Human Colonisation
The entry was composed as a response to a short story I am writing that relates to the recent discovery of large numbers of exoplanets circling stars 'close' to our solar system that makes future human colonisation of other planets more plausable if not presently likely. In the process of writing the story I had quite a few thoughts on what human colonisation of other planets and the possible discovery of intelligent life would mean, both for us and for them. Below are some of those thoughts.
I am pessimistic as to how any interplanetary colonisation by humanity would play out. While the initial missions would probably have a fair share of idealists and dreamers if the missions were particularly successful these dreamers would be replaced by hard headed colonists of a militaristic or capitalist bent, keen on exploiting the new planet for all it was worth including any native fauna and flora. This would include any species of intelligent or super-intelligent species capable of being exploited. The day after first contact, once the euphoria of discovering an intelligent life-form wore off, the over-riding question will be what to do about it and whether it can be utilised or exploited for our gain. This state of affairs would be entirely consistent with the great periods of colonisation in human history and is sadly more likely to pass than the optimistim of utopian science fiction like Star Trek whose optimism is suspicious when one considers the history of human colonisation.
When discussing the possibility of alien life we sometimes seem to expect aliens – especially ones older and wiser to us – to confer some kind of paternalistic kindness and wisdom on us and perhaps give us the answers to the questions we have been asking since we evolved the ability to conceive of them, namely why are we here and how did we come to be. The treatment of aliens in science fiction has either been of the hostile ‘they are here to try and kill or possess us’ or as the paternalistic God surrogate here to soothe and protect us and answer our questions (War of the Worlds vs Contact). Aliens, like God, have become a receptacle for which we have projected all of our fears and hopes. The problem is that if we encounter aliens on strange new worlds they are highly unlikely to be either, even if far more intelligent than us, therefore failing to fulfil either our greatest fears or our greatest hopes. Indeed the most likely thing they will be is strange and indeed alien to us, and us to them. I very much doubt that they would have previous awareness of humans and would probably have very little to tell us about ourselves or the universe that we did not already know ourselves. Therefore I think that we will ultimately be disappointed with aliens after the initial thrill and wonder has worn off and that sense of anti-climax will only hasten our almost inevitable regard for them as something to be utilised and exploited for human consumption, especially if the stakes are high as they may well be if we are nearing the end of the window of opportunity for space travel and exploration.
After all if we still cannot show sufficient understanding, appreciation and sympathy for different members of our species how can we truly expect to make any exceptions for alien life-forms or civilisations. This pessimism is not designed to denigrate humanity but bringing this up in order to understand and investigate our true drives, motivations and likely behaviour and how they would progress in terms of discovering and colonising new worlds and alien species. In any battle with aliens would we naturally be the ‘good guys’? Except in extreme circumstances wouldn’t that be established by the case in hand such as who is the aggressor and why? Conservatives may claim that that view shows a loathing for the human race but they would be wrong, there is little sense loathing something that is so innate to us and completely understandable as a part of our evolutionary development. On the other hand, if I do not believe in the concept of ‘my country right or wrong’ then I certainly do not believe in the concept of ‘my species right or wrong’ unless the very survival of the human race can be proven to be at stake.
On a further note of both pessimism and caution, if there are more advanced and militarily proficient alien species relatively close by, is the reason why humanity has been allowed to develop unmolested (that we know of) simply down to humanity remianing undiscovered? A bit like how the Incas thought that they have unified and ruled the world until the Spanish rolled up and quickly disabused them of that notion. If we found the cosmic equivalent of fire or the wheel and quickly spread much further out in the universe do we run the risk of eventually running into a species capable of over-running us and taking us out both in space and then back on Earth? Is our anonymity our best bet for survival? Should this give SETI some pause for thought? I consider this unlikely, I think that even if we did crack that cosmic wheel we would find that most of the alien species that we encountered would represent no great threat in this way, being primarily what I described above. However the risk is there and worth considering.
Despite this pessimism and concerns I would still not advocate a policy of settling for being a big fish in a small but very beautiful pond. Humanity's need for endeavour requires an outlet that exceeds the scope of planet and we need something to inspire and unite us as a species to avoid the spectres of boredom and civilisational stagnation, possibility of terminal conflict, ruinous environmental degradation and dwindling resources. Eventually we must find a way to live beyond our planet and our solar system in order to survive beyond the lifetime of our sun. That alone is worth the price of the space programme as is the spiritual, technological and economic benefits of it. The first space age, which when all said and done only sent us as far away as the piece of space rock stuck in Earth’s orbit, produced well over a thousand tangible and serious benefits to humanity back on Earth that included everything from the Internet to advanced heart surgery to GPS and telecommunications and so on. Given the scientific and technological achievements of that first space age one can only boggle at the potential the spin off benefits of technology developed to launch subsequent space ages, especially ones that involve serious space travel beyond our solar system.
