Excellent articles on Greg Benford!

Phobos · 2002-06-13 17:09:07

Has anyone read those articles about Greg Benford yet on New Mars? It was finally a relief to read that someone else outside of this forum thought that developing space will prove necessary in maintaining the environmental health of Earth. Now if those 2% of extreme and anti-technological sect of environmentalists would get off their hobbyhorses and see the light! Space technology will save us and the Earth, not doom us! Like Benford said, if we just sit around on Earth content that ripping up its crust can go on indefinately or that being anti-technological will help us, we're doomed. Of course you've got the misanthropic group of people out there who hate all of humanity and want to see it destroyed, but to hell with them, they're irrelevant and should hurry up and die off.

JGM · 2002-06-14 13:11:54

I've been hoping to find a way to foster a link between environmentalism and space science for a long time. It seems natural to me that these are allied interests with a lot in common. Benford's lecture really helped me to see that it's just a matter of taking the long view. We really have no choice whatsoever whether we reach out into space or not. This planet will simply become unlivable much sooner than most of its inhabitants suspect if we continue to try to find and produce all of the necessary resources to sustain an advanced civilization here at home.

Now the question is- how do we reach the environmentalists with this message? They have to stop thinking the solution lies in an anti-technological stance. This is a losing battle. Modern humanity will insist on being technological. It's just a matter of what resources we exploit and how we reach them most effectively.

JGM

Phobos · 2002-06-14 14:59:10

Now the question is- how do we reach the environmentalists with this message? They have to stop thinking the solution lies in an anti-technological stance. This is a losing battle. Modern humanity will insist on being technological. It's just a matter of what resources we exploit and how we reach them most effectively.

I think the problem with a lot of environmentalists is that they view anything that is done to the environment by people as being negative. So naturally they think that if we go tear up a sterile, utterly dead asteroid we're committing an act on par with cutting down an ancient, unspoiled forest. They need to be convinced that living eco-systems take precedence over dead matter on which no eco-system depends on to thrive, and thus we could save eco-systems by extracting materials from lifeless sources in space. Also they need to realize that we could solve a lot of our energy problems (which causes most of the pollution) by developing energy in space. It's just not good to stagnate technologically and then bitch about how bad things are getting. They either need to realize that we must work on these new technologies for exploiting space and energy or we could be facing an environmental disaster before we know it. I get the feeling though that a lot of the more radical environmentalists are just to irrational to even consider that technology and space could be a positive instead of a negative influence.

Adrian · 2002-06-14 17:00:00

I don't agree that we are facing an environmental disaster on Earth; by practically any metric you choose to name, conditions on Earth have in fact been getting better quite dramatically over the past decades and centuries. Concommitently, the quality of life has also been increasing. Air quality has never been this good since the 1500s, reforestation is taking place all over the world, the streams are actually getting much cleaner than they were before. Wealth and health have been increasing across the board for developed and developing countries alike, and while poverty and hunger are still problems, they are lessening day by day.

I'm sure this all sounds a bit unbelievable, and I wouldn't have believed it myself until I'd read The Skeptical Environmentalist by Bjorn Lomborg. This book basically challenges all the 'facts' set forth by environmentalist groups such as Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace, and it's literally created shockwaves within the economic and environmentalist fields. At the very least, reading this book will make you much more doubtful about the claims that the world is heading into disaster continually.

I believe that the decision to utilise extraplanetary resources will ultimately be an economic decision, not an environmental one. We're told that resources are running out on Earth. Well, they might be, but they're getting cheaper nonetheless.

(a brief excerpt from the book)

Case in point - the economist Julian Simon in 1980 bet $10,000 that any given raw material - to be picked by his opponents - would have dropped in price at least one year later. The environmentalists Ehrlich, Harte and Holdren, all of Stanford University, accepted the challenge, stating that "the lure of easy money can be irrestistible." The environmentalists staked their bets on chromium, copper, nickel, tin and tungsten, and they picked a time frame of ten years later, assessing whether the real (inflation-adjusted) prices had gone up or down. In 1990, not only had the total basket of raw materials but also each individual raw material dropped in price. Chromium had droped 5%, tin a whopping 74%. The doomsayers had lost.
Truth is they could not have won. Ehrlich and Co. would have lost no matter whether they had staked their money on petroleum, foodstuffs, sugar, coffee, cotton, wool, minerals or phosphates. They had all become cheaper.

So, quite frankly, the assumption that the Earth is headed straight to hell is false. Hence, I don't think the argument that we should go into space to save the environment is valid, and even if it was, we still wouldn't do it since it's just too expensive at the moment. We will do it when it becomes acceptably cheap, and conveniently it will also help to improve the environment a bit on Earth - but I don't believe that will be the primary consideration.

