Essay Abstract

This essay introduces the need to consider a new perception of our planet called Greater Earth. A perception that is based on Earth's true cosmic dimensions as defined by the laws of physics and how this new perception of our planet may catalyze an optimistic path to a sustainable and prosperous future.

Author Bio

Arthur Woods is a Swiss/American astronautical artist who witnessed the beginnings of the U.S. Space program while living in the vicinity of Cape Canaveral and the Kennedy Space Center until 1970. He initiated a number of art-in-space projects, including two of which that were realized on the Mir space station in the early 1990's. He is the co-founder of the Space Option concept and is currently editor and publisher of a website dedicated its documentation and elaboration: TheSpaceOption.com

Download Essay PDF File

We do not know what the true cosmic dimensions of the laws of physics are. We build useful things incrementally as we find new relationships we had not previously considered. But the next generation will find new relationships we are as yet unaware of that may change our directions of development completely.

Example: Dark Energy is modeled in some way that is useful. Wireless transfer of power might become available. Space travel and living on other planets and in space has a completely new paradigm that results.

We can predict the future for 1000 years in advance based upon what we presently know. But we must continuously evolve politically, economically, technologically, educationally, and every other institutional consideration as new developments occur.

My prediction is humans will not substantially leave our solar system. Because we will develop the technologies to build universes of our own designs long before having the resources to migrate out of the solar system. And our discoveries will make apparent the other civilizations in the universe and that migration is both unnecessary and unwanted.

We will develop the technologies to be self-sustaining and be able to interact with the universe without moving and wasting energy.

    Dear James

    Thank you for your feedback.

    Concerning your comment: "We do not know what the true cosmic dimensions of the laws of physics are." and that "...the next generation will find new relationships we are as yet unaware of...", I state in my essay " ... knowledge increases though a process of making finer and finer discriminations about the nature of reality and the prevailing models of understanding are consequently modified or replaced by newer ones.." For the purposes of my arguments, I can only rely on the current state of our knowledge about the laws of physics.

    As far as moving out into the Solar System, I assert that an evolving technological species existing on a planet with finite resources is faced with the ultimate challenge of maintaining its development and the viability of its civilization before it reaches the threshold of non-sustainability.

    Fortunately, we have an option - a Space Option - which is an evolutionary plan to meet the basic and anticipated needs of humanity through the utilization of near Earth resources and to apply these resources and/or their products for use on Earth at a conspicuous level.

    In addition to this emphasis on direct socio-economic returns, what sets the Space Option concept apart from other space development initiatives is that it does not promote an urgent need to focus humanity's energies and resources on destinations that lie beyond the true cosmic boundaries of our planet. There is enough room, sufficient resources and plentiful opportunities within the 3 million km sphere of Greater Earth (which is defined in the essay) to more than satisfy the needs of our civilization in the 21st century.

    Thus, to survive and to prosper in the decades and centuries ahead, the most critical step for our species is to exercise its fullest capabilities to exploit this new territory that is a natural part of its cosmic home. By doing so wisely, humanity may go on to other places and adventures. Perhaps more importantly, this approach provides most of Earth's inhabitants with a realistic hope in a prosperous future with many new possibilities.

    Very good stuff. This is pretty much the essay which I (wish I) would have written if I had decided to focus on the near term. :)

      Dear Mr. Woods,

      I enjoyed reading your highly informative essay and I hope that it does well in the competition.

      Regards,

      Joe Fisher

        Dear Tommy

        Many thanks for reading my essay and for your positive comment.

        Arthur Woods

        Dear Mr. Fischer

        Many thanks for reading my essay and for your positive comment.

        Arthur Woods

        5 days later

        • [deleted]

        • Post #8

        Arthur,

        Your point - that a change in perception produces different actions and thus can lead to different outcomes - is very much my outlook on things.

        Your essay reminds me of the late 70s and 80s when I was involved in a bunch of ocean floor mining and space exploration work. The one effort that succeeded beyond imagination was the Space Race that had many naysayers but took-off only after President Kennedy put US prestige and government resources behind it. Any ideas on what is today's version of Kennedy's action that can move the concept of "Greater Earth"?