Recently, in a “50 years of Space” supplement celebrating the 50 year anniversary of Sputnik there was a Sunday Times debate on space between Jeremy Clarkson and A A Gill with Clarkson celebrating the achievements of space and Gill disparaging it. I found I could identify with both of them and the two differing perspectives they encapsulated in their arguments underline the tension between a couple of the larger narrative themes the story addresses within its much narrower scope. I can relate to Clarkson’s enthusiasm for travel, for worlds and experiences anew, for the benefits it has brought humanity in the first space age and the inspiration it brought people around the world in the West with the Apollo programme. On the other hand I can also relate to Gill who rightly points up the flaw in Clarkson’s viewpoint, as Clarkson is notoriously dismissive of the need to take any care of this planet, which as Gill points out is ironic given that a greater appreciation of Earth and the environment was an unexpected legacy of the first space age, particularly with the moon landing which for the first time made us aware of the share beauty and fragility of Earth, a local/regional jewel in our part of the galaxy beyond compare.
Getting outside made us look inwards with new eyes and it is no surprise that it gave birth to the nascent environmental movement with the capturing of the famous ‘Earthrise’ on the moon. It is also notable that all of the astronauts of the Apollo programme who experienced this was awed and humbled by the sight and became budding environmentalists. These guys were hardly inveterate liberal, pinko treehuggers but conservative, hard-bitten military men the great majority of whom had spent their time flying fighter jets and experimental jet planes before joining the space programme. Yet it is the enduring memory of being far out in space enough to see Earth as a complete disk hanging in space with all the vastness, blackness and coldness around them that is their most enduring memory.
Both perspectives (Gills and Clarksons), one looking inwards and one looking outwards are legitimate and both are underlined in the famous T.S. Eliot quote appropriated by NASA at the Kennedy Space Centre in Florida:
“We shall not cease from explorationAnd the end of all our exploring Will be to arrive where we started And know the place for the first time.”
Finally, while pessimistic about the short and medium term future of human space colonisation I am cautiously optimistic about the longer term future when considering the pattern of human colonisation on Earth. We must remember that after the wave of gold-diggers, soldiers, missionaries and slave owners had exploited all that they found, they were eventually followed by the anthropologists, the historians and the philosophers who helped put the relationships between the colonisers and the colonised on a different footing and perhaps once the initial fever of discovery and settlement has settled down the greater implications of space exploration and colonisation will emerge and humanity can grow up another stage further as the old ties and the old conflicts on Earth begin to wither and either be discarded completely or evolve into a more mature and peaceful form (such as deism replacing man-centred theism or humanity-ism replacing nationalism). One would think that as we get further from Earth and our children and grand-children are born on other planets so the tensions and conflicts here will begin to diminish in importance and relevance and we will one day look back on them as perhaps the necessary growing pains of humanity’s infancy.
Perhaps…
I am pessimistic as to how any interplanetary colonisation by humanity would play out. While the initial missions would probably have a fair share of idealists and dreamers if the missions were particularly successful these dreamers would be replaced by hard headed colonists of a militaristic or capitalist bent, keen on exploiting the new planet for all it was worth including any native fauna and flora. This would include any species of intelligent or super-intelligent species capable of being exploited. The day after first contact, once the euphoria of discovering an intelligent life-form wore off, the over-riding question will be what to do about it and whether it can be utilised or exploited for our gain. This state of affairs would be entirely consistent with the great periods of colonisation in human history and is sadly more likely to pass than the optimistim of utopian science fiction like Star Trek whose optimism is suspicious when one considers the history of human colonisation.
When discussing the possibility of alien life we sometimes seem to expect aliens – especially ones older and wiser to us – to confer some kind of paternalistic kindness and wisdom on us and perhaps give us the answers to the questions we have been asking since we evolved the ability to conceive of them, namely why are we here and how did we come to be. The treatment of aliens in science fiction has either been of the hostile ‘they are here to try and kill or possess us’ or as the paternalistic God surrogate here to soothe and protect us and answer our questions (War of the Worlds vs Contact). Aliens, like God, have become a receptacle for which we have projected all of our fears and hopes. The problem is that if we encounter aliens on strange new worlds they are highly unlikely to be either, even if far more intelligent than us, therefore failing to fulfil either our greatest fears or our greatest hopes. Indeed the most likely thing they will be is strange and indeed alien to us, and us to them. I very much doubt that they would have previous awareness of humans and would probably have very little to tell us about ourselves or the universe that we did not already know ourselves. Therefore I think that we will ultimately be disappointed with aliens after the initial thrill and wonder has worn off and that sense of anti-climax will only hasten our almost inevitable regard for them as something to be utilised and exploited for human consumption, especially if the stakes are high as they may well be if we are nearing the end of the window of opportunity for space travel and exploration.
