Community & Culture

Published on March 4th, 2014 | by Ken Whitehead


Does The Future Of Humanity Lie In Space?

March 4th, 2014 by

Future of Humanity

World-renowned astrophysicist Stephen Hawking, and Buzz Aldrin, the second man to walk on the moon, are united by a common belief. They are members of an influential group of scientists and visionaries who believe that the long-term future of the human race lies in space, and that we need to grow beyond the confines of our home planet in order to ensure our long-term survival. The logic behind this viewpoint is that sooner or later the Earth will inevitably endure another planetary catastrophe, such as the asteroid collision that lead to the extinction of the dinosaurs some 65 million years ago. Failing that, they believe we have a pretty good chance of accomplishing our own extinction through mismanagement of the planet.

While these arguments are compelling, future space travel would require a number of major technological advances to be made. The fact is that we are uniquely adapted to living here on Earth. Our bodies have evolved to cope with the unique environmental conditions which exist here, and very likely only here, in the universe. It is unlikely that any potentially habitable planet we could find would have the same concentration of oxygen in its atmosphere, the same gravitational pull, the same seasonal patterns, or any one of the millions of other factors which we never think about, but which uniquely characterize our home planet. Although many of us now lead lives completely isolated from nature, our survival is still dependent on the physical processes which drive the Earth system.

The Earth is unique in our solar system in that it provides the conditions which enable complex life to flourish. While scientists hold out the possibility that microbial life could exist on Mars, or perhaps on Saturn’s moon Titan, it is highly unlikely that complex multi-cellular organisms will be found anywhere else in our solar system. Contrast this with the Earth, where life is everywhere. Even physically hostile regions such as Antarctica and the Sahara support life in surprisingly large concentrations. Space is a vacuum, in which astronauts are totally dependent on life support, and where the smallest problem can be life threatening. The distances are also unfathomable. For example, Proxima Centauri, the next-closest star after our sun, is more than four light years away.

Given the current state of our technology, it is unlikely we will be venturing far into space this coming century. However over this same time period we will face tremendous challenges here on Earth. For our species to survive into the 22nd century, we will need to find ways to mitigate the worst effects of climate change, solve a host of related environmental problems, and stabilize our population. This will need to happen within the lifetime of many people who are alive today. Achieving such a transformation requires that we turn away from unsustainable growth-based models of resource use, and transition to a steady-state economy.

Type I, II, and III civilizations

It is useful to look at where our current civilization stands in terms of theoretical models of planetary development. In 1964 the soviet astrophysicist Nicolai Kardashev developed a method for classifying the level of development of theoretical planetary civilizations. The so-called Kardashev scale recognizes three levels of advanced civilization, which are classified according to their energy usage. Type I civilizations are able to harvest all the energy falling on the planet from their local sun. Type II civilizations are able to gather all the energy provided by the entire star, whereas Type III civilizations would be able to utilize the energy resources of their entire galaxy. As to where we fit into this model; the theoretical physicist Michio Kaku believes we are currently at a level of about 0.7 and are on the way to transitioning into a full level I civilization within the next 100 – 200 years, if we survive that long.

The Kardashev scale suggests that our energy requirements will continue to increase indefinitely as our civilization develops. However, as we saw above, the future of humanity depends on us being able to stabilize our numbers and live sustainably on the Earth. This implies that our energy consumption will inevitably reach a peak sometime in the next century, and flatten out thereafter. Planetary limits dictate that this must be so. Our civilization simply cannot advance fast enough to allow to us to perfect space travel before we run up against the limits imposed by nature.

The reason for the contradiction is that the Kardachev scale is based on the idea of exponential growth. It is exactly the same logic that current economic theory is based on, except that in this case energy usage is used as a proxy for the level of development of a civilization. However, it is inevitable that our current growth economy must ultimately transition into a steady-state economy if we are to survive in the long term. This does not imply that our society will stop developing, nor that we will be confined to Earth in the future; it simply means that the advance of our civilization will not require the consumption of exponentially increasing amounts of energy, as Kardashev suggested.

For many years now people have wondered whether we are alone in the universe. Researchers from the SETI (search for extraterrestrial intelligence) Institute have scanned the skies for signs of intelligent life and have so far seen no conclusive evidence of other civilizations. Two explanations are commonly suggested for this. The first is that we really are alone; that in all the countless billions of planetary systems within our galaxy, and in all the billions of galaxies, no other species has reached our level of development. The second explanation is that when civilizations reach a certain level of development, they inevitably end up destroying themselves.

There is however a third possibility, which is to assume that as civilizations advance they must inevitably bump up against the physical limits imposed by their home planet, as we ourselves are now doing. At this stage of their development it is highly unlikely that they will have perfected space travel. Therefore in order for their civilization to endure, they would have no choice but to learn to live sustainably within the limits imposed by the planet. With stable populations, and a well-managed planet, there would simply not be the pressure for such a civilization to continually expand, thereby consuming an ever-increasing supply of new resources.

