Our Evolutionary Imperative to Leave This Planet From a Cusmocultural Perspective

This paper examines some of the social, political and environmental challenges that humanity faces in this century. It establishes the probability of planetary extinction, and explains the seriousness of cosmocultural studies as well as the role that they play in finding avenues of survival for our species. It is inspired by the work of celebrated physicist Michio Kaku as he examine our likelyhood of extinction, our legacy of destruction and our probable future beyond Earth.

Since November 2010, sending androids into space is no longer the work of fiction, it is now part of our daily reality. For the first time in history, NASA has added a human-like robot named R2 Robonaut, to its orbiting space station, marking a step forward in our everlasting quest to explore the outer world. This search for other life forms and inhabitable planets is driven not only by sheer curiosity, but also by a pressing desire to survive. In the past few decades, a growing number of scientists have voiced their certainty that, without drastic changes to the way humans manage the resources of this planet, extinction is in the palpable future. Cosmoculture is an emerging field of study that encourages the development of ideas concerning humans in relation to the cosmos, from our minute origins to our likely future. Michio Kaku, a physicist best known for his vulgarization of science and prognostics on what our future entails, provides fascinating insights into the technological advances that may come after R2 Robonaut.

Those who worry about issues of a social nature often look at technology with a mixture of hope and concern. The ethical challenges brought forth by the exponential advances of science remain for the most part unresolved. On July 14, 1960, Mr Orville L. Freeman, Governor of Minnesota, gave a formal address to the Democratic National Convention in which he presented what he called the democratic approach to some of the problems raised by science and technology. In his address, titled The Challenge of Abundance, he classified the world's response to technological advancement into two categories (Science & Party Politics 372-374). The first category, “hopeful, possible, but not very likely”, is about the using technology to provide food, shelter and basic necessities to everyone on earth. The grim, but more likely scenario, is however to forge towards the destruction of civilization. According to Freeman, the same technologies that provide speed to transport and to communications can equally be turned towards good or evil.

Since Freeman's address, the advent of the Internet has provided a potent display of his views. The World Wide Web, as one of the most democratic tool of the 21 century, brings education and hope to millions. Yet, it is also the preferred tool for those who wish to disseminate false information, prejudice and hate messages. Science has the potential to save us or to kill us. Whether we respond in time and appropriately will determine our fate. In his conclusion, Freeman presented a plea for the continuation and the funding of space exploration, suggesting that it would be unwise to favour earthbound research over the exploration of the outer world, for in space lies the key to our planetary challenge of abundance.

The previous observations could be dismissed as mere exaggerations if the history of our civilization did not point to the contrary. Both recent news items and age-old scriptures speak of the same human propensity to engage in destructive acts. The Bible, in the Book of Genesis (Gen. 6.5-8)., speaks about God reaching a similar conclusion. “When the Lord saw that man had done much evil on earth and that his thoughts and inclinations were always evil, he was sorry that he had created man on earth, and he was grieved at heart. ... I am sorry I ever made them.”

In looking to the past for clues to help chart the possible destiny of humanity, it is interesting to note some of the lessons that we have learnt and failed to apply over the course of time. Oxford Dictionaries online defines role models as people worthy of imitation. It is generally accepted that Noble Prize recipients are considered worthy of imitation, not only for youths seeking direction, but also for highly educated professionals in a wide spectrum of fields. A critical look at past Nobel prize recipients and hopefuls offers a revealing indication of our lack of willingness to learn from past mistakes and direct our destiny towards less harmful ends.

The line separating Nobel Prize recipients and war criminals is in some cases arguably blurry. Dr. Fritz Haber played a major role in the development of chemical warfare and provided poisonous gases to the Kaiser's armies. On the Western front, 650,000 men died as a result and Dr. Haber, along with other scientists, was formally accused of war crimes. Yet, in 1918, Haber was awarded the Nobel Prize in chemistry and the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Physical Chemistry and Elektrochemistry, which was later named after him, went on to manufacture the gas used to murder millions of Jews during World War II. The case of António Egas Moniz is similarly poignant.