JGM · 2002-06-14 18:42:15

Adrian-

I'll have to read Lomborg's book when I get the chance. This sounds reminiscent of what Chris McKay recently told me about how everything gets cheaper and cheaper and eventually we'll be able to send humans to Mars for the cost we now send robots. He said "if Columbus had waited long enough he could have flown to the new world."

There is one potential flaw in this line of reasoning in my view and that is the assumption of the indefinite countinuance of the present trend. There are a couple of things that would seem to constitute a fly in the ointment. One is the overloading of the planet in terms of number of people. So far, if you live in a developed country this doesn't seem to be a drastic problem. The numbers keep growing, however, and extrapolations a few decades into the future are pretty frightening. The second factor is the disparity of wealth. So far, the planet's doing OK with only a small fraction of the inhabitants enjoying a high resource consumption lifestyle. All those people in developing countries, though, want our lifestyle and are taking steps towards acheiving it. When the great bulk of ever-larger humanity wants to use energy and raw materials at the rate of those in the presently developed countries I think we could have a serious problem.

As to whether we're already facing a serious crisis I'd have to disagree with you on the basis of the measurable actuality of global warming. More and more evidence is piling up that the problems are occurring now. There are gigantic lakes of glacial meltwater in the himalayas that could soon result in devasting dambreaks wiping out entire villages. I don't think we're far off from seeing the effects of significant changes in sea level driving hordes of people from the low-lying regions of Bangladesh.

Also, the appearance that everything is fine is there if you are 1) a human being and not one of the many species of plants and animals permanently threatened by habitat degradation or 2) someone who cares about the permanent loss of nifty things like the Siberian Tiger, just to name one of the many species in seriously bad shape at present.

I realize we can probably find a way to survive for another few hundred years on this planet by micromanaging all of these problems to get the most efficiency as we can out of our limited resources. Do I want my children's children's children to live on such a world? Nope. I want the human race to start acting now to alleviate the conditions that are likely to be faced far down the road. That means planning seriously to venture into space and beginning to impliment those plans in the very near present.

JGM

JGM · 2002-06-15 00:05:02

The post on "The Skeptical Environmentalist" led me to do some investigating. I came across this highly critical review on AlterNet, a 'progressive' news site.

Clearly I haven't had a chance to read all of the good and bad that's been said about this book. This was the first thing that came up on a google search. Still, it seems there is plenty of grounds for skepticism. I don't doubt that there are doomsayers that use bad science and blow things out of proportion. On the balance, however, it's hard to believe that thousands of active scientists, including a few Nobel laureates, have been totally snookered and this one guy has it right. The US's Environmental Protection Agency- headed by a George Bush appointee with known conservative leanings- just released an official report to the UN so accepting of the imminent threat of global warming that Bush himself had to discredit it.

I think that one reason that the doomsayers often overstate their case is that they know most people won't take the long view. If they say that in fifty or a hundred years we'll be in deep shit most people will yawn and turn back to the sports pages. A lot of my thinking on this comes from listening to Kim Stanley Robinson talking about "the overshoot." The population issue, when combined with the disparity of wealth and the reality that most of the have-nots have a serious intention to eventually have, is a ticking time bomb.

One of my pet peeves about those who deride "the doomsayers" is the implication that they want it to be worse than it really is. Most environmentalists care deeply about the planet and just want it to be healthy. They should be listened to- not dismissed as loonies. I love nature deeply and want it to be around for future generations to enjoy. That's what drives my interest in finding solutions to problems that are quite real- even if occasionally exaggerated. I imagine most environmentalists have similar motives.

