Regular readers know that DOTE is not a source of hope and inspiration about humankind's prospects in the 21st century. Subjects discussed include the 6th mass extinction, peak crude oil, anthropogenic climate change, the ongoing destruction of life in the oceans, and all sorts of irrational, destructive, but ultimately unalterable human behaviors. Looking at the grim, undeniable facts and trends, some observers (including me) anticipate all manner of annihilation and death as this century grinds on. So I'm sure you will be glad to know (as I was) that there is a Back-up Plan just in case the worst does indeed come to pass.
I discovered the plan in Project Icarus: Laying the Plans for Interstellar Travel at the website of the Atlantic. Free-lance writer Ross Andersen interviewed Andreas Tziolas, who is "drafting a blueprint for a mission to a nearby star." It is a 100-year mission. I'll quote the relevant bits.
Andersen — A lot of reasons have been offered for why this project, this general project of going to the stars, is important for humanity. Some have said that in the long term the project is necessary as a means of "backing up the biosphere," that we need to find another planet in order to ensure that humans survive future extinction events on earth. Others point to the potential for scientific knowledge, especially in the areas of cosmology or astrobiology. And then there's the idea that deep space is a kind of proving ground for humanity, that it provides the ultimate test of our intellectual and creative capacities. In your eyes, what is the most compelling reason we ought to pursue this?
Tziolas — This could be a very long conversation. At Project Icarus we keep adding new reasons and new motivations for going interstellar, as we call it. First is obviously the survival of humankind. If humanity is capable of achieving interstellar flight but does not pursue it, does not pursue a program of seeding other planets and other solar systems, then really we risk receiving a Darwin Award as a civilization.
If you can save yourself, but you don't, for whatever reason — how can you justify that?
When you're working on a sensitive document on your computer, the first thing you do is back it up. You make a copy of it, you email it to yourself, you put it in your dropbox, and your flash drive — sometimes all these things at once. Why do we pay this obsessive attention to backing up a document, which we can reproduce, when we pay no attention to backing up our civilization? There is no greater endeavor than ensuring the survival of humankind.
You also want to push technological boundaries. If you don't have one of these huge problems to solve, that's hard, really hard, then you won't motivate yourself to solve it. If the human population had never risen past one billion people, everyone would live very comfortably, spread out, there might not be high rises, transportation would be different the whole civilization would be different. The unique problems that come with high — populations have given rise to these technologies, to these ways of living. Similarly, had we never decided to go into space, our civilization would be very different. We wouldn't have cell phones, we wouldn't have satellite systems, and we wouldn't have this type of computational power. We would have been fine, but we would be stuck at a certain level of technological advancement.
In order to achieve interstellar flight, you would have to develop very clean and renewable energy technologies, because for the crew, the ecosystem that you launch with is the ecosystem you're going to have for at least a hundred years. With our current projections, we can't get this kind of journey under a hundred years.
So in developing the technologies that enable interstellar flight, you could serendipitously develop the technologies that could help clean up the Earth, and power it with cheap energy. If you look toward the year 2100, and assume that the 100 Year Starship Study has been prolific, and that Project Icarus has been prolific, at a minimum we'd have break-even fusion, which would give us abundant clean energy for millennia. No more fossil fuels.
We'd also have developed nanotechnology to the point where any type of technology that you have right now, anything technology-based, will be able to function the same way it does now, but it won't have any kind of footprint, it will only be a square centimeter in size. Some people have characterized that as "nano-magic," because everything around you will appear magical. You wouldn't be able to see the structures doing it, but there would be light coming out of the walls, screens that are suspended that you can move around any surface, sensors everywhere -- everything would be extremely efficient...
What are the main considerations involved in choosing a destination star?
Tziolas — Well we're somewhat limited by the timescale we've chosen. We want this to be a hundred year mission, and that puts our maximum range at fifteen light years, using the best estimates about fusion technology. Right now we're designing around Alpha Centauri because it's the easiest, and because it's a double star we expect it to be very interesting scientifically. However, if a terrestrial planet is discovered and it has a few oceans and it's within 22 light years instead of our maximum of 15, we would button down and make that our mission. Habitability is the prime consideration.
Interesting. I'm surprised it's that and not extraterrestrial life, but then I suppose they overlap.
Tziolas — If there were two planets: one of them is teeming with life, but it's not habitable because it's methane or sulfur based life, and the other is an Eden with an oxygen-nitrogen atmosphere and only eighty percent our gravity, so everyone would be a superman, and they're in opposite directions, where would we go if you had to pick one? To us, proliferating the human race must always come first. We would go to the Eden and not think twice about it.
The mind literally reels at all the different responses one could make upon reading about the Back-up Plan, but I do not consider shooting fish in a barrel to be sport. It's just so unfair. One also must take into account the sincere but delusional beliefs of Andreas Tziolas and others participating in Project Icarus.
I will only note that it comes as no surprise that Tziolas extols the fabulous virtues of the wonderful technologies—nuclear fusion and nano-magic if the project is prolific—which will flow from this intersteller mission, just as "mysterious" vapors once filled the cave in which the Oracle of Delphi helped the ancient Greeks and Romans made life and death decisions.
When ancient Greeks and Romans had to make decisions, they consulted the gods by drawing lots, casting dice, interpreting dreams and analyzing such signs as sneezes, thunderbolts and flying birds. But for matters of the utmost importance, they sought to hear the words of the gods in the mouths of oracles.
Paradoxically, in male dominated classical Greece the most influential voice, the Delphic oracle, belonged to a woman. The oracular temple was perched on the south slope of Mount Parnassus, surrounded by high cliffs, about 75 miles west of Athens. Getting to Delphi required either a long trek across the mountains or a sea voyage to the north shore of the Gulf of Corinth.
However difficult the journey, thousands of visitors sought guidance from the holy woman, called the Pythia, who spoke on behalf of the gods... According to sources, the Pythia was inspired by mysterious vapors, though these accounts have been largely ignored by modern researchers. Now, however, a team of archaeologists and geologists have proved that the Temple of Apollo sat directly above fault lines that likely released intoxicating carbon based gases into the adytum. Was this the oracle's secret?
I would say that Humanity's Fate is a matter of utmost importance, worthy of the Oracle. The story told here says that technology will save us, and the ambitious goal of traveling to a near-by star not called the Sun will help us achieve that goal. So saith the Oracle Andreas Tziolas, speaking for the Technology Gods. As I mentioned in the introduction, changing its behavior is not an option for Homo sapiens. That's off the table. Technology is thus the only way out. This is the conventional wisdom of our misnamed species.
Should everything go wrong, and every day it's certainly looking more and more like it will, it is good to know there's a Back-up Plan. Frankly, that's a huge relief.
I was worried there for a little while, but I'm not worried anymore!
Bonus Video — Make It So
What can one say.... it's all good. ;-)
Posted by: Brian M | 02/26/2012 at 11:51 AM