Skip to main content

Off Earth - Erika Nesvold ***

Subtitled Ethical Questions and Quandaries for Living in Outer Space, this book could perhaps do with a trigger warning for space enthusiasts, because large chunks of it read like a catalogue of arguments – social and political, rather than technical – against space exploration. At first, I thought I might dislike the book for that reason, but actually it’s hard to disagree with most of what Nesvold says. At best, her arguments are extremely insightful; at worst, they simply miss the point, or argue against things that probably aren’t going to happen anyway. But we’re in ‘social science’ territory here, which means that judgments are going to vary depending on a person’s worldview and values – a point that Nesvold makes explicitly in her first chapter. This gives me an excuse to spend the next paragraph describing my own perspective on the subject, before looking in more detail at Nesvold’s.

Space today is almost solely the domain of machines, in the form of Earth-orbiting satellites and robotic probes that have ventured to the Moon and beyond. Very few of these machines do a job that humans could do better, and this will be more – not less – true in the future as technology improves. The idea that the ‘future of space exploration’ is going to involve human settlements on Mars and such like makes no economic sense at all, either for national governments or the private sector. The main reason scientists and writers (including myself) keep harping on about it is that it’s an exciting idea, particularly for youngsters immersed in sci-fi culture – and the more of them that can be lured (bait-and-switch style) into careers in the physical sciences the better.

So the problem I had with the first few chapters of Nesvold’s book is that she takes this fanciful, sci-fi-inspired vision and uses it to judge the entire field of space exploration. There’s nothing wrong with the specific points she makes, which are often quite thought-provoking, such as the idea of human expansion into space as an extension of European colonialism, or the fact that early Mars settlers would most likely be young, able-bodied individuals from the richest countries, to the exclusion of many others. But why waste breath arguing against something that isn’t going to happen? Rich countries are rich because they’re capitalist, and capitalism is driven by profit-making, and there’ll never be any profit (in any economically meaningful timeframe) from sending people to Mars.

I hope you’re still with me, because now that those (to me rather pointless) initial arguments are out of the way, the middle chapters of the book are really first rate. These cover topics like property and ownership in outer space, and the protection or contamination of the space environment. These are real issues that don’t require any fanciful speculations about the human colonisation of space, because they’re with us already – or almost so. Robotic mining of resources on the Moon is something we may see in the next few years, and of asteroids within a few decades – so the question of who can claim ownership of what is something that really needs to be settled soon. And the clutter of space junk in Earth orbit means we’re already creating environmental problems for ourselves – and maybe on other planets and moons of the Solar System before very long.

The final chapters of the book go back to the idea of human-centric spaceflight, and look at a potential range of social issues that might arise, from exploitation of low-skilled workers to violent crime and rebellion in space. While I don’t see these as huge problems for real-world space exploration – because the vast bulk of the work is always going to be done by robots – I have to admit these chapters are packed with fascinating ideas. They’d make great source material for anyone writing a sci-fi novel set in outer space.

The three-star rating I’ve given the book is an overall average. The final section on social issues is the only one I’d actually give three stars; the first part (which I found irritating and depressing in equal measure) is worth at least one star fewer than that, and the excellent middle section at least one star more.

Hardback:   
Kindle 
Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you
Review by Andrew May - See all Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly email free here

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

We Are Eating the Earth - Michael Grunwald *****

If I'm honest, I assumed this would be another 'oh dear, we're horrible people who are terrible to the environment', worthily dull title - so I was surprised to be gripped from early on. The subject of the first chunk of the book is one man, Tim Searchinger's fight to take on the bizarrely unscientific assumption that held sway that making ethanol from corn, or burning wood chips instead of coal, was good for the environment. The problem with this fallacy, which seemed to have taken in the US governments, the EU, the UK and more was the assumption that (apart from carbon emitted in production) using these 'grown' fuels was carbon neutral, because the carbon came out of the air. The trouble is, this totally ignores that using land to grow fuel means either displacing land used to grow food, or displacing land that had trees, grass or other growing stuff on it. The outcome is that when we use 'E10' petrol (with 10% ethanol), or electricity produced by ...

Battle of the Big Bang - Niayesh Afshordi and Phil Harper *****

It's popular science Jim, but not as we know it. There have been plenty of popular science books about the big bang and the origins of the universe (including my own Before the Big Bang ) but this is unique. In part this is because it's bang up to date (so to speak), but more so because rather than present the theories in an approachable fashion, the book dives into the (sometimes extremely heated) disputed debates between theoreticians. It's still popular science as there's no maths, but it gives a real insight into the alternative viewpoints and depth of feeling. We begin with a rapid dash through the history of cosmological ideas, passing rapidly through the steady state/big bang debate (though not covering Hoyle's modified steady state that dealt with the 'early universe' issues), then slow down as we get into the various possibilities that would emerge once inflation arrived on the scene (including, of course, the theories that do away with inflation). ...

Why Nobody Understands Quantum Physics - Frank Verstraete and Céline Broeckaert **

It's with a heavy heart that I have to say that I could not get on with this book. The structure is all over the place, while the content veers from childish remarks to unexplained jargon. Frank Versraete is a highly regarded physicist and knows what he’s talking about - but unfortunately, physics professors are not always the best people to explain physics to a general audience and, possibly contributed to by this being a translation, I thought this book simply doesn’t work. A small issue is that there are few historical inaccuracies, but that’s often the case when scientists write history of science, and that’s not the main part of the book so I would have overlooked it. As an example, we are told that Newton's apple story originated with Voltaire. Yet Newton himself mentioned the apple story to William Stukeley in 1726. He may have made it up - but he certainly originated it, not Voltaire. We are also told that â€˜Galileo discovered the counterintuitive law behind a swinging o...