Making Civilization Multiplanetary: Choice or Necessity?

Introduction: The Paradox of a Single-Planet Civilization

Why should we venture to other planets? This question has become one of the most thrilling debates of our time. On one side, scientists and philosophers; on the other, the public, all passionately engaged in this discourse. Currently, our civilization is single-planetary; our lives, economies, and social structures are tightly bound to Earth. It’s akin to “keeping all our eggs in one basket,” a risky proposition.

Investments in space spark as much curiosity and excitement as they do criticism. Projects aimed at sending humans to Mars or commercial rocket tests generate significant media buzz. Meanwhile, issues like hunger and inequality on Earth raise questions about the ethical and political dimensions of these investments. Should we solve Earth’s problems first, or establish a colony on Mars? This question frequently arises.

At the heart of this debate lies the fragility of our civilization against existential risks. Climate crisis, nuclear war threats, biotechnological risks, and asteroid impacts pose potential catastrophes threatening humanity’s future. Some thinkers and tech leaders propose the idea of becoming a multiplanetary species as a “life insurance” for civilization.

In this article, we will explore whether making civilization multiplanetary is a security necessity against existential risks or a scientific and cultural choice. Our aim is not to provide a definitive answer but to shed light on the possibilities and limitations offered by current knowledge and arguments.

The Fragility of a Single-Planet Civilization: Existential Risks

Looking at Earth’s geological history, we find traces of numerous mass extinctions and large-scale disasters. The extinction of the dinosaurs about 66 million years ago due to a massive asteroid impact is the most dramatic example. The effects of such a catastrophe range from global climate changes to widespread forest fires, leading to significant losses in biodiversity.

The likelihood of such events is monitored by Near-Earth Object (NEO) tracking programs conducted by agencies like NASA and ESA. The orbits of large asteroids are carefully observed, and potential impact risks are assessed. However, exact risk ratios and timelines are constantly updated, and definitive conclusions remain elusive.

In our modern world, human-induced risks are not to be underestimated. IPCC reports anticipate significant impacts on agriculture, sea levels, and weather events in scenarios of global warming of 2°C and above. These impacts threaten food security and water resources. Additionally, nuclear weapons hold a significant place in the spectrum of existential risks. Nuclear war scenarios suggest that widespread conflict could release soot and aerosols into the stratosphere, creating a “nuclear winter” that could globally reduce agricultural production.

Biotechnology and global pandemics are also notable concerns. WHO and academic studies examine the impacts of biological threats on societies, discussing the long-term effects of major pandemics and biotechnological mishaps.

The Limits to Growth models from the 1970s suggested that under certain conditions, economic growth and resources could reach a crisis point. However, this model offered a thought experiment based on probabilities rather than precise dates, and making definitive predictions could be misleading.

This picture provides a crucial framework for understanding the fragility of a single-planet civilization. Humanity is akin to a computer system running without backup on a single server. Any major-scale disaster could affect our entire species. But concluding that this situation necessarily compels us to become “multiplanetary” is more a philosophical debate than a scientific certainty.

The Vision of a Multiplanetary Civilization: Kardashev and Beyond

The Kardashev scale is a legendary model. It classifies civilizations based on their energy usage capabilities. Proposed by Russian astrophysicist Nikolai Kardashev in 1964, this scale defines civilizations in three main levels:

• Type I civilization: Capable of using all the energy available on its planet.
• Type II civilization: Capable of harnessing the energy of its star (e.g., with a theoretical Dyson sphere).
• Type III civilization: Capable of utilizing the energy of its entire galaxy.

Currently, we are still below Type I on this scale. Our civilization is approximately at 0.7, with a significant gap between Earth’s total energy consumption and the theoretical threshold of Type I.

Concepts like “planetary civilization” or “interstellar civilization” help us envision where our civilization might stand in the future, both in science fiction and serious scientific discussions. While Type II and Type III levels are mostly speculative theories and science fiction scenarios, they are excellent tools for expanding our thinking.

The vision of a multiplanetary civilization is not just a technical goal. It is also a field of thought that questions the meaning of civilization, redefines “progress,” and opens up discussions on the ethical and ecological boundaries of these goals. The claim that this vision represents a natural or necessary progression should be carefully evaluated.

