The July issue of one of my favorite journals — Journal of the British Interplanetary Society — has an elegant, deep, very theoretical article by Milan Cirkovic on the motives behind space colonization by advanced technological civilizations (ATCs). Although a fascinating approach, the article also propagates a few common misconceptions that this weblog seeks to dispell.

He contrasts his “Empire State” model, which envisions ATCs spreading out into the Galaxy in basically a “Star Trek” fashion, with what he calls the “City State” model where expansion is hard and the “optimization of all activities…is the existential imperative.” The article argues that galactic expansion by ATCs is very unlikely.

Cirkovic suggests that a typical City State-style ATC might use the resources of neighboring planetary systems, “…by bringing resources back home instead of truly colonizing them.” Actually, I was guilty of suggesting exactly that at the Lunar Bases & Space Activities conference (See Cordell, 1985), where I proposed mining the moons of Mars and retrieving their waters to the Moon and LEO for transportation and industrial uses. Even worse, I also suggested that this example of interplanetary commerce might fund the long-term exploration and colonization of Mars. That puts me squarely in the Star Trek/Empire State club of interplanetary expansionists; by the way if you didn’t know that already, you really haven’t been paying attention to this weblog!

Weblog space precludes me from a detailed commentary on Cirkovic’s article, but let me give you the flavor. For example, one argument against the Empire is “Lack of Motivation.” Even their star running out of thermonuclear fuel is dismissed as unmotivating for ATCs. Having insufficient or too much energy soon-or-later gets the attention of any ATC (the parallel with current oil prices comes to mind!) and is a “Survival” program, not necessarily related to galactic expansion.

Cirkovic also suggests that galactic expansion simply costs too much, is unethical because other worlds may be inhabited even by low-level forms of life (a sort of Star Trek-style “Non-Interference Directive”), that Empire-style expansion fosters militarism (e.g., like Star Wars), and that the Fermi Paradox shows that nobody else has done it yet, unless you believe in UFOs. This kind of logic can be used to argue against almost anything, but let me comment on cost.

How much is a new planet worth? We’re contemplating the rebith of our civilization in its extraterrestrial form! Try a cost-benefit analysis of that. Better yet, let’s make it easier and scale it down: has anyone ever done a cost-benefit analysis of having a child…prior to the event? Can you imagine a world without children?

The last argument Against Empire is perhaps the weakest: the “History of Humanity.” If we ignore the last 200,000 years of human exploration, only then does a comment like this make sense, “…after the solar system is effectively technologized, most of the rationale for the long-range space travel will be dissolved (for instance the fear of planet-wide ecological cataclysm).” In fact, the last 200 years show that humans are clearly fascinated by Great Explorations whether they have obvious strategic value (e.g., Lewis & Clark) or whether they do not (e.g., Polar expeditions); and the same is true of Macro-Engineering Projects (MEPs).

Survival comes first, but exploration is like a long-term societal “life insurance” policy — economically, technologically, and even spiritually. That’s probably why Harvard philosopher Alfred North Whitehead once said, “Without adventure society is in full decay.”

Trackback URI | Comments RSS