Peace and good will,
JGM

Shaun Barrett · 2002-06-15 01:38:57

I suppose this isn't the site to discuss global warming, but since it's been brought up ...
I think that if CO2 keeps increasing indefinitely in our atmosphere, then temperatures will rise. But future energy production may not involve fossil-fuel burning for much longer. There are any number of ingenious innovations which will undoubtedly be used to give us cheap and plentiful energy.
As for current global warming, I honestly don't believe there is any. Last year I read about a weather satellite equipped with heat sensing technology capable of determining the temperature of Earth's surface. Theoreticians had calculated that the average temperature of the night time hemisphere of our planet should be different at full Moon than at new Moon by 1/200 of a degree C. (due to reflected solar heat from the Moon's surface). The weather satellite I mentioned was used to test this prediction and, sure enough, it detected a temperature difference of exactly 1/200 of a degree. A tribute to the accuracy of the satellite's remote thermometer.
That satellite had been in orbit for over fifteen years when this experiment was done, measuring temperatures all over the planet.
In all that time, despite its proven accuracy, its data has shown absolutely no change in Earth's average temperature!!
Most of the cities on Earth that keep temperature records, do so with thermometers set up in little meteorology boxes. These boxes, or stations, were originally set up on the outskirts of town, away from the roads and buildings which might have affected the accuracy of the data collected. Today, it has been found, most of these stations are still where they were put maybe decades ago. The trouble is, the cities have grown all around them. In fact, one of these stations was found next to the tarmac of a large airport!
It's small wonder that meteorological data is showing that average temperatures are rising when the thermometers are being surrounded by hot buildings and traffic! But the fact of the matter, from more accurate satellite measurements, is that from 1985 to 2000, Earth's average temperature never varied!
Earth has been subjected to sudden injections of staggering amounts of CO2 many many times in its history from mind-boggling volcanic eruptions. Sure, the climate warmed dramatically and sea-levels rose. There have been just as many episodes of extreme ice-ages, some of which are believed to have frozen the oceans as far as the tropics or even closer to the equator!
But did Earth become another Venus or freeze over completely and permanently? No. Despite a severity in climate changes that we as a species will never be capable of reproducing, Earth's complex repertoire of checks and balances brought the planet back to its temperate norm.
We greatly overestimate ourselves. Compared to mother nature, we are still a puny force.
And did you know we are well overdue for the next ice-age?
This interglacial period has run its course and new evidence suggests that when an interglacial ends, the temperature drop is precipitous. You can go from a balmy interglacial to a full scale ice-age in less than a human lifetime!!
I am personally unconcerned about "global warming". I think the next ice-age is a much bigger worry. In fact, in a few decades, the catch-cry may become: "Burn more fossil fuels! We need more CO2 ... the glaciers are coming, the glaciers are coming!!!"

Byron · 2002-06-15 08:47:06

And did you know we are well overdue for the next ice-age?
This interglacial period has run its course and new evidence suggests that when an interglacial ends, the temperature drop is precipitous. You can go from a balmy interglacial to a full scale ice-age in less than a human lifetime!!
I am personally unconcerned about "global warming". I think the next ice-age is a much bigger worry. In fact, in a few decades, the catch-cry may become: "Burn more fossil fuels! We need more CO2 ... the glaciers are coming, the glaciers are coming!!!"

Any idea of when this ice age is going to start?? Personally, I'm quite ready for a bit of cooler weather.

Seriously, however, I have read about so-called climatic 'tipping points' that can bring about drastic changes in the climate...and some people theorize if the Northern Hemisphere does warm up slightly, it'd cause undersea currents in and out of the Arctic Ocean to reverse, and bring about MUCH colder weather..if not a full ice age, a "mini ice age," that could come about very quickly, like in a decade, dropping temps much lower than they are now. Europe, North America (except for FL..lol) and most of Asia would all be in serious trouble.

We can debate all we want about whether the effects of mankind is changing the climate, the fact is that the Earth's (and Mars too, for that matter) climate has and will undergo dramatic changes. If this were to take place in the near future, I think civilization could be put in a very precarious position. That's why we need to make a new home on Mars, as an insurance policy to protect against a collapse of modern civilization here on Earth due to climate upheavals, all-out nuclear war, etc, etc....

Adrian · 2002-06-15 09:54:48

Joel - it's true that many people have been upset by The Skeptical Environmentalist. But then, many people have liked it, including The Economist, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal and even the Secretary General of WWF Sweden. Scientific American In a topic as emotive as environmentalism, there are many vested interests. Notably, Scientific American hated it (although for some reason the Italian version loved it), and this prompted a reply from several prominent biologists including Matt Ridley to defend Lomborg.

In any case, it's clear that the state of the world is yet to be resolved. Lomborg doesn't pretend that the world is perfect, and he fully admits that global warming is taking place. His point is that the world is not as terrible as environmentalists make it out to be, and that conditions are improving everywhere. This is no coffee-table book - the references Lomborg cites are all impeccable, often coming from the United Nations or highly rated US sources. In fact, most of the references he uses are the same that environmentalists use - but he doesn't make the mistake of looking at them selectively.

The population question is ever present. However, consider this - between 1900 and 2000, the world population increased by over 4 billion. Yet there has been no increase in hunger - the daily intake of calories per capita has been increasing worldwide. If the current slowdown in population growth continues, there may be another 4 billion people on the planet in 2100. The UN Food and Agriculture Organization, the United States Dept. Agriculture and the World Bank all agree that over the next 30 years, there will be fewer malnourished people and that essentially, there will be more food for more people.