In 1949, Dr. Moniz received the Nobel Prize “for his discovery of the therapeutic value of leucotomy in certain psychoses”(qtd. in Wikipedia). As a result, leucotomy, also known as lobotomy, was performed on some 5,000 American residents in the three years that followed Moniz' reception of the prize. Controversial recipients are such a common occurrence that the official Nobel Prize website dedicates an entire section to the subject. Given the numerous examples of public figures that are deemed worthy of imitation, it is fair to conclude that our civilization has not strayed from its past course. As the previous Bible quote suggests, man is still doing much evil on earth.

In addition to the many evils that reside in the heart of man, nature and physics have also been bearers of doom and gloom when it comes to the future of our species. Natural disasters, pestilences, ice ages, and asteroid impacts are all in the forecast. Michio Kaku eloquently phrased the problem this way: “The universe is out of control” (How to Survive 46). It is expanding on itself and accelerating in ways that humans cannot control. Today's scientists do not have the knowledge or the power to divert our planet from its destiny; they can however make reasonable prognostics on what effects these catastrophes will have on this earth and the universe that surrounds it. The process of expansion that is pushing galaxies apart at an exponential rate will eventually plunge the universe in bitter cold and darkness. Stars such as our sun, that illuminate the skies and produce the energy that we depend on for heat and work, will cease to create their nuclear fuel. The universe with its millions of galaxies will be transformed and become unlivable. All these changes will take place in billions or even trillions of years. In the meantime, those who understand the science feel the urgency to find a way out. Some have already begun the work.

When comparing science to science fiction, it is in some cases difficult to determine which has exerted more influence on the other. R2 Robonaut was inspired by his fictional counterpart R2D2 from George Lucas' Star Wars Trilogy. In the same manner, many of today's familiar objects find their roots in futuristic novels. In this twenty first century, fiction is becoming reality at a stunning rate. Science and science fiction are no longer separated by fantasy, but only kept apart by time. The challenge for the common man is to fully understand all the possible future applications of the technologies we possess. Air flight is one field of science that has evolved greatly and is continuing to advance in leaps and bounds. From its modest beginnings, with propeller engines that are heavy and relatively slow, it has moved to air breathing jets equipped to use oxygen from the atmosphere to burn fuel. This propellant-less energy reduces the weight of the engine, making spaceflights faster and less costly. According to Dr. Kaku, the next leap into the future will include green energies that are environmentally friendly ways to travel. With new forms of energy, spaceflight from earth to the further reaches of the universe will be made possible.

Many researches in the scientific community believe that our pressing need to reduce CO2 emissions will provide the necessary incentive for this new step. Referring to the risk of global catastrophe, Dr Mark Hempsell, senior lecturer in space technology at the University of Bristol in the UK, stated the following. “It has been argued that space industrialization generally offers a response to the risk involved by this class of event and should be the key focus of space infrastructure development. Space power has always been argued as the only energy-generating option that avoids depletion of non-renewable resources or pollution induced problems - in particular global warming” (Hempsell 1). In light of this comment, it is not surprising to learn that the object of our present space explorations is partly to establish new sources of energy such as those that could be used to power further explorations into the cosmos.

Who will inherit the universe? That is the question Dr. Kaku poses when reflecting on the many directions our civilization can choose to take. According to Dr. Kaku, our planetary survival depend on incremental sets of decision that we have already begun to face. The type of civilization that humankind needs to become will require important global changes. The answer to the question “Who will inherit the universe?” is man, or mankind, that is, when it becomes a Type III civilization. Kaku’s answer is inspired by the work of fellow astrophysicist Nikilai Kardashev. In a paper published in 1964, Kardashev introduced the ranking of civilizations from Type 0 to Type III. This ranking explains our present position and the advancements humankind must attain to ensure the survival of our species.

