I'd say Musk's proposition that exo-planetary exploration is nifty insurance against species-ending nuclear holocaust argues instead for a elegant test that we as a race either pass or fail. No species that's prone to wipe itself out for ultimately dumb nationalistic or monetary reasons deserves to flourish, any more than war crime-committing Israel is entitled to luxuriate in a US-guaranteed security. Some things really are this simple.
I have dedicated the last dozen years of my life to educating people about the foundational role that energy -- and particularly fossil fuels -- have played in the shaping of the modern world, and the crises we now face as a result of the exponential growth in resource consumption and pollution (including greenhouse gases) that they engendered, and our dependence on finite, depleting resources.
Hardly anyone -- including climate activists -- understand the energy predicament. So you can't imagine how my jaw dropped to the floor watching the first 15 minutes of the launch event for Bezos's space company, where Bezos is laying out all of these challenges -- including the limits of energy efficiency, etc. I couldn't believe how much the world's richest man (at the time) got it.
But then he gets to the turn: Because of these issues, we're faced with... god forbid........... rationing.
Oh. My. God. That's just unacceptable. We can't limit our "progress." So the only solution is to harvest the moon and put 1 TRILLION people in orbit around the earth. I'm not making this up. This is exactly what Bezos concludes, even though all of the energy limits he just got through outlining fundamentally preclude anything close to this vision.
It was an astonishing display of how existing belief systems will always trump information. Musk is just as paradoxically right and so incredibly delusional. And yet they are rewarded and feted for their insanity.
Here's a sarcastic conversation about our collective fixation on technology to fix the problems that technology caused, including the absurd math of space colonization, negative emissions technologies. Oh and cargo cults: https://www.postcarbon.org/crazytown/episode-9/
No, there is plenty of energy in space for a trillion people, they would likely use solar or nuclear, not coal mined on earth or anything like that. Not that I am sure that it will happen, but it certainly won't if no one tries. Musk may fail, but Starship is a damn good try, and Tesla might be one of the best companies for the environment, so it's not like he is slacking there either.
Well, the US GOVT neutered NASA. America 🇺🇸 has been anti-science, anti-intellectual for decades. And Because most of congress is owned by the plutocracy there could never be any meaningful policies instituted that would be a dent in transitioning to renewable energy. So, musk was only one who forced the hand of VW, GM, Ford and others to obviate the combustion engine. We had decades for governments to embrace change. The market forced their hand. Sorry you hate Musk, but I feel now at least have some semblance of a chance of changing the energy system we have. Everyone, is going to attack me and say ... but the Lithium mining... well, the new 4860 batteries are made of silicone Aka SAND ... a very bountiful resource. And the batteries come from Asian companies CATL, PANASONIC, and Korea. The next generation battery will be solid state tech. The Chinese have already decided they want to be the winners and have NIO, Xpeng, BYD, LI AUTO. I want these kids today to have a planet And so far the Paris Accords have accomplished nothing. Bernie Sanders would have been the only person to have made good on the GReen New Deal ... but, the plutocracy cock-blocked his campaign. Good ‘ol Obama got everyone to stand down ... he is on a leash too.
All the technical improvements in non-carbon energy won't help. We already use too much of everything. Relying on tech that makes it possible to keep going like this is insanity.
Well, we've gone far afield from Caitlin's point. None of this suggests that she isn't right. It is just an acceleration of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Should we retreat and figure out how to limit humanity's numbers? Or do we accelerate and expand to other planets?
Either choice is going to cause pain and suffering for a great number of people.
I've been launching deaf-ear landers on this topic for a long time. And some of my most intelligent friends can't hear it. The promise of having their cake runs so deep. Vertical farming??? Settling humans in enclave cities to let "nature" go unmolested?
I have wondered why scientists don't admit that manned deep space exploration is impossible and a waste of time. I think they know it, the reason they aren't in a hurry to make the relatively tiny steps of "going back to the moon" or exploring Mars is because they know anything truly meaningful is futile. We would have to figure out how to transform ourselves to something other than matter before we could consider leaving this planet for another permanent destination. The illusion we could do it though seems to be ingrained into our psyche, much like religion. Scientists are in the business of selling dreams and illusion just as much as your sideshow barker. They are going to leave it up to Musk and Bezos to finally put to rest the non-viability of travelling into deep space while I am certain if it was doable the US, Russia, China, and European Space Authority would have been leap-frogging each other to be the first.