        Seeking resources didn't make any sense then and doesn't today. The problem with the resource argument is that we have never run out of anything i.e. the fear of possibly running out is in our minds, but so is the capability to turn to another resource. We didn't get automobiles because we ran out of horses; we didn't get wireless because we ran out of wires etc. Picking up on your perception prescription, is there another reason that can make the idea of "Greater Earth" take off?

        Your thoughts, especially on the resource argument?

        By the way, different thinking is at the core of my essay which you can find here. Looking forward to your comments and questions on it.

        Thank you for an updated view of an earlier time with a new spin and the fond memories you woke up.

        - Ajay

          The above post is from me. I think I got logged ot.

          - Ajay

          Dear Ajay

          I have read your interesting essay and I will add my specific comments on your essay page.

          Concerning your resource question, I believe it will be much easier to meet the future challenges of humanity in a "resource rich" world rather than in a "resource poor" one. In order to maintain our civilization and to improve both the human situation as well as our planet's ecological balance, it is obvious that we will need additional physical resources. Additional room for human activities is also a needed and desirable resource. I suggest that these additional resources can be accessed and harnessed within the boundaries of Greater Earth which extends, not only the physical dimension our home planet outward, but also the viability of civilization until our species can migrate further into the Solar System and access the inexhaustible resources (for human purposes) located there.

          The primary resource that concerns us most at the moment is energy which is reflected in our current reliance on hydrocarbon fuels - namely oil and gas. As I point out in my essay, the more energy used per capita in a particular nation equates to a higher standard of living. Thus it is desirable to make access to plentiful and clean energy a high global priority if one wants to raise the overall well-being of humanity. However, reliance and control over this particular energy resource has led to many geopolitical and environmental developments in the past century that are continuing into the present time with the possibility of ultimate escalation which is the most serious threat to our civilization. More than anything else, these developments and their associated repercussions are "steering the future of humanity" at the moment - not necessarily in a positive direction.

          As pointed out by the international energy organizations mentioned in my essay, reliance on oil and gas is expected to increase in the next decades as nations develop and the population increases. Terrestrial alternatives to hydrocarbon fuels such as wind, solar and geothermal, though desirable, apparently cannot scale to meet the projected future energy needs of humanity. Likewise, it will also be difficult to scale nuclear energy to meet these future needs due to its unsolved political and environmental issues. Thus, if control of oil and gas resources leads to major geopolitical conflicts and our reliance on this particular resource also results in pollution of the biosphere, then we obviously need to find viable alternatives.

          Within the boundaries of Greater Earth passes more than 50,000 times the amount of solar power which is available on the surface of the planet and the needed technologies (Space Solar Power) already exist in order to deliver this energy in clean and unlimited quantities for the ultimate well-being of all humanity. By doing so we would not only raise the overall standard of living of all inhabitants of Earth, but we could put an end to the geopolitical conflicts over the control of oil and gas that pose the biggest risk to civilization and to our survival as a species.

          Thus, by expanding our perception to that of a "Greater Earth" and by harnessing its abundant resources, we create a realistic hope for eventual global peace and prosperity on Earth which would then allow our species to survive and thrive in the future.

          Thanks for your question.

          Arthur

          Arthur,

          Thanks for your reply.

          If you and I differ on something, it's how important 'resource' issues are to making the case for Greater Earth. From my perspective, the resource argument will not motivate much of the public which,in turn, will not push people in power to make SPS real. Yes, some are supporting SPS already but the numbers are too few to force the decision makers to choose it. There must be a better argument that just resources. And fear is not the best argument. Nor is the profit motive. Kennedy's choice to us 'US prestige' was a very savvy decision that got action.

          -Ajay

          Arthur,

          Greater Earth can unlock resources that lessens scarcity and the intense competition leading to unequal distribution of wealth. Looking beyond Earth and utilizing the forces of fusion that utilize the most plentiful resource, hydrogen would be a great start toward a cleaner future.

          The perception beyond Earth's boundaries would be a good start.

