We were recently treated to news footage of 90-year-old Canadian-born actor William Shatner emoting over his first real trip into space after, decades earlier in his career, playing the lead role of Captain Kirk, skipper of the space station USS Enterprise, in the wildly popular Star Trek franchise. The cameras made sure they captured the moment when he returned from space and talked to Amazon tycoon and now private space race point man Jeff Bezos, and thanked him profusely for this “most profound experience”.
A emotional William Shatner with Jeff Bezos |
But, hey, the hype seems to have been
worth it to Bezos and Blue Origin. It’s not every day that you get to launch
the emblematic Captain Kirk on a real-life star trek. And the kicker was that
the actor also became the oldest man in history to travel in space—a flight
reminiscent of America’s very first space adventure, when NASA astronaut Alan
Shepard became the first American to travel into space in 1961. Although, the
erstwhile Captain Kirk’s flight was only eleven minutes long and reached an
altitude of sixty nautical miles, while Shepard traveled slightly more than a
hundred miles into space and was there for fifteen minutes before splashing
down.
Another billionaire in the growing
private space race, Sir Richard Branson, had earlier offered Shatner a ride on
his Virgin Galactic spacecraft. But Branson blew his chance to tap into the
Star Trek franchise by telling Shatner that the seat would cost him a quarter
of a million dollars—Virgin recently raised the price of a space ticket to four
hundred fifty thousand dollars. It’s not like Shatner, whose net worth is around
a hundred million dollars, couldn’t afford it. He knew, however, that he wasn’t
just some actor, but the space hero of several generations—the inimitable Captain
Kirk—and decided to hold out for a better deal. Bezos gave it to him and bested
Branson once again.
Sir Richard Branson - Virgin Galactic |
The other billionaire who is deeply
involved in the space race is Elon Musk, who just this past month surpassed
Bezos as the richest man on earth. He did that by increasing his net worth some
twenty-five billion dollars in a single day, when the car rental giant, Hertz,
announced that it was replacing its fleet with Musk’s Tesla automobiles. Pay
attention now, because it’s hard to keep up, but just in the last week, he
increased his fortune by a similar amount, so that he now has somewhere in the
neighborhood (a really nice neighborhood, clearly) of two hundred ninety-two
billion dollars.
Soaring at the top of the ten wealthiest
billionaires list, he could now, literally, buy Mark Zuckerberg, Warren Buffet
and Mike Bloomberg and still have seventeen billion in change left over. He could also match the GDP of Chile and have enough
left to buy Stephen Spielberg, George Soros, Sir Richard Branson and Donald
Trump, and still have some pocket change.
SpaceX founder Elon Musk - richest of all |
To start with, even though each major
country, to a greater or lesser extent, has some sort of “space law”, for the
most part, the Solar System is currently, more or less, the new Wild West. The
most urgent need for restrictive legislation is in the area of environmental
protection. No one—among those with the power to do something about it—seems to
be giving any serious thought to this, but there are major consequences looming
in the minds of those who know the science.
By 2030, just a little more than eight
years from now, the billionaire space race is expected to have spawned a four-billion-dollar
industry just in “space tourism—read: billionaires fleecing millionaires for a
ride with “the magnificent men and their flying machines.” Bezos, Branson and
the flamboyant and unpredictable Elon Musk are already committed to the private
space race, and if it takes off as a lucrative industry, other billionaires
will surely follow.
While Bezos, for example, recently paid
lip-service to his climate change commitment, the new industry, of which he has
become a clear leader, promises to have a major impact. The worst for the
moment involves the fact that the amount of propellant needed to blast a rocket
into space is enormous. While some analysts agree that calculating the impact
of each specific craft (billionaires order the building of their own rockets
since NASA has been largely relieved of its regulatory powers) is not an easy
process. It is clear, however, that as space tourism and other expanded private
commercial uses of aerospace technology—asteroid, lunar and planetary mining,
for instance—become ever more abundant, they will contribute in a major way to
pollution and greenhouse gases.
This, at a time when environmentalists
are warning that Earth is no longer in danger of reaching its tipping
point, but has most probably already reached it. This means that environmental
damage already caused by our imprudence and greed may be incapable of repair,
and if world leaders ever stop admiring their own navels and actually
start doing something about climate change, all that will be possible is
mitigation of further damage to an already ravaged planet.