Well, can't say Caitlin is "wrong", but neither is she "right". The "Megaproject" video on biosphere 2 was interesting. I think Caitlin posted it to prove that space colonization will never work because this experiment failed. But it didn't fail. It provided a lot of valuable information that can be used to figure out what doesn't work.
But, let's assume that Caitlin is right, that humanity will never leave this planet. Doesn't this practically guarantee humanities demise? Haven't we already arrived a a point where there are just too many people on this world? Don't state Natural Resources agencies manage wild animals: "harvesting" deer, "controlling" wolves?
Where is the UN "Soylent Green" agency tasked with ensuring the world's population of humans is brought under control?
I would rather we figure out how to pursue both options: reforming humanity's impact on this planet -and- figuring out how to get off this planet and go somewhere else.
Let us assume that Caitlin is completely correct in her thesis -- as with all the other articles written about how we are destroying our planet, there is no consideration of "what to do about it." Declaring that we have to stop polluting the planet is not a solution, it is merely a goal. It is like telling an obese person to just stop eating so much, when it has (supposedly) been proven over and over again that over 98% of such diets fail. Calling capitalism the source of the problem isn't exactly false, but it isn't true either -- not unless there is a path prescribed to establish an alternate economic system. IOW, Democratic-Socialism sounds good, how do we get there?
But we need not worry too much about there being too many humans. Once all of the resources have been consumed and the planet climate converted into something no one can survive in, the problem will take care of itself. It "might be nice", to have somewhere else to go.
Do you see how you just take it as a given that we cannot change our commercial, industrial, military and reproductive behavior and will necessarily keep repeating the same patterns until we go extinct? That assumption, right there, is the problem.
What I said was that you are repeating (very eloquently) the same mantra that "everyone" has been repeating for my entire life, "We have to change."
OK. How? Where do we start? Where's the organization (in a general sense) that might implement the change you claim we need. (I concur, that to achieve the goals you hint at, we do need to change, but how?)
How do we support the 7B+ people that live on this planet now? Something we don't seem to be doing all that well. (You have heard that Covid was developed to deal with this problem right? I'm not taking a stance on this just relaying what I've been told -- mostly by Trumpeters -- to express how enormously difficult it will be to achieve that ill-defined change.)
Biosphere 2 was an experiment that might result in our planet being covered with domes (Logan's Run) -- something that I guess the super rich are already doing in New Zealand (at least there are rumors of that happening). Even there, people were left on the outside. It is like when the Titanic sank, how do you decide who gets left behind?
There is no doubt that Humanity's resources could be appropriated more reasonably and responsibly. We can't even implement Medicare for All.
If humanity is going to build Azimov's "Caves of Steel", doesn't it make sense that we'll need access to more raw materials than we already have? Where will they come from? Some look at the asteroids. Some think we might bore a hole to the center of the earth. Ether way, there will have to be huge advances in technology.
In the end, it seems to me that there is either technological advance or we die. I'm not placing any bets on which way humanity goes. Either way, it seems inevitable there will be enormous suffering and loss of life.
Just in case it isn't clear, I'm not supporting Bezos or Musk. On the other hand, while I can imagine it, I do not know of any other agency that can marshal the resources so humanity might expand into space (having worked on launching rockets for part of my career -- so yes, I'll be happy to condemn the MIC along with you).
I acknowledge that the technological effort to expand humanity off of this planet is going to be enormous. Is it going to be easier to figure out how to remain on this planet and still support 10B humans? What sort of dystopian future with that be? China tried the one-child policy.
I can't say that you are right or wrong about humanity leaving this planet. But I am saying if we don't the future that is in store for us by remaining does not appear very bright.
Dear Ms Johnstone: Thank you both for creating and for making this beautiful essay available to read. Yours is an argument simple and artful.
I'd say Musk's proposition that exo-planetary exploration is nifty insurance against species-ending nuclear holocaust argues instead for a elegant test that we as a race either pass or fail. No species that's prone to wipe itself out for ultimately dumb nationalistic or monetary reasons deserves to flourish, any more than war crime-committing Israel is entitled to luxuriate in a US-guaranteed security. Some things really are this simple.
A great ode to Earth Day, which is in fact every day whether we choose to recognize that reality or not.
I have dedicated the last dozen years of my life to educating people about the foundational role that energy -- and particularly fossil fuels -- have played in the shaping of the modern world, and the crises we now face as a result of the exponential growth in resource consumption and pollution (including greenhouse gases) that they engendered, and our dependence on finite, depleting resources.