It's easy to think that the population explosion can only end in tears, but it's not so. Malthus was wrong - population growth rates are dropping in China and in other developing countries. Advances in agriculture are more than keeping up with the increased demand. It is simply not true that there is a disaster coming, by any set of measurements or statistics released by the US or UN.

I hope I don't seem like I'm dismissing environmentalists as loonies. I certainly care about the environment, and while it's improving I'd like to see it in an even better state. I just feel a little angry that they are continually telling us that the world is in a terrible state when it is demonstrably not. They should have a little more faith in the intelligence of the public, rather than exploiting them. I strongly urge you to read the first sample chapter (PDF) from The Skeptical Environmentalist.

Phobos · 2002-06-15 14:49:53

I hope I don't seem like I'm dismissing environmentalists as loonies. I certainly care about the environment, and while it's improving I'd like to see it in an even better state. I just feel a little angry that they are continually telling us that the world is in a terrible state when it is demonstrably not. They should have a little more faith in the intelligence of the public, rather than exploiting them. I strongly urge you to read the first sample chapter (PDF) from The Skeptical Environmentalist.

I agree that the environmentalists who constantly ring the fear mongering bell aren't helping their cause, because like Shaun said, it's likely that once we are able to move away from fossil fuels as an energy source a lot of our environmental problems will clear up. But JGM is right in that the developing world, notably places like China, are starting to demand the same high consumption living standards as the West and the best way to meet those standards is to develop space as both a source of materials and energy and perhaps manufacturing as well. Anti-space environmentalists seem to think we can just arrest and reverse technological development and revert back to living in caves and wearing
fig-leaves. They need to be realistic and realize that we need a solution that both protects Earth and isn't disruptive to peoples' living standards.

Adrian · 2002-06-15 16:07:55

As ever, I partially agree with what's being said I think that utilisation of space-based resources constitutes a solution to the demand for energy and materials at low economic and environmental cost. However, I'm not sure that it's the best solution, as yet. It has its advantages and disadvantages - the advantages are that it (e.g. space-based solar power stations) could have very low environmental impact on Earth. The disadvantages are that it would be very expensive and the entire field is highly immature and would require at least two decades to gear up to substantial levels, if not longer.

Energy solutions such as nuclear power and renewable sources (wind, water) also provide low environmental impact and aren't as expensive, and that's why they're the preferred choice for environmentally friendly energy production. As for materials, I haven't seen any studies on bringing bulk materials back to Earth, and I suspect the reason for that is because it may be too expensive right now.

Now, that's not to say that space based solutions are being ignored. Several governments are known to have plans for solar power stations, most notably Japan who have set a deadline for constructing one - so clearly they recognise the potential there. But there are also other good ways for promoting growth and protecting the environment beyond space based solutions.

Scott G. Beach · 2002-08-29 23:04:21

I've been hoping to find a way to foster a link between environmentalism and space science for a long time.

JGM:

I have proposed that we build prototype Martian settlements in every country that joins an international consortium to colonize Mars. These prototype settlements would be perfect homes for people how want to recycle everything and produce zero pollution in the process. I therefore think that it would be very easy to forge a link between environmentalists and would-be Martians.

Scott G. Beach

My Martian settlement proposal is posted on the web. Click here!

alokmohan · 2003-10-02 06:01:07

Why this interestig topic was closed I dont know.But idea is welcome.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2002-06-13 17:09:07

Re: Excellent articles on Greg Benford!

#2 2002-06-14 13:11:54

Re: Excellent articles on Greg Benford!

#3 2002-06-14 14:59:10

Re: Excellent articles on Greg Benford!

#4 2002-06-14 17:00:00

Re: Excellent articles on Greg Benford!

#5 2002-06-14 18:42:15

Re: Excellent articles on Greg Benford!

#6 2002-06-15 00:05:02

Re: Excellent articles on Greg Benford!

#7 2002-06-15 01:38:57

Re: Excellent articles on Greg Benford!

#8 2002-06-15 08:47:06

Re: Excellent articles on Greg Benford!

#9 2002-06-15 09:54:48

Re: Excellent articles on Greg Benford!

#10 2002-06-15 14:49:53

Re: Excellent articles on Greg Benford!

#11 2002-06-15 16:07:55

Re: Excellent articles on Greg Benford!

#12 2002-08-29 23:04:21

Re: Excellent articles on Greg Benford!

#13 2003-10-02 06:01:07

Re: Excellent articles on Greg Benford!

Board footer