Within that context, the idea of a commercial
space race, among private firms and nearly unregulated billionaires, is utterly
insane. Especially when, if we remain on this path, Humankind will be well on its
way toward the Sixth Great Extinction, in which future human generations may end
up going the way of the dinosaurs.
In order to quantify just how selfish
and damaging touristic space flight is, it’s interesting to look at a
calculation worked out by University College London scientist, Dr. Eloise
Marais. According to Marais, shooting four or five millionaire tourists into space
for a ten or twelve-minute joy ride burns one hundred times more fuel—and hence
creates a hundred times more greenhouse gases—per passenger than the amount per
passenger generated by a normal long-haul jet flight, which is already a highly
carbon-intensive activity.
Meanwhile, researchers at the University
of New South Wales in Australia point out that there are other concerns as
well. Among them, huge amounts of aluminum oxide, black carbon particles and
water vapor that rocket ships release into the stratosphere. Some of the
chemical compounds are obviously linked to global warming. But like many other
factors, this is more about general climate change than just about global
warming, considering that black carbon particles, for instance, can form a sort
of screen that can have an intense cooling effect. The future consequences are,
then, as unforeseeable as were those of our cavalier abuse of the environment
in the past. A fiery hell on earth or a
new Ice Age: choose your poison.
The idea of degree, as I mentioned
before, is also at the top of environmentalists’ mind. Dutch sustainable
transport and tourism expert Paul Peeters says that the difference in
environmental damage from one sort of space ship to another can be significant.
He cites the example of Virgin Galactic’s manned rocket, which is a hybrid. In
the best of all possible worlds, the word hybrid denotes a good thing. In this
case it’s just the opposite. Branson’s space tourism rig burns both liquid and
solid propellant. What that means, says Peeters, is that Virgin is releasing
far more black carbon into the atmosphere and stratosphere than
kerosene-burning craft do. Says Peeters,
“If hybrid rockets, which are assumed to be relatively cheap to operate, become
popular, a climate disaster is looming.”
In light of the billionaire space race,
many environmental scientists would like to see space launches included in
worldwide environmental protocols due to the damage their increasing frequency
will surely cause to the ozone layer. The international Montreal Protocol,
which covers deterioration of the ozone layer, does not take space launches
into account.
The ozone layer forms a sort of blanket
of protection that once covered the entire Earth. It acts as a natural
sunscreen to filter out UV rays from solar radiation that are harmful to human
and other life on earth. Each winter for many years now, there has been one
hole in that layer over South America and another over the Arctic. Scientists
agree that these holes have grown due to the effects of greenhouse gases
created by human activity. Recently, however, the one over South America has
been growing at a faster clip. At certain seasons of the year (winter is the
worst) it reaches some eight million square miles.
I happen to live in the Patagonian
region where the hole is most focused. Here, doctors promote the ample use of
sunscreen, hats, UV-blocking sunglasses, etc. Ophthalmologists say that they
are seeing the earlier onset of cataracts in people here, especially those with
light-colored eyes, who do not wear quality sunglasses. Scientists also point
to the high rate of blindness among sheep on the sprawling sheep ranches in
this corner of the world.
Another indicator is the deterioration
of usually durable plastics. For instance, irrigation experts that I’ve spoken
to tell me that durable plastic sprinklers made in Israel and used in the
searing desert heat there last ten to twenty years in their country of origin,
while here in Patagonia they last less than half that time until material
fatigue sets in.
Vast increases in space launches as the
billionaire space race and space tourism build will have a very definite impact
on this serious problem that is part and parcel of the global climate change
narrative. Worse still is the attitude of billionaire astro-entrepreneurs who
tend to take Earth’s serious environmental problems as insoluble and are
looking to the solar system as an escape route for the obscenely wealthy—significant
numbers of whom got that way by raping and pillaging planet Earth—who will
eventually be able to pack up and fly off to “gated communities” on the moon or
Mars, while back on Earth, the poorer human race goes gradually extinct.
