth today come from? Simple answer: asteroids. Asteroids carry the materials that enable modern life to function, and we are running out of those materials.
Before really entering into the space 'trickle-down' effect, I want to mention another part of the story that deserves some attention. Not only do the materials that we use in modern life come from asteroids, it is very possible that the proto-origins of life itself come from comets that crashed into the newly cooling Earth billions of years ago. This would mean that in going out to explore space, we are in some senses returning home. Perhaps there would be others to visit...
But now for the serious, cash-money reasons. Suppose you are a benevolent world-dictator. What would the economic and social benefit of investing in space-research and colonisation be? Well, for every dollar invested in NASA, for example, there have been eight dollars of economic return. That's pretty good. And the solutions that NASA has needed to solve problems of living in space have been able to be implemented on the planet to solve problems, such as water recycling. And the needs of potential colonies could be used to revitalise solutions on Earth, for example -- how do you grow food on the Moon? The water management systems or the hydroponics or the use of agriculture space could translate into solutions for feeding the growing population of Earth, which at its height could be around 36 billion, although we may level off at around ten billion. Anyways, as a benevolent world dictator, you could solve problems by creating the situations where new innovative solutions need to be found -- such as a moon base or a Mars colony or a Venusian cloud-colony. In developing technologies for space colonisation (which would have to be a slow process, starting with the local bodies in our solar system), there could be unexpected solutions to pressing problems. Being quite imaginative yet something already proposed: developing solar plane 'fields' in orbit, to provide power to 'dry docks' or other larger space-frastructure, could lead to the ability to send power (wireless) down to Earth to areas affected by natural diaster -- such as to a hospital that needs its machines to be operating. Now, not every problem can be solved by appealing to some futuristic space technology, but there are plenty that could be. There is another side to this -- using the already limited resources of Earth to fund such speculative and risky projects.
But you wouldn't have to. As Planetary Resources (one of the asteroid mining companies) rightly proposes, all the materials you would need to develop a space-frastructure that could facilitate space colonisation are to be found in space -- the hydrogen for fuel, water, the metals for construction, etc. The investment that the surface would need to do would be an initial one, but one that would pay back its dividends a hundred-fold.
To close this section, I want to note that this would be far easier with a handy thing called a space elevator, since the most expensive thing to do is fly out of the atmosphere. This would make it cheap. I may have a post in the future dealing with the engineering feats and possibilities of a space elevator, yet everything that I've proposed could still be done without one. There is a space 'trickle-down' effect, which has already impacted our lives -- imagine if we start investing in it again?
Playing the Long Game
Given all that was said above, the ability to solve the problems of today's world rest in the resources located outside of it. We've gotten ourselves into this mess, and there are going to be consequences. The inertia of such a system cannot come to a grinding halt without serious consequences. Not only do we need to manage our resources better, we will need to expand the collection of those resources and the variety of them. But to address a theory.
The theory is simple. Given a certain present problem, there are a number of potential solutions to be actualised. Increasing the temporal distance to the problem (the more future the problem) the more potential solutions there will be. So, a problem today may have only two potential solutions but one in a hundred years today has two hundred ways of addressing it; as time decreases to that point, the number of solutions do as well. For example, the availability of clean water. This is a problem situated out a few decades, although some repercussions are already being felt. There are a few potential ways to solve this problem -- increasing water usage efficiency (but that just extends the lifetime of the supply we have), breakthroughs in desalination techniques, or importing water from supplies around the solar system; just to name a few. Now, the best way forward would be to actualise all three of these. But in actualising some of them, different problems would be address -- increasing desalination techniques and technologies might lead to figuring out how to convert solar energy into usable energy more efficiently or how to address the acidification of the world's oceans, etc.
So the second premise of this theory of governing, for it is about how humanity governs itself and plans for its future, is that in attempting to solve future problems before they arise, current problems are addressed and are solved. This is a great gift of the faculty of the imagination. We can imagine problems and solutions, and when they are actualised, new solutions to old problems are found. This can also be seen from the economic data presented above -- we derive $8 of economic benefit for every $1 invested in space programs. Space colonisation would be a slow process, starting off with a few bases nearby -- in orbit, the Moon, Mars, Venus, the asteroid belt. But to get to these, the stepping stones would create many new technologies and possibilites.
The Gift of Prometheus
A problem remains. Humanity's tendency of environmental destruction testifies against launching out into the rest of the universe -- wouldn't we just mess things up there as well? Would the advances in technology not aid our progression but merely continue to weaponise the human race with more and more means of destroying itself? Does the bone turn into a spaceship without any sort of moral evolution as well?
According to Plato's interpretation of the myth of Prometheus, humans were gifted with fire before they were gifted by Zeus with politics, the art of living together from which all moral and ethical codes derive. The use of myth shouldn't dissuade us from looking at the fact that Plato is onto something here -- our technological evolution always outruns our ethical and moral sensibilities. This is speaking generally. The classic example is from the Manhattan project, in which there were objections to using the Bomb, but the general populace and those making military decisions did not have the same qualms. There are other examples, but the point is that the threat still remains. If we ever develop the technology to venture among the stars, that technology will come with a price -- an ever increasing ability to destroy ourselves and our planets. Humanity is in need of a moral evolution; perhaps in breaking through to our proto-primordial home will help bring that about, but nothing is certain. Will our technics always outstrip our politics?
Conclusion
The original questions posed by my friend are still to be answered: is it right to pursue space colonisation would those choices could lead to the neglect and death of at least one consciousness? There are many ways to address this question, and the foregoing has been an attempt to provide some justification for a policy of space colonisation, but ultimately the answer rests in what school of philosophy we are aligning ourselves. To the pragmatist, space colonisation should make a lot of sense. To the Levinassian, perhaps not so much, although there may be a place for interpretation. As a final reminder, every choice we make does have ethical repercussions, and my sponsoring one child means that I don't sponsor another. That is to say, we cannot save every one, but we can save some, and we should strive to save all -- the impossible task. There are not orders of magnitude if consciousness is infinite, which the Levinassian holds, but I am advocating a philosophy of action, which I believe Levinas would approve of. Let us act and boldly go.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)