Hardly anyone -- including climate activists -- understand the energy predicament. So you can't imagine how my jaw dropped to the floor watching the first 15 minutes of the launch event for Bezos's space company, where Bezos is laying out all of these challenges -- including the limits of energy efficiency, etc. I couldn't believe how much the world's richest man (at the time) got it.
But then he gets to the turn: Because of these issues, we're faced with... god forbid........... rationing.
Oh. My. God. That's just unacceptable. We can't limit our "progress." So the only solution is to harvest the moon and put 1 TRILLION people in orbit around the earth. I'm not making this up. This is exactly what Bezos concludes, even though all of the energy limits he just got through outlining fundamentally preclude anything close to this vision.
It was an astonishing display of how existing belief systems will always trump information. Musk is just as paradoxically right and so incredibly delusional. And yet they are rewarded and feted for their insanity.
Here's a sarcastic conversation about our collective fixation on technology to fix the problems that technology caused, including the absurd math of space colonization, negative emissions technologies. Oh and cargo cults: https://www.postcarbon.org/crazytown/episode-9/
No, there is plenty of energy in space for a trillion people, they would likely use solar or nuclear, not coal mined on earth or anything like that. Not that I am sure that it will happen, but it certainly won't if no one tries. Musk may fail, but Starship is a damn good try, and Tesla might be one of the best companies for the environment, so it's not like he is slacking there either.
Sigh. For so many reasons, sigh.
The hard truth. Thanks Caitlin.
So, no man has walked on the moon? If so, how did they get past those pesky Van Allen Radiation Belts?
Well, the US GOVT neutered NASA. America 🇺🇸 has been anti-science, anti-intellectual for decades. And Because most of congress is owned by the plutocracy there could never be any meaningful policies instituted that would be a dent in transitioning to renewable energy. So, musk was only one who forced the hand of VW, GM, Ford and others to obviate the combustion engine. We had decades for governments to embrace change. The market forced their hand. Sorry you hate Musk, but I feel now at least have some semblance of a chance of changing the energy system we have. Everyone, is going to attack me and say ... but the Lithium mining... well, the new 4860 batteries are made of silicone Aka SAND ... a very bountiful resource. And the batteries come from Asian companies CATL, PANASONIC, and Korea. The next generation battery will be solid state tech. The Chinese have already decided they want to be the winners and have NIO, Xpeng, BYD, LI AUTO. I want these kids today to have a planet And so far the Paris Accords have accomplished nothing. Bernie Sanders would have been the only person to have made good on the GReen New Deal ... but, the plutocracy cock-blocked his campaign. Good ‘ol Obama got everyone to stand down ... he is on a leash too.
All the technical improvements in non-carbon energy won't help. We already use too much of everything. Relying on tech that makes it possible to keep going like this is insanity.
If you built a 100 square mile solar array one could power the whole United States
But no political will .. Just a bunch of septuagenarians from the Paleolithic era run in the United States
Is that 4860 or 4680? Different sources have different numbers. One source is written as if they are equivalent. Let's go with this 4680 article: https://insideevs.com/news/456644/tesla-shows-4860-cells-and-pack/
They are still lithium batteries though even though they also use silicon: https://cleantechnica.com/2020/09/22/everything-you-need-to-know-about-teslas-new-4680-battery-cell/
But Musk is still the guy who said, "We'll coup who we want to coup." Something that wouldn't be necessary if he didn't need lithium. https://www.telesurenglish.net/news/elon-musk-confesses-to-lithium-coup-in-bolivia-20200725-0010.html
Maybe with all this new supply of lithium we can eliminate psychiatric disorders: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/freud-fluoxetine/202007/return-lithium-psychiatrys-first-miracle-drug /s
Well, we've gone far afield from Caitlin's point. None of this suggests that she isn't right. It is just an acceleration of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Should we retreat and figure out how to limit humanity's numbers? Or do we accelerate and expand to other planets?
Either choice is going to cause pain and suffering for a great number of people.
Life is pain ... Most of us spend 95% of our time doing stuff we don’t even want to do
I've been launching deaf-ear landers on this topic for a long time. And some of my most intelligent friends can't hear it. The promise of having their cake runs so deep. Vertical farming??? Settling humans in enclave cities to let "nature" go unmolested?
Rev. Billy: "Stop shopping."
People: "Wa Wa! I want my silver bullet!!"
