The Illusion of Space: Why It Won't Rescue Humanity
Written on
Chapter 1: The Limits of Space Exploration
The idea that space can provide a remedy for our problems is a misconception. While we’ve examined the physical, economic, and mathematical boundaries to growth on Earth, many believe that space offers unlimited potential. However, even this vastness presents its own constraints.
Consider the scale of our universe. If Earth were a grain of sand resting on your nose, then the moon would be a mere speck on your eyelash, and the sun would be a grapefruit situated 12 meters away. Mars, on the other hand, is generally much further—approximately three bus lengths away. Now, imagine trying to escape from that grain of sand; this illustrates the enormity of the challenge we face.
The crux of the issue lies in our civilization's relentless pursuit of growth. Unlike earlier civilizations that understood limitations, we are deeply entrenched in the myth of endless expansion. Even after reaching our limits, we struggle to comprehend them.
The last human footsteps on the moon were left in 1972, over half a century ago. Since then, our ventures have been confined to the Earth's magnetic field, with our farthest excursions being no more than the distance between Los Angeles and San Francisco. Even the International Space Station (ISS) operates under 90% of Earth’s gravity. Astronauts merely experience weightlessness due to their constant free fall. We are still tethered to our home planet, dreaming of flight while never truly departing.
> As Tom Murphy highlights in his textbook, the economic realities are stark. Sustaining one person in space costs around $500 million annually, a far cry from the $50,000 it takes to support someone on Earth.
Section 1.1: The Economics of Space
The financial implications of sustaining life in space are staggering. The ISS, for example, requires $3–4 billion yearly to support roughly seven individuals, amounting to about $500 million per person. This astronomical cost would consume the entire GDP of Earth to support just 200,000 people in space. For what? The ability to exist in a vacuum while losing 1–2% of bone mass yearly? Paying $56 million for a decent cup of coffee? While space may be an intriguing destination, it is hardly a practical habitat.
Even if we drastically reduce the costs of space travel—say, by a factor of ten through rocket reuse—we still face the reality that sustaining two million people in space would require Earth’s entire GDP. To support 20 million, costs would need to plummet by a factor of 100 through innovations like a space elevator. Regardless of how much we lower expenses, the net outcome is always a loss. Space, by its very nature, offers no resources; we expend Earth’s resources with little return.
The allure of asteroids filled with precious metals or natural gas oceans on Titan is misleading. It’s akin to purchasing a pool table at university, only to realize the exorbitant costs of moving and installing it. Discussing the bounties of infinite space is like assuring a drowning individual that the ocean is replete with oxygen—factually accurate but ultimately unhelpful.
Going to space entails a loss, not a gain. It is an exploratory endeavor, not an economic one. The energy and emissions involved in launching rockets are substantial. Unless we find a way to harness resources from celestial bodies, the expenses incurred from space travel will yield minimal benefits.
Space Exploration is the Worst | Emily Calandrelli | TEDxIndianaUniversity
Emily Calandrelli discusses the challenges and pitfalls of space exploration, emphasizing that while it is exciting, it is fraught with problems that are often overlooked.
Section 1.2: The Reality of Space Living
As we survey the solar system, we must remember that, like the peaks of Sagarmāthā or the depths of the ocean, our explorations are not meant for permanent residence. The harsh conditions of space are significantly more hostile than any environment on Earth. We’ve yet to establish permanent settlements in extreme Earth environments, making it unlikely we could do so in space.
Tom Murphy argues that we are operating under a flawed narrative regarding space colonization. Just because we have achieved notable feats, such as moon landings, does not mean we can maintain a continuous presence in space. These events should be recognized as remarkable accomplishments rather than indicative of our future.
The truth is evident: we ceased our lunar missions over 50 years ago, and our visions of a Sci-Fi future remain unrealized. While the moon is an intriguing destination, it is hardly a viable habitat. The same applies to Mars, which presents even harsher conditions—95% carbon dioxide atmosphere, toxic soil, and lack of energy sources. Mars is a captivating site for exploration, but not a sustainable home for humanity.
Chapter 2: Understanding Our Connection to Earth
Shouldn't We Fix the Earth First? So Many Problems Here, Why Go To Space?
This video challenges the notion of prioritizing space exploration over addressing pressing issues on Earth, arguing for a focus on our planet's problems first.
The Earth's soil is rich because of the myriad microorganisms that thrive in it. The oxygen we breathe originates from these very organisms. Fossil fuels are essentially the stored energy of ancient life. We often compartmentalize 'us' from nature, but this separation is a fallacy, as demonstrated by the COVID-19 pandemic. We are an integral part of Earth’s living systems.
Claiming that space will save 'us' is a fundamental misunderstanding of our identity. We are not separate entities; rather, we are complex organisms coexisting within a dynamic ecosystem. The concept of “we are the world” is not merely lyrical—it is a profound truth about our existence.
The lesson from space exploration should be clear. As William Shatner reflected during his journey to the edge of the atmosphere, the contrast between the cold void of space and the nurturing warmth of Earth is stark. He felt an overwhelming sense of loss, recognizing that while space is filled with mystery, it is also a realm of lifelessness. In contrast, Earth is alive—full of color, warmth, and life.
Our relationship with Earth is not incidental; it is foundational. Life has transformed this planet over billions of years, creating a rich tapestry of ecosystems. If we wish to colonize another planet, it must begin with microbial life, not humans. The process should start with the simplest forms of life, gradually transforming the planet into a habitable environment.
It is conceivable that advanced civilizations have existed elsewhere in the cosmos, perhaps even seeding life on Earth after losing their home planets. This notion, while speculative, opens up profound questions about our existence and the cycles of life across planets.
The Bigger Problem with Growth
Even if we could hypothetically colonize Mars, the fundamental issue of infinite growth remains. Moving our problems from one planet to another does not resolve them. The cycle of unchecked growth is inherently unsustainable, whether on Earth or elsewhere.
Understanding exponential growth is crucial. For instance, if a bacterial colony doubles every ten minutes, the consequences of unchecked expansion become clear. As Murphy illustrates, even if we discover new resources, it doesn't resolve the fundamental issue.
Just as moving a cancerous growth from one organ to another does not cure it, relocating our civilization to another planet would not solve our existential crises. It is vital that we address our issues on Earth before we attempt to export them into space.
In conclusion, space is not our salvation. This misunderstanding stems from a lack of comprehension regarding our identity and our relationship with the Earth. We are part of an ancient, living system, and until we recognize this connection, our attempts to venture into space will be misguided.