I was pleased to see a news article recently where astrophysicist Stephen Hawking warned that mankind should be looking outward beyond the confines of earth to seek new homes to perpetuate our survival (link to article). I have always felt that the world's space agencies should have given serious consideration to exploring the possibility of establishing new bases outside of earth, either through permanent space stations in planetary orbit or settlements on (extra-)terrestrial bodies. While I understand that such pursuits would have been extremely difficult to procure interest in and funding for by governments who have more immediate concerns of an earthly nature, I believe that a little far-sighted planning would pay off big for our future generations.
Why bother?
The fact is, I don't believe that life on earth is in any danger of being wiped out...ever. Life is too resilient and beyond our current comprehension to write off as being at the mercy of one species (man), no matter how technically advanced we may become. We may play around with the very building-blocks of life through genetic engineering and probe ever deeper into the confounding quasi-reality of quantum physics in search of the ultimate ground of existence, but Mother Nature has always surpassed us in all the scientific arenas. She is a much better biologist, chemist, physicist, designer, architect, efficiency expert, and is the consummate chess-player (maybe I should say "poker-player", in light of everyone's sudden interest in the game). Our species cannot put her in checkmate...She always has a countering move. Simple empirical observation can attest to the fact that it is nature's tendency to propagate and spread, and fill any vacuum created. Nevertheless, if our species wishes to continue to survive in a manner consistent to what we are used to today, then we should take the initiative and start seeking viable alternatives to our Earth to provide us with elbow-room. The emphasized portion of the previous sentence reflects my view that (a) while I believe that life itself will never cease to exist, it is very possible that mankind may deplete his numbers sufficiently to warrant the threat of extinction; and (b) because nature seeks to relieve any pressures that upset the balance, we will be eventually forced to emigrate as nature compensates for whatever mischief we have perpetrated upon the established order of things. This compensation is usually manifested by ever more unique and effective ways to decimate our numbers through disease, famine, natural disasters, and even our ability to make war more deadly efficient. It is in our desire to make this world a more comfortable, habitable place for us (in spite of our growing numbers) that we set the stage for a battle between us and that which supports and nurtures us. Even now, we are witnessing a tit-for-tat exchange between us and Mother Nature, with Mother Nature far in the lead. We find a way to control or nearly eradicate a handful of infectious diseases, while Nature mutates and spawns whole new classes in response.
What's the Answer?
In my admittedly simplistic view, beat Nature to the punch and thin our numbers by increasing the area in which we habitate. Everyone knows that competition for limited resources spawns the classic fight for survival, where the fittest and most cunning ultimately prevail. You don't have to believe in Darwinian evolution in order to accept this...it is plainly displayed at every level of society, as well as in every species that inhabits this earth. In my opinion, this simple fact is at the center of every problem that faces humanity today. Too many people, too little to go around. Peel away the political, philosophical and theocratic considerations, and there remains nothing but the bald hunger. By decreasing the density of population, we can increase the amount of resources available to us, thereby effecting a more harmonious balance between ourselves and Mother Nature. I believe this to be a simple, unassailable truth. When limited to small numbers, ideas like Communism and agrarian societies are possible because there is no pressure upon the practitioners to adapt an "every man for himself" attitude when they are in the midst of plenty. But large-scale applications of these ideas have proven that the more base nature of Man presents itself when faced with limited resources to be distributed among him and his brethren. The "share and share alike" philosophy quickly succumbs to the reptilian "Eat! Eat! Mine! Mine!" impulse, thus necessitating an outside influence (in the form of an authoritative government) to control the distribution of those resources, and keep the greedy in check.
Makes sense, but...
...my argument suffers from the obvious fact that outside our biosphere, there is no source of readily available and usable resources conducive to sustaining life for any length of time. The moon is a barren wasteland with no atmosphere. Our closest planetary neighbors do possess an atmosphere; however, the Venutian surface temperature averages over 800 degrees due to a runaway "greenhouse effect". Mars is more promising, in that it contains most of the elements needed to sustain life (not in very great quantity, of course), as well as possessing a rate of rotation and axial tilt more akin to ours. In any case, I recall reading over twenty years ago the concerning the feasibility of terraforming Mars using such methods as nuclear devices detonated at the polar ice caps, or giant mirrors placed in orbit to reflect the sun's light back to the surface of the planet. What progress has been made since then (if any) is unknown to me...but in the intervening quarter century I have heard precious little on the subject. Then again, I suppose I am not exactly on the cutting-edge of what transpires in the scientific community! I guess I will Google the subject after posting this entry, maybe I will be pleasantly surprised to find that some agency has been giving serious consideration and is even now working on a solution!
Such is my opinion...deal with it.
