The starting point for consideration here is Sylvia’s article Space and Human Survival (SHS). Her key conclusion is that the traditional model of space colonization – sending elite settlers to boldly go off to isolated Moon bases and Mars bases and effectively seek their own destiny with local resources, independent from Earth – is invalid.

I personally think this concept of space colonization is very realistic – but maybe I’m suffering from an outmoded viewpoint, which is why I’m bringing this topic up for discussion. You see, I’m like Takeshi Kaga on Iron Chef. You may think I write all these articles here for your edification, but no – ultimately, my hope for SciScoop is to have an army of Iron Posters who will fill gaps in my own knowledge.

Anyway. Instead of traditional space colonization, Sylvia promotes the revolutionary concept of space humanization – where the results of space colony efforts are primarily targeted to benefit all people who remain behind on Earth. Furthermore, she states her belief that without investing in space humanization, human life on Earth is doomed. To her, there is no path to human survival on Earth except for space humanization.

There Is No Path To Human Survival On Earth…

From SHS: “The question of resources raises an even more crucial reason for expansion into space than the danger of Earth’s destruction. It’s obvious that this planet cannot support an expanding population forever. Most people who recognize this fact advocate population control to the extent of ‘zero population growth.’ I do not; I believe it would be fatal not only for the reason explained above, but because if it could be achieved it would result in stagnation. I do not want a world in which there can be no growth; growth leads to intellectual and artistic progress as well as to material survival. Furthermore, I do not believe it could be achieved. The built-in desire for personal descendants is too strong; that is why our species has survived this long, why it has spread throughout the entire world. Moreover, the biological response to threatened survival is to speed up reproduction, as we can see by the number of starving children in the world. If we tried to suppress population growth completely, we would have either immediate violent upheaval or a period of dictatorship followed by bloody revolution. Ultimately, we would reduce the population all right; we would decimate it. That may be ’survival’ but it’s surely not the future we want…”

“…the problem of war can’t be solved without expansion. The problem of hunger is, or ultimately will be, the direct result of our planet’s limited resources…The problem of atmospheric pollution is the result of trying to contain the industry necessary to maintain our technology within the biosphere instead of moving it into orbit where it belongs….”

…Except For Space Humanization

“The basic ideas of space humanization are (a) to make use of extraterrestrial resources to supplement those of Earth; (b) to move heavy industry off Earth, where it pollutes and where energy is expensive, into orbit, where energy is cheap; and (c) to provide large areas of living space to which people can eventually move (not to ’ship extra people into space,’ which as critics are quick to point out, would not work, but to make room for new people to be born without increasing Earth’s population). Only in this way can we get the resources we need both for preserving Earth’s biosphere and for eventually building starships…”

“…we wouldn’t try to lift the components of space habitats up from Earth. We would use raw materials from the moon and asteroids, and build solar power satellites in orbit. The power would then be beamed to Earth, where it would be cheap enough to lift the Third World out of poverty (many people in the Third World spend a large share of their time and/or income on firewood, and in so doing, destroy forests). Products of space-based industries would be shipped down to Earth, not lifted up out of its ‘gravity well.’ Some scientists feel that enough food could be raised in orbit to ship food down, as well…”

“…Much of this, in particular the design of the colonies, is the vision of Gerard O’Neill, formerly professor of physics at Princeton and until his untimely death, president of the Space Studies Institute which he formed to research the engineering details of the scenario. His book The High Frontier is a classic that should be read by everyone serious about space settlements….”

So….Colonization Or Humanization?

I, rickyjames, have my doubts on this topic. I question whether space efforts can ever have a significant impact on everyday life for every citizen of Earth. I also question whether we are inevitably doomed to extinction as a species if we never colonize/humanize space. For example, the Native Americans / Indians were doing just fine before the Europeans showed up; isn’t it possible that on some planets, maybe even our own if we get into a Mad Max scenario, human cultures could last “forever” with negligible levels of technology? Or that with zero population growth, we could eventually evolve into a stable, hi-tech one-planet civilization?

So…space humanization advocate Gerald O’Neill (whom I actually met once before he died of cancer, a long time ago – I’m actually shocked at just how little of his 1970s pre-Internet work has apparently failed to make the jump to being online) and his High Frontier is today out of print, and taking his place is traditional space colonization advocate Robert Zubrin with his Mars Direct concept. Is Zubrin a false prophet of colonization? Is it time for some Old Time Religion and a revival of O’Neill’s ideas on humanization? Or is it Al Gore on the right track, preaching his message in New York of global warming on the coldest day on record and demanding environmental repentance as he disses Dubya’s new plans for the Pharasees, er, NASA?

Hey, I’ve got my opinions. And I’ll post them below, just like I hope you will. Let the discussion begin…I hope.