Moon, Mars, and Beyond: Technical and Economic Feasibility

The Moon and Mars are among the first targets for humanity’s gaze. The unique characteristics of these celestial bodies directly affect the feasibility of colonization projects.

• The Moon has gravity about one-sixth that of Earth. This has significant implications for health and structural design. The absence of an atmosphere on the Moon poses risks from cosmic radiation and micrometeorite impacts. Nonetheless, the presence of water ice and minerals on the Moon makes it an attractive resource utilization site.

• Mars has a thin atmosphere, mostly composed of carbon dioxide. Surface temperatures are quite low and vary widely. The reserves of water ice on Mars offer significant opportunities for life support systems.

NASA’s Artemis Program aims to establish sustainable presences on the Moon, while projects planning to transport humans to Mars generate excitement. Commercial actors are exploring ways to establish a colony on Mars. However, these projects should still be viewed as planned or envisioned visions.

Experiences from space missions provide valuable insights into the effects of microgravity and radiation on human health. Issues like bone density loss and muscle mass reduction are among the considerations for long-duration missions.

The decrease in launch costs is another factor paving the way for such projects. However, specific costs vary depending on the type of projects and technological developments.

Thinking of Mars as a “giant tent” can be useful for emphasizing how challenging and carefully planned life there would need to be. But it’s important to remember that this metaphor is a simple portrayal of real technical challenges.

Necessity or Luxury? Priorities and Ethical Conflict

The current crises on Earth question whether space colonization projects are a necessity or a luxury. This debate holds a significant place in both ethical and political theory.

Global hunger, inequality, and climate change present strong arguments for those advocating that world resources should be directed here. Data from organizations like the UN and the World Bank detail this situation.

On the other hand, space colonization is proposed as an “insurance” strategy that could increase long-term survival probabilities. Figures like Elon Musk argue that a colony on Mars could be a life insurance policy for humanity’s future. However, these views are far from scientific consensus; they are more personal visions.

When comparing defense spending and space program budgets, defense spending is generally higher. Such comparisons raise the question of “defense or space?” but do not point to a normative conclusion.

Some writings and visions create “ideal global budget” scenarios, proposing specific resource allocations for defense, climate restoration, health, and space projects. These scenarios should be presented carefully and not confused with actual budget allocations.

Balancing priorities between space investments and urgent issues on Earth is necessary. The metaphor of a house needing both roof repair and basic food stocking as a storm approaches can illustrate the relationship between these two challenges. While this metaphor provides a framework for discussions, it does not offer a final solution.

Conclusion: Beyond Earth-Centric Thinking and Multiplanetary Civilization

A multiplanetary civilization is not merely a technical challenge. It is also a field of discussion with ethical, cultural, and existential dimensions. This discussion suggests a mental expansion from Earth-centric ways of thinking to potentially multi-centric and multi-scale understandings of civilization.

This concept is considered a powerful mental tool in philosophy, science fiction, and futures studies literature. Although it seems distant from today’s technology and policy level, it is claimed to contribute to risk awareness and intergenerational justice discussions.

New technologies and space projects also require updates in areas such as ethics, law, art, and everyday life design. Discussing a multiplanetary future can serve as a “stress test” for our current institutions and values against possible future scenarios.

Building such a civilization would be a significant step; however, the criteria for success should not be limited to technical progress alone. They should also be evaluated based on ethical consistency, social inclusivity, and ecological sustainability. Therefore, every step towards humanity’s future should be based on a strategy that carefully weighs both its impact on current issues and its role against long-term existential risks.

References

1. NASA OSIRIS-REx official mission page: https://science.nasa.gov/mission/osiris-rex/
2. Kardashev, N. S. (1964). Transmission of Information by Extraterrestrial Civilizations. Soviet Astronomy.
3. Outer Space Treaty, 1967. United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs (UNOOSA).
4. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Reports.
5. Oxford Future of Humanity Institute.
6. Cambridge Centre for the Study of Existential Risk.
7. Information about SpaceX Mars Mission: https://www.spacex.com/human-spaceflight/mars/
8. European Space Agency (ESA) Publications.
9. World Health Organization (WHO) Global Pandemic Reports.
10. Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) Expenditure Data.
11. United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs (UNOOSA).
12. NASA Artemis Program: https://www.nasa.gov/specials/artemis/
13. Asimov, I. (1983). The Future of Humanity. Essays.
14. Nature Astronomy Journal.