Such civilizations would still face challenges. However over time it is likely they would develop any technology they would need to protect their home planet from external threats. They would very likely develop space travel, but its primary use would be for research purposes, rather than to drive an exponentially expanding wave of colonization through the galaxy. The idea of a hostile alien civilization strip-mining the resources of the galaxy is a science fiction staple. However it is a perception which is derived largely from the assumption that economies must continually grow and consume ever-more resources in order to survive. It therefore says more about the perceptions and biases of our times than it does about the development of civilizations.

If we consider the alternative hypothesis that any civilization destined to survive in the long term would have evolved to a steady-state economy long before they perfected space travel, then it is quite possible that there could be millions of such civilizations scattered through the universe, each quietly going about their own business. This is probably the best option for a long-term sustainable future for the human race. It is a future which most likely will include space travel, but not one in which space travel is a prerequisite for our survival.

Photo Credit: NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center via photopin (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 license)

Keep up to date with all the most interesting green news on the planet by subscribing to our (free) Planetsave newsletter.

Tags: , ,

About the Author

Ken Whitehead is currently a Postdoctoral Fellow in the Department of Geography at the University of Calgary, where he specialises in using unmanned aerial vehicles for a variety of environmental monitoring applications. For his PhD he developed methods for measuring glacial flow rates and ice loss in the Canadian Arctic. In the past he has been a remote sensing instructor, and has worked as a remote sensing / geomatics specialist in the UK, South Africa, and Canada. Ken is originally from Scotland, but currently lives in interior British Columbia, where he enjoys life in the great Canadian outdoors.

  • Bob Munck

    Whitehead makes the point that humanity cannot expand indefinitely, that we have to stop and learn how to live in a steady state. I would tend to agree but quibble with when that stopping (or pause) is appropriate.

    It might have made sense to stop when we’d fully occupied the Great Rift Valley in Kenya, but we didn’t. It might have made sense when we’d occupied all of Africa, or all of the Africa/Europe/Asia landmass, but there was always something new and better just over the next hill. Now we’ve occupied (almost) all of the land surface of the planet, but I would argue that we haven’t yet gone a land bridge too far; there’s a better stopping place just up the road.

    The next step is occupation of the entire solar system, and I’m firmly convinced that a bridge is about to open up across the daunting Bering Strait between surface and orbit — the Space Elevator. We’re on the edge of being capable of building them, and the immediate effect would be to reduce the cost of putting something in orbit to $500/kg ($200/lb; go ahead and plug in your current weight).

    When the SEs start going up, it immediately solves the fossil fuel problem; Solar Power Satellites will give us clean energy everywhere on Earth. That means we can start to stabilize our population here by bringing everyone up to the level of prosperity where their numbers cease to grow.

    But it also solves the serious long-term problem with Whitehead’s suggestion: the “all your eggs in one basket” and “sitting duck” risk. When we have the ultra-strong materials that an SE requires, we can build a wide variety of Habitats for Humanity in space and on other planets. Sure, the environment will be hostile, but so was Northern Europe; we just turned white and developed snowplows.

    The thing is, the next step beyond our Sun is a real doozy. We almost literally cannot conceive how far it is between solar systems, in part because our science fiction keeps dipping into fantasy by “jumping to hyperspace.” So I contend that we need to occupy our entire solar system, not just Earth, but that might be a good place to stop (or take a good long pause).

    [Originally posted on the comments thread for this article on The Moderate Voice:

  • newpapyrus

    Humans are creatures that were originally designed to survive only in tropical environments. But technology such as the use of clothing, shelters, and fire enabled our species to survive in much colder environments– even during the glacial periods.

    We currently don’t know if lower gravity environments such as on the surface of the Moon and Mars are harmful to human health and reproduction. But there appears to be plenty of oxygen and water resources on other worlds that we could use for sustaining human life and raising and growing food. And there’s also plenty of raw materials on other worlds to reduce cosmic radiation and major solar events to harmless levels.


Back to Top ↑
  • Advertisements

  • The Green Life

  • Advertisement

  • Connect!

  • Free News from Planetsave!

  • Go Solar

    Want to save the planet? Want to live green? Want to save some serious cash money? Go solar! The cost of solar panels today is at a serious low. Go and get a solar quote and home solar report for your home... and then help save the planet!
  • Search the IM Network

  • The content produced by this site is for entertainment purposes only. Opinions and comments published on this site may not be sanctioned by, and do not necessarily represent the views of Sustainable Enterprises Media, Inc., its owners, sponsors, affiliates, or subsidiaries.