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.

            Hi Arthur,

            I read your essay a while back but notice I did not comment. You have set out a well written, enjoyable to read, clear argument for considering the area surrounding the Earth as a part of our usable "territory".I like the diagram.

            The attitude that we can just get more minerals from elsewhere is contrary to the argument that we should use them prudently and work at developing better recapture and recycling technologies. Seems like paying to use a convenience store rather than looking for cheaper alternatives like local markets or roadside stalls. The streets are paved with gold and platinum

            Space tourism seems a terrible waste of energy and resources to me and I also wonder about the damage to the atmosphere that it, as well as increase in commercial mining traffic, could cause. Already there are questions about the effect of air transport on the atmosphere and climate.

            Quote "Over the past 40 years, cloudiness seems to have increased. If this is in fact true, then this continual increase in cloudiness may lead to global climate change because it will change the amount of radiation entering and leaving the Earth's atmosphere. This characteristic of aircraft engine exhaust may act in a way similar to the effects produced by greenhouse gases.

            What effect, if any, do contrails have on weather? Answering this accurately is difficult because so many factors affect weather. However, many meteorologists believe increased jet traffic and the contrails it produces have altered the weather. They point out that areas of high jet traffic show the greatest change. Although circumstantial, evidence seems to indicate that contrails do affect climate." Nasa-safeguarding our atmosphere, Nasa Glenn research center.

            It seems to me, given this evidence, that we should be reducing rather than increasing air traffic. What do you think?

            Good luck in the competition, Georgina

              Dear Georgina

              Thank you for reading my essay and for the opportunity to address your comments. I agree with you that "we" all should be more responsible with our use of resources and become better stewards of our precious planet. Recycling industrial products for their reusable materials makes both ecological and economic sense. As pointed out in the article you mentioned, in order to work out which waste streams can be profitably recycled, innovation will be the key in this process.

              One important resource that we can't recycle is energy. Thus, having plentiful environmentally benign energy in the future is desirable to power our civilization and to address other societal problems. As I pointed out in my essay, near space development offers several approaches to meeting the growing energy requirements of the future - Space Solar Power and later Helium-3 fusion. If we want to "electrify" our transportation systems - i.e use less hydrocarbon fuels - then we are going to need a lot of clean energy.

              It is a misconception that space tourism will contribute significantly to the air pollution problem such as that caused by commercial air transportation. As pointed out in this article Why greens should be pro-space the carbon dioxide emissions of manned spaceflight are currently nonexistent compared to aircraft and auto emissions. Consider 2012, which saw only five crewed flights (four Soyuz flights, and one Chinese Shenzhou flight); these emitted less than 0.0002% of the carbon dioxide that global air travel did (itself about 2% of all emissions) If Branson's Virgin Galactic succeeds, it would roughly double the human space flight contribution, meaning it would remain six orders of magnitude less than air travel emissions.

              While some rockets do use hydrocarbon fuels such as kerosene, others such as Ariane, Delta, Saturn and the Space Shuttle primarily use liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen which produces water-vapor when ignited. If the space elevator ever replaces rockets, then access to space would be driven by electrical power most likely produced in space.

              In order to be marketable and successful space tourism will have to justify its environmental footprint. Richard Branson has already incorporated this into his advertising , Elon Musk of spaceX also has launched the Telsa electric car. Planetary Resources co-founder Peter Diamandis has led the X PRIZE Foundation to support competitions for high-efficiency cars. Clearly, the key players in the NewSpace industry believe that space development and helping the Earth's environment are not contradictory goals.

              The space industry has always been an area of innovation which in turn benefits green technologies. Developing life-support systems for space habitation means building closed-loop ecosystems and developing new methods of agriculture and resource sustainability. All of these space technologies will have immediate and dramatic effects for our society on Earth.

              There is much more to be said on this subject and a good book on the subject is Paradise Regained: The Regreening of Earth By Greg Matloff, C. Bangs, Les Johnson.

              I hope I have given some insight into your question. I have downloaded your essay and look forward to reading and commenting on it soon.

