ptletters@aip.org Nov. 20, 2021
Charles Day's editorial “Space Barons” (PHYSICS TODAY, Sept. 2021) includes imperatives in the interest of surviving the sun's red giant stage; “...humanity will need a new distant haven that only spacecraft can reach...we should commend it however grudgingly.” In the book The High Frontier and a Sept.1974 article in PHYSICS TODAY, Gerard K. O’Neill of Princeton University proposes human colonies which might become models for distant havens. But since a runaway greenhouse threat may not become apparent for another one billion years or so, some have asserted that more immediate threats than a red giant might well cause us to become extinct long before such an event descends.
It took only 150 years to muck up our environment. Might our descendants just as quickly foul a future nest? In the final analysis, we might decide to look on humanity as a failed experiment not to be protected from oblivion. A sustainable haven based on plants has already been demonstrated on Planet A, and could perhaps be replicated on distant haven B.
An impartial if obstinate AI could unilaterally intercede in our “flight” decisions. Yuval Noah Harari writes, “AI... stands poised to hack humans and outperform them in what were hitherto uniquely human skills.” Perceived existential threats and our responses certainly will change over eons, impacting the relevance of distant haven decisions we might make today. And what will unfold beyond our current evolutionary stage?
The editorial asks, “Equity of access aside, is it a bad thing when rich people fund science? ” Setting aside equity of access would bring us face-to-face with the issues of morality, fairness, and justice. Furthermore, since space is not the entirety of science, we must decide how funds might be be allocated to balance proximate needs with threats that lurk in the dim future. The projected benefits of the distant haven must be balanced against the likelihood that it will be astoundingly costly and with arguably slim odds of success.
How might future 'leavers' and 'stayers' be selected? Should the prospect of escape be skewed in favor of the descendants of funders (pay to play), and should it rely on fiat, random draw, or a vote? Which animals and plants might be chosen to escape on a distant haven ark? Among stake holders, who would be the final arbiter and enforcer over questions, including the location of the new Shangrila?
A considered alternative beyond “grudging commendation” seems to be called for.
Regards, Evan Jones
(revwin@yahoo.com)
Emeritus faculty,
Sierra College
Rocklin, CA