To Colonize Space Or Not To Colonize: That Is The Question …

Two astronauts stand outside a geodesic dome in an artist's conception of a lunar base.

Its time to ask ourselvesthebig question:Should wetrytocolonizeoursolar system, or not?Ill readily admit Imfor it, and I suspect a large portion ofthespace community wouldstand with me but this isnt the space communitys decision, or in fact, any single nations decision.A broad consensus of commercial, civil, defense and international parties will be essential to an undertaking of this magnitude and complexity.Think of it were considering moving large numbers of humans off their home planet, potentiallynot onlyforthe rest of their lives, but for the lives of their descendants.

Its important to distinguish between colonize and explore. Exploration already enjoys broad approval here in America. In June, 77% of U.S. respondents told Gallup pollsters that NASAs budget should either be maintained or increased undeniable evidence of support for the American space program (as its currently constituted). By any measure, weve done an admirable job of surveying the solar system over the past 60 years an essential first step in any comprehensive program of exploration. Unmanned probes developed and launched by the United States and the Soviet Union conducted flybys of the Moon and the terrestrial planets not long after we reached Earth orbit, and since then, weve flown by the outer planets. Multiple nations have placed increasingly sophisticated robotic emissaries on the surfaces of the Moon, Mars, Venus and Saturns largest moon, Titan.

Most stunningly, in atour de forceof technology and Cold War chutzpah,the U.S.dispatchedhumanstoset foot on another world, just 50 years and a few months ago.Butafteronlysixsuchvisits, wenever returned.Moonhabitatsin lava tubes, cropsunder glass domes, ice mining at the south pole?No.NASAs Artemis program may place a man and a woman on the Moon again in 2024.But thats hardly colonization.For perspective, lets look closer to home.

Sailors from an Americanvessel may have landedonAntarctica as early as1821 the claim is unverified butnoscientific expeditionswinteredthere foranother75 years.The first two of these, one Belgian and one British, enduredextreme coldand privation one inadvertently, the other by design.And yet,200 years after the first explorer set foot on the continent, there are no permanent settlements(partially as a result of a political consensus reached in the late 1950s, butin no small part due to thedifficulty of extractingresources such asore or fossil fuels through kilometers of ice).Less than 5,000internationalresearchers and support staffcomprise the summer population at the bottom of the world.That number dwindles tojust 1,100 during the harsh Antarctic winter,requiringmillions of tons of supplies and fuelto bedelivered every year none of which can be produced locally.To suggest that Antarctica iscolonized would be far overstating thesustainability ofhuman presence there.

If Antarctica is hard, the Moon,Mars,asteroids,and interplanetary spacewill be punishingly difficult.Writing inGizmodo this past July,GeorgeDvorskydescribes the challenges to ahuman colony posed by low gravity, radiation, lack of air and water,andthe psychological effects of long-term confinement and isolation insideartificialstructures, in space oronplanetary surfaces.Add to this the economic uncertainties of such a venture where themodernanalog of a Dutch or British East India Company would face enormousskepticism from investorsregardingthe profitability of shipping anygood or finished productbetween colonial ports of call and it becomes clear why nation states and mega-corporations alike haveso farresisted the temptation to set up camp beyond geosynchronous orbit.Perhaps, many argue, we should focus our limited resources on unresolved problems here at home?

Yet a wave of interest inpursuing solar systemcolonizationis building, whether itsinitialfocusisthe Moon, Mars, orONeill-style space habitats.Jeff Bezos has arguedeloquentlyfor moving heavy industry off the home planet, preservingEarthas a nature reserve,and building the space-based infrastructure that willlower barriers andcreateopportunities forvasteconomicand culturalgrowth(similar to how the Internet and a revolution in microelectronics has allowed Amazon and numerous othercompanies to achieve spectacular wealth).Elon Muskand Stephen Hawkingbothsuggestedthe need for ahedge population of humanson Marstoallow human civilization to reboot itself in the event of a catastrophe on Earth an eggs-in-several-baskets approach which actually complements the arguments made by Bezos.And while bothare valid reasons for pursuing colonization,theres a stronger,overarching rationalethat clinches it.

Ill assert that afundamental truth repeatedly borne out by history is thatexpanding, outwardly-focused civilizations are farless likely to turn onthemselves,andfarmore likely to expendtheirfecundityongrowinghabitations, conductingimportantresearchand creating wealth fortheircitizens.A civilization that turns away from discovery and growth stagnates a point made by NASAs Chief HistorianStevenDick as well as Mars exploration advocate RobertZubrin.

As a species, we have yet to resolve problems of extreme political polarization(both internal to nation states as well as among them), inequalities in wealth distribution, deficiencies incivil liberties,environmental depredationsand war.Forgoing opportunities to expand our presence into the cosmosto achieve better outcomes here at home hasnt eliminated these scourges.

Whats more, thecabin feveroftendecried by opponents of colonization (when applied to small, isolated outposts far from Earth) turns out to be a potential problem for our own planet.Without a relief valve for ideologicalpilgrimsor staunch individualists who might just prefer to be on their own despite theinevitablehardships, wemaywell run the risk of exacerbatingthepolarization and internecine strife westriveso hard toquell.Focusing humanitys attentionand imaginationon a grand projectmay wellgive us the running room we need to addressthese problems.But the decision cannot be made by one country, or one company, or one segment of the human population.If we do this, it will of necessity bea trulyinternational endeavor, a cross-sector endeavor (with allcommercial, civil, and defense interestsengaged and cooperating).

The good news:Critical technologiessuch as propulsion and power generation systemswill improveover time.Transit durationsbetweencelestialdestinations will shorten (in the same waysailing vessels gave way to steam ships and then to airliners and perhaps, one day, to point-to-point ballistic reusable rockets).Methods for obtaining critical resourceson other planetswill be refined and enhanced.Genetic engineering may be used to better adapt humans, their crops and other biota to life in space or on other planetary surfaces to withstand the effects of low or micro-gravity, radiation,and the psychological effects of long-duration spaceflight.

As nation after nation lands theirinauguralexploratory vessels on our Earths moon, and as billionaire space enthusiasts race to launch passengers, satellites and other cargo into orbit, its clearly time for us to sit down as a species and debate whether our future will be onehighlighted primarily bygrowth and discovery, opening the solar systemto settlement and economic development, or onethat eschews outward expansion for conservation and preservation.Doing so would allow us to focus our attentions on this planet, leavingthe solar system in itsnaturalstate, a celestial Antarctica stretching beyond Neptune.

I vote for growth.Butone person, or one company, one community, one nation, isnt a plurality here.This debate-postponed for more than 50 years is one worth having.Humanitys futurewill be decided by its outcome.

Go here to read the rest:
To Colonize Space Or Not To Colonize: That Is The Question ...