          Jim

            Arthur

            It was a pleasure to read your beautifully written essay. As an astronomer whose studied near Earth conditions I firmly agree with your proposal as a major step away from our planetary limitations. I've also identified fundamental limitations of understanding caused by Earth-centric thinking and conceptions which I touch on in my own essay, i.e. even beyond your; " Earth as defined by the edges of its atmosphere" we have no conception of the true and fundamental implications of the fact that 'there is no 'up' in space'. I show how the whole nonsense of QM can be rationalised by the greater view.

            I've also shown in recent essays the massive importance of mechanisms at the dense astrophysical shock of our greater ionosphere/plasmasphere. Your Greater Earth disc well approximates it's outer limits, yet it pulsates with solar wind emissions. A complex process of particle propagation and energy absorption and re-emission is happening there, currently studied by 'Cluster' etc. I've pointed out that, using 'joined-up' science, the re-emissions are at c in the particle rest frame, so the process converts the speed of light to the local frame c. Current (100yr old) assumptions can't assimilate such things so confusion and division remains throughout physics. It seems only being there can open our eyes (See essay 2020 vision 2011)

            One thing I take issue with is the 'pollution sink'. We used to think the ocean was one, lets not repeat the error. We've already created a 'shell' of junk orbiting Earth where a few collisions will make it a minefield. I suggest all refuse heads for the sun. It seems it's due to be recycled in ~5 Bn years anyway, (re-ionized) probably with all galactic matter (paper accepted and imminent) in our Active Galactic Nucleus (our next 'quasar' event). We do need to push into space now if we're ever to escape that if still around, so need to break the shackles of Earth bound science and thinking. We also need time to evolve in lowG. But that's another story. See how Bob and Alice get on further afield in mine. I see you're not a physicist so you have a big advantage in understanding it. Very well done for a beautiful essay which deserves a far better score, and excellent visuals too. Are you into CG?

            Best wishes

            Peter

              5 days later

              Dear Peter

              Many thanks for your comments on my essay.

              I am sure I don't need to point this out to you, but for other readers of this dialogue please permit me to address the "pollution sink" issue which you mention. First, I agree 100% with you that humanity should not operate in an irresponsible manner in the the territory of Greater Earth or anywhere else. Indeed, the movie Gravity clearly depicts how such behavior could lead to an uncontrollable disaster scenario that could theoretically confine our species to the surface of the planet in the critical foreseeable future. Indeed, the accumulated space debris currently in orbit is a major concern that is being addressed by the astronautical community today. As such, debris removal may also become an early and lucrative economic opportunity for the right NewSpace enterprise. Unfortunately, there are also many national military space assets in orbit which constitute obvious targets in future conflicts that could potentially lead to a similar scenario and consequence. As such, the de-militarization of the near space environment should become a topic when considering humanity's future.

              There are many industrial waste products, residues, or effluents which are certainly considered to be "pollution" when these are emitted within the biosphere where their impact on the terrestrial ecological system is harmful. On the other hand, these same emissions may be considered only as "waste" products if these are produced outside of the biosphere. Asteroid mining for metals and minerals comes to mind as the processing of the asteroid ores could be done in space and only the refined products delivered to Earth.

              Another example and one that most people probably don't consider is the production of electricity via photovoltaics which are today only about 35% efficient. This means that the rest of the solar energy that they absorb is dissipated into the terrestrial environment as excess heat. Thus, a wide deployment of this particular renewable energy technology on a scale that would significantly contribute to meeting our future global energy needs on Earth would lead to a problematic thermal burden - i.e. by contributing to an increase in global temperatures. Whereas, producing energy via a Space Solar Power system in orbit or on the Moon would avoid this "heat pollution" problem on Earth as the excess heat would simply dissipate into space without consequence.

              Following your suggestion about sending our refuse to the Sun, once, we have an operational space elevator, then sending "pollution" such as humanity's accumulated radioactive waste (and nuclear weapons) in the direction of the Sun would become technically and (hopefully) politically feasible.

              Besides being a living ecological system, the volume of our thin biosphere is extremely minute in comparison with the infinite vastness of the cosmos located beyond our atmosphere. A lack of appreciation of this reality has to do with a limited perception of the cosmos and of our planet which I address in my essay. Thus, in the imaginable future the probable impact of human activities on the cosmic environment will surely be insignificant but this does not mean we should act irresponsibly. The bigger ethical issue may arise when humanity one day wants to "plant" life from Earth on some hospitable cosmic location (terraform) which may harbor forms of extraterrestrial life that could not resist our intrusion.

