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
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Laws of Thought - Tom Griffiths *****

In giving us a history of attempts to explain our thinking abilities, Tom Griffiths demonstrates an excellent ability to pitch information just right for the informed general reader.  We begin with Aristotelian logic and the way Boole and others transformed it into a kind of arithmetic before a first introduction of computing and theories of language. Griffiths covers a surprising amount of ground - we don't just get, for instance, the obvious figures of Turing, von Neumann and Shannon, but the interaction between the computing pioneers and those concerned with trying to understand the way we think - for example in the work of Jerome Bruner, of whom I confess I'd never heard.  This would prove to be the case with a whole host of people who have made interesting contributions to the understanding of human thought processes. Sometimes their theories were contradictory - this isn't an easy field to successfully observe - but always they were interesting. But for me, at least, ...
Post a Comment
Read more

The AI Paradox - Virginia Dignum ****

This is a really important book in the way that Virginia Dignum highlights various ways we can misunderstand AI and its abilities using a series of paradoxes. However, I need to say up front that I'm giving it four stars for the ideas: unfortunately the writing is not great. It reads more like a government report than anything vaguely readable - it really should have co-authored with a professional writer to make it accessible. Even so, I'm recommending it: like some government reports it's significant enough to make it necessary to wade through the bureaucrat speak. Why paradoxes? Dignum identifies two ways we can think about paradoxes (oddly I wrote about paradoxes recently , but with three definitions): a logical paradox such as 'this statement is false', or a paradoxical truth such as 'less is more' - the second of which seems a better to fit to the use here.  We are then presented with eight paradoxes, each of which gives some insights into aspects of t...
Post a Comment
Read more

Einstein's Fridge - Paul Sen ****

In Einstein's Fridge (interesting factoid: this is at least the third popular science book to be named after Einstein's not particularly exciting refrigerator), Paul Sen has taken on a scary challenge. As Jim Al-Khalili made clear in his excellent The World According to Physics , our physical understanding of reality rests on three pillars: relativity, quantum theory and thermodynamics. But there is no doubt that the third of these, the topic of Sen's book, is a hard sell. While it's true that these are the three pillars of physics, from the point of view of making interesting popular science, the first two might be considered pillars of gold and platinum, while the third is a pillar of salt. Relativity and quantum theory are very much of the twentieth century. They are exciting and sometimes downright weird and wonderful. Thermodynamics, by contrast, has a very Victorian feel and, well, is uninspiring. Luckily, though, thermodynamics is important enough, lying behind ...
Post a Comment
Read more