Skip to main content

The Future of Geography - Tim Marshall ****

Geography is a strange subject. Parts of it - physical geography - are definitely scientific in nature. The rest - political and social geography is far more removed from anything that could be described as hard science. What Tim Marshall, an expert in foreign affairs, covers here is a strange hybrid - it's all about the political side, but because Marshall is here not considering geopolitics but astropolitics, it has a science and technology aspect. The Future of Geography (Astropolitics in the US) is about the politics that applies in space, and space inevitably comes with plenty of STEM baggage.

The majority of the book is a very effective exploration of how different space-going blocs - notably US, China and Russia, plus significant others like the EU and UK - are likely to take on the potential benefits and risks of space over the next 30 years or so. There is a relatively short consideration of the commercialisation of space (I would have liked a little more on this), but the heart of the book is on the military and governmental attitude to space, both in its ability to contribute to earthbound peace keeping and war - from surveillance to weapons - and also, most dramatically, in conflicts in space.

As Marshall points out, the current treaties on what is allowed in space are vague, contradictory and not universally accepted. He presents a couple of chilling scenarios involving disabling of each other satellites and encroaching on each others' moon bases. This sounds like something straight out of science fiction - and there is probably too much focus on the Moon here, where significant bases may well be another example of space organisations promising more than they can deliver - but especially when considering satellite interactions and attacks, the prospects are chilling. Marshall's writing style is surprisingly light considering the topic. Sometimes this veers into wit, or even whimsy. After mentioning Jeff Bezos's vision of 'giant domed cities' orbiting Earth, Marshall comments 'That's domed, not doomed.' In more whimsical style we get 'If you had a car that could drive through space at 100 km/h it would take 228 years, and many a "Are we there yet?"'

So far, so good - and I do recommend the book strongly because of this main part. The book starts with some history of astronomical and space science, which is perhaps rather too summary give a clear picture (the political machinations around Galileo's trial, for example, are distinctly over-simplified). Similarly at the end there is some speculation about future technologies that doesn't emphasise enough how much ideas such as warp drives, or teleportation of anything more than a handful of particles, are unlikely ever to have any impact on space travel. The reality is, for the purposes of this topic, space is the solar system (certainly as far as the asteroid belt).

Don't let this put you off, though: the central content on the political and military ramifications of space is thought provoking and worrying in equal measures. 

Now in paperback:   
Kindle:  
Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you
Review by Brian Clegg - See all Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly email free here
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

It's On You - Nick Chater and George Loewenstein *****

Going on the cover you might think this was a political polemic - and admittedly there's an element of that - but the reason it's so good is quite different. It shows how behavioural economics and social psychology have led us astray by putting the focus way too much on individuals. A particular target is the concept of nudges which (as described in Brainjacking ) have been hugely over-rated. But overall the key problem ties to another psychological concept: framing. Huge kudos to both Nick Chater and George Loewenstein - a behavioural scientist and an economics and psychology professor - for having the guts to take on the flaws in their own earlier work and that of colleagues, because they make clear just how limited and potentially dangerous is the belief that individuals changing their behaviour can solve large-scale problems. The main thesis of the book is that there are two ways to approach the major problems we face - an 'i-frame' where we focus on the individual ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Introducing Artificial Intelligence – Henry Brighton & Howard Selina ****

It is almost impossible to rate these relentlessly hip books – they are pure marmite*. The huge  Introducing  … series (a vast range of books covering everything from Quantum Theory to Islam), previously known as …  for Beginners , puts across the message in a style that owes as much to Terry Gilliam and pop art as it does to popular science. Pretty well every page features large graphics with speech bubbles that are supposed to emphasise the point. Funnily,  Introducing Artificial Intelligence  is both a good and bad example of the series. Let’s get the bad bits out of the way first. The illustrators of these books are very variable, and I didn’t particularly like the pictures here. They did add something – the illustrations in these books always have a lot of information content, rather than being window dressing – but they seemed more detached from the text and rather lacking in the oomph the best versions have. The other real problem is that...
Post a Comment
Read more

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