I have wondered why scientists don't admit that manned deep space exploration is impossible and a waste of time. I think they know it, the reason they aren't in a hurry to make the relatively tiny steps of "going back to the moon" or exploring Mars is because they know anything truly meaningful is futile. We would have to figure out how to transform ourselves to something other than matter before we could consider leaving this planet for another permanent destination. The illusion we could do it though seems to be ingrained into our psyche, much like religion. Scientists are in the business of selling dreams and illusion just as much as your sideshow barker. They are going to leave it up to Musk and Bezos to finally put to rest the non-viability of travelling into deep space while I am certain if it was doable the US, Russia, China, and European Space Authority would have been leap-frogging each other to be the first.
Well, can't say Caitlin is "wrong", but neither is she "right". The "Megaproject" video on biosphere 2 was interesting. I think Caitlin posted it to prove that space colonization will never work because this experiment failed. But it didn't fail. It provided a lot of valuable information that can be used to figure out what doesn't work.
But, let's assume that Caitlin is right, that humanity will never leave this planet. Doesn't this practically guarantee humanities demise? Haven't we already arrived a a point where there are just too many people on this world? Don't state Natural Resources agencies manage wild animals: "harvesting" deer, "controlling" wolves?
Where is the UN "Soylent Green" agency tasked with ensuring the world's population of humans is brought under control?
I would rather we figure out how to pursue both options: reforming humanity's impact on this planet -and- figuring out how to get off this planet and go somewhere else.
Let us assume that Caitlin is completely correct in her thesis -- as with all the other articles written about how we are destroying our planet, there is no consideration of "what to do about it." Declaring that we have to stop polluting the planet is not a solution, it is merely a goal. It is like telling an obese person to just stop eating so much, when it has (supposedly) been proven over and over again that over 98% of such diets fail. Calling capitalism the source of the problem isn't exactly false, but it isn't true either -- not unless there is a path prescribed to establish an alternate economic system. IOW, Democratic-Socialism sounds good, how do we get there?
But we need not worry too much about there being too many humans. Once all of the resources have been consumed and the planet climate converted into something no one can survive in, the problem will take care of itself. It "might be nice", to have somewhere else to go.
Do you see how you just take it as a given that we cannot change our commercial, industrial, military and reproductive behavior and will necessarily keep repeating the same patterns until we go extinct? That assumption, right there, is the problem.
I did not say that we could not change.
What I said was that you are repeating (very eloquently) the same mantra that "everyone" has been repeating for my entire life, "We have to change."
OK. How? Where do we start? Where's the organization (in a general sense) that might implement the change you claim we need. (I concur, that to achieve the goals you hint at, we do need to change, but how?)
How do we support the 7B+ people that live on this planet now? Something we don't seem to be doing all that well. (You have heard that Covid was developed to deal with this problem right? I'm not taking a stance on this just relaying what I've been told -- mostly by Trumpeters -- to express how enormously difficult it will be to achieve that ill-defined change.)
Biosphere 2 was an experiment that might result in our planet being covered with domes (Logan's Run) -- something that I guess the super rich are already doing in New Zealand (at least there are rumors of that happening). Even there, people were left on the outside. It is like when the Titanic sank, how do you decide who gets left behind?
There is no doubt that Humanity's resources could be appropriated more reasonably and responsibly. We can't even implement Medicare for All.
If humanity is going to build Azimov's "Caves of Steel", doesn't it make sense that we'll need access to more raw materials than we already have? Where will they come from? Some look at the asteroids. Some think we might bore a hole to the center of the earth. Ether way, there will have to be huge advances in technology.
In the end, it seems to me that there is either technological advance or we die. I'm not placing any bets on which way humanity goes. Either way, it seems inevitable there will be enormous suffering and loss of life.
Just in case it isn't clear, I'm not supporting Bezos or Musk. On the other hand, while I can imagine it, I do not know of any other agency that can marshal the resources so humanity might expand into space (having worked on launching rockets for part of my career -- so yes, I'll be happy to condemn the MIC along with you).
I acknowledge that the technological effort to expand humanity off of this planet is going to be enormous. Is it going to be easier to figure out how to remain on this planet and still support 10B humans? What sort of dystopian future with that be? China tried the one-child policy.
I can't say that you are right or wrong about humanity leaving this planet. But I am saying if we don't the future that is in store for us by remaining does not appear very bright.
Nice work Caitlin. When are you doing a podcast?!