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

              Dear Aurthur,

              A *great* essay! While I touched briefly on the importance of building a space-faring civilization in my essay ( Three Crucial Technologies ), you expanded the concept into a sharply defined vision.

              My first concern is that without mature nanotechnology, building a "Greater Earth" will be *really* difficult, unsafe, and expensive. It's still worth it, but the average person (and the average politician) will not think so. So it will not happen until one spacecraft's worth of people can sell all their worldly possessions to colonize the Moon or an asteroid. Historically, this is how colonies in the New World (and the West) were founded.

              SPS is a great idea, and I've been a fan ever since I met Peter Glaser and Gerry O'Neill. That being said, I don't see how it will happen until the heat capture of solar cells (which you mentioned) becomes a problem. Already, the cost of photovoltaic cells is less than the installation cost, and grid parity is near. That undercuts SPS in the near term, but enables it in the long term.

              My second concern is that even if we get nanotech, which more easily enables a "Greater Earth", we will still have many of the problems we have today (war, injustice, ignorance), which is why I think that building AIs who can help us reason better about ethics might be a good idea. Then again, we might ignore them just as we ignore the human saints and prophets of today.

              -Tee

                Dear Mike

                Thank you for your thoughtful feedback. The purpose of my essay was how a change in our perception about the true dimensions of our planet could be an effective strategy for moving humanity beyond the atmosphere giving it more space and more resources for its development and survival. In other publications, I have addressed the existential risks and the possible solutions inherent in the Space Option concept.

                I don't believe I specifically mentioned "overpopulation" and "uncontrolled growth" as "the" problems, although it is generally acknowledged that the growth in population, now and in the coming decades, is straining both our societal structures and the ecological balance of the planet.

                Indeed I wrote: ."Humanity itself must be considered as its most valuable resource and, in order to steer the future, its overriding challenge is to find suitable ways to feed, clothe and otherwise nourish this resource in a comfortable and prosperous manner without upsetting the social and ecological balance.".

                We have seen that as soon as a society or a nation obtains a certain higher standard of living its population stabilizes. Thus, having a goal to provide a higher standard of living for all the inhabitants of Earth should then become a priority. Surely, humanity's chances for dealing with its current and future problems will be far better in a "resource rich" future rather than in a "resource poor" one and these additional resources may be accessed in the realm of Greater Earth. Thus a change in our perception may enable this to happen.

                I wrote on page 4:

                "Within the boundaries of Greater Earth our species will find the room, resources and opportunities that it will need to survive and prosper in the coming millennium. To do so, its next step is to exercise its fullest capabilities to occupy and enjoy this new territory. Undertaken responsibility and consequently the severe pressures and stresses currently facing our civilization may be mitigated which may in turn lead to eventually achieving worldwide security, prosperity and ecological balance. "

                For the environmentalists, the technologists and for many other areas of society, this concept could satisfy and incorporate their specific goals. For most of humanity, the ultimate benefit would be having a realistic hope in a prosperous and peaceful future with many new possibilities. I would say that is would be an attractive benefit on the far side of the passage that you mention.

                If you haven't already done so, I suggest you read Walter Putnam's concise and eloquent essay that adds the necessary "guiding principle" to this discussion.

                Thanks and good luck to you, too,

                Arthur

                Dear Marc

                Many thanks for your positive comments. I have downloaded your essay and I will look for synergy. I will read it soon and add my comments to your page.

                Good luck to you, too!

                Arthur

                Tee

                Thank you for reading my essay and for your positive comments.

                Yes, I believe nanotechnology can and will be the "game changer" in many areas. In the case of space development it is the key for enabling the space elevator which gets us out of Earth's gravity well safely and cheaply. This in turn would allow SPS to be deployed.

                I have downloaded your essay and I am looking forward to reading it soon and I will add my comments to your page.

                Arthur

                Well, the impression is unmistakeable across several pages of your essay. We require "additional resources beyond those available [on the] planet's surface" (p. 2) because the "world is getting smaller" (p. 3). We have "the uncomfortable realization that [it] is becoming more crowded", that we live on "a very crowded and ecologically endangered planet" where other life forms are being "pushed to extinction by human expansion". With our "uncontrolled use" of resources "resulting in severe ecological consequences" (p. 4), "humanity finds that it needs more room and more resources to sustain its numbers and maintain its thirst for further development".

                So it's no exaggeration to say, "you have us driven up the ladder mostly by the demands of overpopulation and uncontrolled growth". It's on this I base my critique. - Mike

                PS - Thanks again for reviewing my own essay, Author. I'll be rating yours (along with the others on my review list) some time between now and May 30.