After all if we still cannot show sufficient understanding, appreciation and sympathy for different members of our species how can we truly expect to make any exceptions for alien life-forms or civilisations. This pessimism is not designed to denigrate humanity but bringing this up in order to understand and investigate our true drives, motivations and likely behaviour and how they would progress in terms of discovering and colonising new worlds and alien species. In any battle with aliens would we naturally be the ‘good guys’? Except in extreme circumstances wouldn’t that be established by the case in hand such as who is the aggressor and why? Conservatives may claim that that view shows a loathing for the human race but they would be wrong, there is little sense loathing something that is so innate to us and completely understandable as a part of our evolutionary development. On the other hand, if I do not believe in the concept of ‘my country right or wrong’ then I certainly do not believe in the concept of ‘my species right or wrong’ unless the very survival of the human race can be proven to be at stake.
On a further note of both pessimism and caution, if there are more advanced and militarily proficient alien species relatively close by, is the reason why humanity has been allowed to develop unmolested (that we know of) simply down to humanity remianing undiscovered? A bit like how the Incas thought that they have unified and ruled the world until the Spanish rolled up and quickly disabused them of that notion. If we found the cosmic equivalent of fire or the wheel and quickly spread much further out in the universe do we run the risk of eventually running into a species capable of over-running us and taking us out both in space and then back on Earth? Is our anonymity our best bet for survival? Should this give SETI some pause for thought? I consider this unlikely, I think that even if we did crack that cosmic wheel we would find that most of the alien species that we encountered would represent no great threat in this way, being primarily what I described above. However the risk is there and worth considering.
Despite this pessimism and concerns I would still not advocate a policy of settling for being a big fish in a small but very beautiful pond. Humanity's need for endeavour requires an outlet that exceeds the scope of planet and we need something to inspire and unite us as a species to avoid the spectres of boredom and civilisational stagnation, possibility of terminal conflict, ruinous environmental degradation and dwindling resources. Eventually we must find a way to live beyond our planet and our solar system in order to survive beyond the lifetime of our sun. That alone is worth the price of the space programme as is the spiritual, technological and economic benefits of it. The first space age, which when all said and done only sent us as far away as the piece of space rock stuck in Earth’s orbit, produced well over a thousand tangible and serious benefits to humanity back on Earth that included everything from the Internet to advanced heart surgery to GPS and telecommunications and so on. Given the scientific and technological achievements of that first space age one can only boggle at the potential the spin off benefits of technology developed to launch subsequent space ages, especially ones that involve serious space travel beyond our solar system.
Recently, in a “50 years of Space” supplement celebrating the 50 year anniversary of Sputnik there was a Sunday Times debate on space between Jeremy Clarkson and A A Gill with Clarkson celebrating the achievements of space and Gill disparaging it. I found I could identify with both of them and the two differing perspectives they encapsulated in their arguments underline the tension between a couple of the larger narrative themes the story addresses within its much narrower scope. I can relate to Clarkson’s enthusiasm for travel, for worlds and experiences anew, for the benefits it has brought humanity in the first space age and the inspiration it brought people around the world in the West with the Apollo programme. On the other hand I can also relate to Gill who rightly points up the flaw in Clarkson’s viewpoint, as Clarkson is notoriously dismissive of the need to take any care of this planet, which as Gill points out is ironic given that a greater appreciation of Earth and the environment was an unexpected legacy of the first space age, particularly with the moon landing which for the first time made us aware of the share beauty and fragility of Earth, a local/regional jewel in our part of the galaxy beyond compare.
Getting outside made us look inwards with new eyes and it is no surprise that it gave birth to the nascent environmental movement with the capturing of the famous ‘Earthrise’ on the moon. It is also notable that all of the astronauts of the Apollo programme who experienced this was awed and humbled by the sight and became budding environmentalists. These guys were hardly inveterate liberal, pinko treehuggers but conservative, hard-bitten military men the great majority of whom had spent their time flying fighter jets and experimental jet planes before joining the space programme. Yet it is the enduring memory of being far out in space enough to see Earth as a complete disk hanging in space with all the vastness, blackness and coldness around them that is their most enduring memory.
Both perspectives (Gills and Clarksons), one looking inwards and one looking outwards are legitimate and both are underlined in the famous T.S. Eliot quote appropriated by NASA at the Kennedy Space Centre in Florida:
“We shall not cease from explorationAnd the end of all our exploring Will be to arrive where we started And know the place for the first time.”
Finally, while pessimistic about the short and medium term future of human space colonisation I am cautiously optimistic about the longer term future when considering the pattern of human colonisation on Earth. We must remember that after the wave of gold-diggers, soldiers, missionaries and slave owners had exploited all that they found, they were eventually followed by the anthropologists, the historians and the philosophers who helped put the relationships between the colonisers and the colonised on a different footing and perhaps once the initial fever of discovery and settlement has settled down the greater implications of space exploration and colonisation will emerge and humanity can grow up another stage further as the old ties and the old conflicts on Earth begin to wither and either be discarded completely or evolve into a more mature and peaceful form (such as deism replacing man-centred theism or humanity-ism replacing nationalism). One would think that as we get further from Earth and our children and grand-children are born on other planets so the tensions and conflicts here will begin to diminish in importance and relevance and we will one day look back on them as perhaps the necessary growing pains of humanity’s infancy.
Perhaps…
posted by Anthony Burn at 4:15 pm
<< Home