              Arthur

              • [deleted]

              • Post #28

              Hi Arthur,

              Thank you for your prompt reply addressing my concerns, and for the link to the article. There are also a lot of interesting comments following it. One mentioning damage to the ozone layer. Here's an article mentioning it. Rockets-ozone and here is another that suggest that mending the ozone holes could ameliorate climate change.Mending ozoneFood for thought, as is one of the comments questioning the damage caused by repeated puncturing of the ozone layer by rockets and re-entry vehicles.

              I have been discussing battery powered cars with Israel Perez. I found out that Tesla does have a closed loop recycling system for the batteries that will be produced by its "gigafactory" which I think was probably necessary to be able to sell those cars as 'Green'.

              Regards, Georgina.

              This is one of the best essays I have read, Arthur. You frame the issue expertly and I think you are largely right in your prescriptions. As I write in my own essay--which I would love for you to read--humanity has to move off the surface of the Earth sooner or later. As you say, we probably don't need to go that far in the near future, but with the damage we're doing to the planet's natural systems sooner is probably better than later. Good luck in the contest--your essay deserves to do well.

              Best,

              Robert de Neufville

              Dear Georgina

              Your original question was about the probable impact of space tourism on air pollution and that it was a terrible waste of energy and resources. As space tourism hasn't actually begun and it is difficult to judge how successful it will eventually become and it remains to be seen if it will become a problem that can't be solved through innovation or regulation. The co-author of the studyRockets-ozone in the article that you referenced says: "This is not an urgent problem. But if we wait 30 years, it will be.""

              Several companies are planning to offer a similar sub-orbital experience with a balloon flight for considerably less money and less environmental impact. As to your concern, would this be acceptable?

              FYI, I am tracking space tourism headlines on my website and, if you are interested, you can follow developments there.

              However, I have a sense that you are actually more concerned with space development in general. The issue that you bring up is that some types of rocket propulsion especially those that use solid fuels are more damaging to the ozone layer than others. Accurate data is not yet available but, as in every other technological development, the challenge will be to apply our knowledge and experience to find the best possible solution if he problem is critical. A British company has been developing the Skylon rocket which will be a reusable, hybrid air-breathing spaceplane that uses liquid hydrogen and oxygen as propellent. And, as I mentioned in my essay, people are working on the space elevator which would make the use of rockets obsolete. With continuing advances in nanotechnology this could become a reality within the next decade or two. Thus, I am optimistic that the environmental footprint of the space industry will continue to improve.

              However we must also appreciate how much humanity has learned and profited from space technology and how dependent modern society has become on it. Space telescopes are providing us with information about the history of the universe and new, potentially life-harboring planets. The image of the whole Earth taken during the Apollo program became the symbol of the environmental movement has dramatically shown us our beautiful and fragile island of life floating in the vastness of the cosmos that we call home. Today, Earth observation satellites are providing extensive data on the weather, the climate, terrestrial resources and on the movements of military forces. GPS systems guide our transportation. The finance community relies on instant communication via satellites thus the global economy could not function without space technology. Telecommunication satellites enable conversations such as this one. For all of these aspects of contemporary life we still rely on rockets to place these assets into orbit or beyond. Without them these space assets contemporary civilization would stop.

              Of course there is also a major downside, there are also thousands of nuclear warheads on top of intercontinental missiles pointed at our future. This is surely the biggest environmental and existential threat facing humanity at the moment. For me, that is an "urgent" problem.

              Humans and their technologies will always impact the environment in one way or the other. The challenge is to find the proper balance between the activities of our species and the rest of life sharing our planet. Our ultimate goal is to survive and thrive in the best way possible. I believe I emphasized this aspect in my essay.

              Thanks again for the opportunity to expand on my essay.

              Arthur

              Robert

              Many thanks for reading my essay and for your positive comments. I have read your excellent essay and will comment on your page. I do believe we share similar insights about what is at stake and that the survival of our species is our main priority.

              Best regards,

              Arthur

              Thanks again Arthur, I appreciate you taking the time to discuss the issues.

              Thanks for the links.

              Georgina