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

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Antigravity Enigma - Andrew May ****

Antigravity - the ability to overcome the pull of gravity - has been a fantasy for thousands of years and subject to more scientific (if impractical) fictional representation since H. G. Wells came up with cavorite in The First Men in the Moon . But is it plausible scientifically?  Andrew May does a good job of pulling together three ways of looking at our love affair with antigravity (and the related concept of cancelling inertia) - in science fiction, in physics and in pseudoscience and crankery. As May points out, science fiction is an important starting point as the concept was deployed there well before we had a good enough understanding of gravity to make any sensible scientific stabs at the idea (even though, for instance, Michael Faraday did unsuccessfully experiment with a possible interaction between gravity and electromagnetism). We then get onto the science itself, noting the potential impact on any ideas of antigravity that come from the move from a Newtonian view of a...

The World as We Know It - Peter Dear ***

History professor Peter Dear gives us a detailed and reasoned coverage of the development of science as a concept from its origins as natural philosophy, covering the years from the eighteenth to the twentieth century. inclusive If that sounds a little dry, frankly, it is. But if you don't mind a very academic approach, it is certainly interesting. Obviously a major theme running through is the move from largely gentleman natural philosophers (with both implications of that word 'gentleman') to professional academic scientists. What started with clubs for relatively well off men with an interest, when universities did not stray far beyond what was included in mathematics (astronomy, for instance), would become a very different beast. The main scientific subjects that Dear covers are physics and biology - we get, for instance, a lot on the gradual move away from a purely mechanical views of physics - the reason Newton's 'action at a distance' gravity caused such ...

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 ...