              Lastly, thank you for directing to me to your 2011 essay - 2020 Vision. I found this sentence to be particularly relevant: "Recent research shows we need to find a less self centric view of nature to gain 20-20 vision of how it works, to step back and detach ourselves to not confuse personal view and experience with a concrete reality that only maths can describe, but perhaps not ask maths to replace our conceptual thinking and visualisation skills."

              This statement and your current essay indicate to me that the real challenge to steering humanity's future is to truly understand how nature works. Please keep at it.

              Best regards

              Arthur

              Arthur R. Woods,

              Excellent! Your essay represents the goals of this contest. You gave an answer to: How should humanity steer the future?, as opposed, to: How should humanity steer humanity? Both educational and imaginative. It was fun picturing such a future while understanding that it is serious and might work? Very well written.

              James Putnam

                Dear James

                Thank you so much for your positive comments. They are much appreciated. I have read your essay and will respond soon.

                Best regards,

                Arthur

                Dear Jim

                Many thanks for reading my essay and for your comments. Yes, beyond Space Solar Power, nuclear fusion would be an important next development for meeting our energy needs as well as powering our spacecraft in order to really open up the solar system. Here, too, Greater Earth offers us opportunities with the harvesting of Helium-3 (He-3) - which is plentiful in lunar soil but rare on Earth to be used in future nuclear fusion reactors back on Earth when this energy technology matures.

                I have read your interesting essay and commented on your page.

                Best regards

                Arthur

                A wonderfully written, thorough and factual blueprint for how humanity should steer the future, Arthur. It is only a matter of time that the rest of the world catches up with these insights. We can only hope that it's not too much time because, as you underscore so brilliantly, we cannot count on things developing according to logic. It is very important that those who understand the issues faced by Earth and its inhabitants do their best to help others understand. You have made a significant contribution by outlining your thoughts in this forum.

                Hi Arthur,

                You write clearly and confidently on a topic that's unfamiliar to me, which keeps me interested all the way through. In terms of steering the future, I think you're explaining how we could navigate the "gateway to the Solar System" (as you call it, p. 9) in order to reach the future, which puts you on topic. But I'd prefer this steering argument to be built more emphatically into the text, and more strongly (more on this below).

                You claim that venturing into near space (Greater Earth) is viable on an economic basis owing to the exploitation of resources (energy, minerals, etc, pp. 5-7). If true (I can't judge) then this is a strong backbone. Basically there's a ladder there waiting for us to climb. Now all it takes is a conscious choice to climb it. Here you might simply have pointed to the existential risks of an earth-bound civilization (e.g. some of those surveyed by Robert de Neufville) and then justified the venture soley as a prudent exercise of risk mitigation. Or you might have pointed to some positive benefit on the far side of the passage, even if it were just the satisfaction of our curiosity, or our taste for adventure. Instead you have us driven up the ladder mostly by the demands of overpopulation and uncontrolled growth (pp. 2-3). This is a weak part of the essay. It undermines both the viability of the passage (we're incompetent), and the argument of deliberate steering (we're not in control). This makes the venture almost the dangerous act of a desperate people; we're not steering events, but being steered by them.

                Still, these are just isolated points. Overall it's a strong essay.

                Mike

                  Arthur,

                  Thank you for a well-argued essay. I think the idea of "Greater Earth" is an important part of the "equation" that humanity must solve to successfully steer the future. In my essay, I propose that we put forward a Futurocentric Education Initiative aimed at raising the collective awareness and knowledge of the citizens of the world about the issues that are the most important for the future of humanity: the idea of Greater Earth fits nicely in one of the main topics of my first draft of the futurocentric curriculum (topic 7: Space exploration and settlement).

                  I have looked at all the essays, and read more than half of them from start to finish. Your essay is part of the short list that I hope will make it to the finals, and I have rated it accordingly. If you have time to take a look at my essay, rate it and comment on it, it would be quite appreciated.

                  Good luck in the contest!

                  Marc