Bezos, specifically, has an even more
nefarious idea: namely, to move all polluting industries off of Earth to other
destinations. In other words, instead of fixing the problem of pollution on Earth,
he figures it’s easier to write the planet off. Then he and other magnates of
his ilk can blast off on voyages to other post-Columbian new worlds, where they
can despoil those places as well. The idea is dystopian and unhelpful when men
of such extraordinary wealth could be funding vast research with no more than
pocket change for them—a billion here, a billion there—to foster ideas capable
of vastly improving the environmental and humanitarian situation on Earth,
rather than considering our planet “the past” and space “the future”.
While the headline-catching billionaire
space race is in its infancy and might right now look to us rather as if we
were witnessing the Wright Brothers and Sir George Cayley having a contest with
their flying machines at Kitty Hawk, technology is so readily available and the
billionaires’ resources so vast that commercial space exploitation is coming,
and coming fast. All of this might seem like an accounting of problems that are
“far off in the future”—like it seemed far off to us “boomers” in the 1950s and
1960s, when scientists warned that if we kept on abusing the earth, the
atmosphere and the oceans, we would face major environmental problems in the
twenty-first century. But, hey, here we are. And technological developments
that took decades to achieve in the past now happen in months or, at most, a
few short years.
There is one other aspect of the
legislative vacuum in which this is all happening, especially since the most
highly developed space legislation is that of the US and, ever since the Reagan
Era, it has been focused almost entirely on encouraging billionaires to
claim their place in private space development. The aspect I am referring to is
that of world security.
Zuckerberg - test case for billionaire ethics? |
To understand the kind of dangers that
the vast expansion of private billionaires’ dominion over space pose, we need
go no further than the political role of Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg
in the undermining of American democracy. Despite having sold off a lot of FB/Meta
stock, Zuckerberg has maintained absolute administrative control over the
company. And, by all accounts, he runs it like a dictatorial regime.
While Zuckerberg has provided the world with
the quintessential social media platform and, thus, a place where the formerly voiceless
can now openly express themselves on a cyber-soapbox of immense proportions,
that great humanitarian achievement has been far overshadowed by the greed that
has led him to not merely provide the greatest podium for free speech ever
known, but also, and on the contrary, to manipulate the information that his
portal receives in order to spread discord and to support false information
because controversy sells. And the more likes and comments accumulated under
each post the higher his advertising revenues.
Seen in this way, it is impossible not
to conclude that the strategic algorithms employed by Facebook to fatten its
bottom line have inversely served to undermine democratic institutions, and to
promote both domestic and foreign terrorism. The fact that Zuckerberg and Facebook
have systematically imposed such a strategy out of sheer greed and, worse
still, have felt no ethical compunction about its results is telling.
Zuckerberg has no part in the space race yet, but it’s not hard to imagine that
if he sees his fellow billionaires making significant advances in that line,
space could well end up on Meta’s “to do” list.
Perhaps one might have been willing to
give billionaires the benefit of the doubt before the Trump Era in Washington,
and indeed before revelations regarding FB’s nefarious policies. But four years
of Trump and his continuing long shadow on American politics has to give any
thinking person pause regarding the potential for megalomania among the world’s
richest men. And I single out men advisedly, since despite the fact that there
are indeed billionaire American women as well—Alice Walton, MacKenzie Scott, Julia
Knoch, Miriam Adelson, etc.—none so far has demonstrated any desire to dominate
this world or other worlds, a trait that would appear to be quintessentially
male.
The Trump Era raises the megalomania issue |
Would Donald Trump join the billionaire
space race? Hard to say. But if he wanted to, he wouldn’t have to depend on his
own “small fortune”, but could do what he has always done an amazing job of
doing—selling his ideas to other wealthy men and then slapping the Trump brand
on it. And the fact that it was under his administration that the US Space
Force became one of America’s armed services demonstrates that it is at least
at the back of his mind.
The Trump Era has, then, given us a lot
to think about—above all, the thirst for unlimited power of obscenely wealthy
men. Which leads to unavoidable connections, like the ex-president’s
authoritarian hero, Vladimir Putin, who, himself, is sitting on a personal
fortune of seventy billion dollars, so wouldn’t need the Russian state at all
if he ever planned to join the billionaire space race.
Excuse me, then, if I can’t help wondering
if these are the sort of men we want marauding unregulated through space like
so many cosmic cowboys. I don’t know about you, but it makes me feel a whole
lot less secure.
No comments:
Post a Comment