Web Log: We're Playing Their Game

2024-11-14 | A future in space?

There are two vastly dominant narratives around the concept of space, two narratives that have changed basically nill since the space race. 1. That space is the ultimate triumph of technology over nature, the pinnacle of colonisation. The only goal is win the race of extraction against your enemies so you can have dominance over the universe, as is humanity's destiny. Or 2. It's all just a huge waste of money, at the expense of all else, for no benefit to humanity, and it's a complete folly to even think about ever doing anything beyond Earth.

The first narrative is the one that drove the space race, the one underlying my early interest in space, except with the addition of global collaboration and technological spin-offs. It fundamentally aligns with the logic by which we have destroyed the Earth and justified climate change. And with the growing power of Elon Musk, this narrative will only expand throughout the industry. This ideology has launched global colonisation before, and is on track to be the primary ideology behind the actual real life expansion into space that he has pushed for.

The second narrative seeks to put a stop to this, but is hostile to the very idea that there is a bigger perspective than what we can see in front of us with our own eyes. This ideology may drive some public pressure to ever so slightly hamper the space industry, but ultimately will not influence anyone in it, as it goes against not just their livelihood but also the reasoning that got them into the industry in the first place, whether because of humanitarian or technofascist. In fact, this ideology undermines our future as much as the first, because it refuses to allow for a genuine solution to the problems created by 1., only using its' flaws as justification to shut down everyone who tries to come up with something better.

What should the narrative be then? It must be a narrative that allows us to value things beyond our immediate horizon, to value things that may not be of immediate material value. But also a narrative that sees mindless eternal growth and extraction as the cancer which it is. A narrative which can guide us in exploring the cosmos without destroying it and creating unending suffering along the way. A narrative that alows for the valuing of humans and technology and nature not as mutually exclusive goals or even concepts.

The core of this narrative is a question which is also the core of all the problems we face as a species which is this: What is the value of a rock? Allow me to elaborate. Under the dominant system of capitalism, the value of a rock is what it can be sold for, and furthermore, maximising this value is the determinant of the fate of the rock. Others may judge the rock by value of the scientific learnings contained within, or its' use for hitting things, or some other pragmatic utility. Then there are those who would base its' value off of its' historic, spiritual or nostalgic meaning, value not really related to the rock but to our stories we have anchored to it. Now say that rock is the Moon, or Europa, or HD 189733 b. Our decision on how we should treat these objects based on these values is essentially, either carve it up for everything useful we can get out of it, or preserve it as untouchable for the sake of some abstract concept. If we expand into space, this branching point only leads us to destruction. If we exploit the universe obviously, but if we preserve it for an abstract concept, it's only a matter of time before someone breaks that rule for their own advancement. This isn't acceptable to me, but at present I find it hard to logically justify why the total scouring of every world within our reach, is not ok, after all they're not going to care...

The alternative to that is of course the second ideology, of never exploring space to begin with, and I suppose its' worth discussing the conflict in values here. While this ideology often exists in opposition to the greed of exploiters, the justification to stay on Earth is almost always either to better serve humanity or nature. But really this only adds up in the short term. The end result of barring ourselves from space is that this will be our grave, and not just that but the grave of all life, because if we do not leave Earth, the only other option is to ride it into the sun along with every other remaining species. While this is a long way away, it is a choice we have to make at some point, so it is unreasonable to say it's not a legitimate decision, and a decision that is ultimately extremely relevant right now, because deciding that our species, or even all species, has less value than keeping the universe in its' "natural state" is a proposition that does not come without implications. Ultimately this argument falls much closer to the side of colonialism than any of its' proponants would be willing to accept, as the opposition of humans to "true nature" ultimately justifies the cleansing of a land for an abstract cause, just a slightly different cause than usual.

Somehow despite the bleak proposition that all life should be doomed by the necessity to keep the universe "pure", or at least to end with the Earth, as is our "natural course", I still find it hard to logically justify the value of humanity and life besides the fact that I am one. I could decide that that is enough justification, but ultimately it falls not much further than the self preserving logic of a bacteria, surely we can do marginally better? This is where I start to run into the limits of rationality, with each different path ultimately resting on an arbitrary decision that it should have more value than the others. Does the cold emtpy universe win out? Or humans? Or Earth's biosphere? Or an unknowable alien race? Growth? Complexity? Knowledge? ........ money? And most importantly, why? I decided long ago that if none has more true intrinsic value than the others, then I'll pick my own arbitrary axiomatic value, stories. It doesn't have any more intrinsic value than the others, but it keeps me going, and in a way, because it isn't tied to any quantifiable thing aside from at least a few sentiences still existing, it seems less likely to be taken to absurd, universe altering extremes than some of the other values.

The only thing I have left to add is one more argument against the idea that life should rightfully perish on Earth. I can't remember who said it first, but if you leave a rock long enough, in just the right conditions, pieces of it start to jump of into space. Humanity, whatever path it takes, can never do anything "unnatural" because we ARE nature. I want to preserve the worlds of the universe for the stories they have to tell, but we are also the stories. And the worlds. And the universe. And I want us to tell the stories, and hear the stories, right there at the hazy grey end of the universe.

--Ember