Type I civilization: One in which mankind has succeeded in mastering nature on earth. It has conquered weather patterns and is able to control volcanoes and earthquakes. In all future civilizations, energy is primordial. Type I will be able to control as much energy as it receives from the sun.

Type II civilization: No longer satisfied with its planet of origin, this civilization will exploit solar flares for energy. Its energy capacity will be equal to that of a star.

Type III civilization: Galaxies are conquered and the energy sources come from billions of star systems.

In this model, our present civilization is a Type 0: Merely capable of harvesting the energy found in the soil, hardly able to use a fraction of the energy provided by the sun. Though this may seem like an unforeseeable future, Kardashev’s calculations predict that humans will reach that potential in about one hundred years. In this not so distant future, many social changes will have taken place on earth and many forms of global unity will have been achieved.

One planetary language will dominate. English is well-positioned to become that language.

One global economy will emerge. The EU and talks of unification on the African continent are forecasters of this probability. Although conflicts continue to occur between China, the United States and Russia, concrete efforts are being made to avoid political schism. Global scale military tension such as was seen during the Cold War is an unlikely possibility in today's interdependent social, cultural and political climate.

Cultures will merge. The expansion of global communication and the ease of global travel that is already a reality today will be a major factor in bringing about a unified world culture.

One political voice. Under pressure, such as that of environmental changes and catastrophes, countries will relinquish some of their autonomy and unite under one global government in an effort to protect the planet and its inhabitants.

This series of changes is arguably the greatest difficulty we face today. Will we successfully overcome the challenge of abundance, learning from past errors and putting our collective resources and knowledge toward altruistic goals? In light of scientific evidence, forecasting the end of Earth, making a successful transition from a civilization Type 0 to a Type I is the only hope for our planetary survival. Optimism and determination are human traits as strong as the propensity for destruction. From an optimist perspective, it is safe to say that we may yet reach a favourable outcome.

Kaku, Michio. Vision: How Science Will Revolutionize the 21st Century. New York: Anchor, 1997. Print.

Kaku, Michio. "A Heavenly Home Or Oblivion?. "Times Higher Education Supplement 1674 (2005): 21. Print.

Kaku, Michio. "Who Will Inherit The Universe?." Astronomy 30.2 (2002): 34. Print.

Kaku, Michio. "How to Survive the End of the Universe." Discover 25.12 (2004): 46-53. Print.

Kaku, Michio. "War & Environment." Audubon 93.5 (1991): 91-93. Print.

Cordell, Bruce. "21^st Century Waves: Forecasting Technology Booms and Human Expansion Into the Cosmos." Futures Research Quarterly 22.3 (2006): 21-41. Print.

Freeman, Orville L. "The Challenge of Abundance." Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 16.9 (1960): 372-374. Print.

Hempsell, Mark. "Space Power As A Response To Global Catastrophes." Acta Astronautica 59.7 (2006): 524-530. Print.

Froning Jr., H. David. "Impacts of Terrestrial and Astronautical Sociology on the Evolution of Spaceflight by Spacefaring Civilizations." AIP Conference Proceedings 1103.1 (2009): 361-368. Web .

Bibby, Joe , . "Home." R2 Robonaut. NASA Aeronautics and Space Administration, 2010. Web.19 Oct. 2010. <http://robonaut.jsc.nasa.gov/default.asp>.

Scott Barrett. "The Problem of Averting Global Catastrophe. " Chicago Journal of International Law 6.2 (2006): 527-552. Print.

Johnson, Paul. "The Human Race: Success or Failure?." New Criterion 25.3 (2006): 10- 16. Print.

Wikipedia contributors. "Robonaut." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 16 Jan. 2011. Web. 31 Jan. 2011.

Wikipedia contributors. "Fritz Haber." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 28 Jan. 2011. Web. 31 Jan. 2011.

Wikipedia contributors. "Michio Kaku." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 27 Jan. 2011. Web. 31 Jan. 2011.