Recent billionaire space travel has sparked a lot of conversation about the sci-fi-esque opportunities on other planets and exploration. To send Richard Branson and Jeff Bezos into space for a matter of minutes, it cost almost $10 billion.
While this post is not necessarily about what $10 billion could buy instead of meaningless flights to space for fun (since that should be relatively easy to list), it's important to note that obviously, there are uses for $10 billion that could be significantly more impactful without being necessarily "philanthropic."
First, I'd like to address the counter to this argument that many economists, entrepreneurs, and self-proclaimed innovators may suggest which is that innovative and explorative research endeavors provide jobs, give people inspiration, and provide opportunities for consumerism. These are undisputable features of all innovation, even the "meaningless" innovation of commercial space travel, because yes, of course, many people were needed to build, broadcast, and contribute to the events shown on "Billionaires in Space" day.
Another contentious point in this argument is that the world is inevitably burning into an unlivable hell for humans under our own doing. This is also a fact, even though there is argument over the timeline. Space travel provides the opportunity for (rich) people to survive the environmental crisis and extend the longevity of the human species which I guess sounds pretty cool.
Without getting too existential about whether or not we really should try to extend the existence of humans (that's for next week), we ought to at least consider why colonizing other planets (with or without inhabitants) is not the best use of our time and resources.
We are utterly entertained by our fictional and sometimes dystopian fantasies coming to life through real innovation, but unlike a book or movie that has an ending, as we will continue to witness the 3-dimensional, all-encompassing consequences of new groundbreaking exo-earth discovery.
Richard Branson has formally discussed and designed a Virgin extension for commercial space travel that he estimated to be priced at about 450,000 per passenger. This is a cute scheme that is once again an example of wealth creating more wealth and manufactured need for literally zero benefit. It will perpetuate existing socio-emotional disparities between rich and poor by creating another "fun activity" that people are excluded from, but that isn't even its greatest harm.
If we are allowing rich people to partake in this activity, it's definitely safe, so the risks of injury or death related to space travel complications is likely very low. However, disarming and desensitizing greater society to such exploration creates a blind-spot around what really happens when we get there. When we find a planet to inhabit, the necessary resources and time to make this viable in practice will only increase exponentially, not only leaving people on earth to breathe and live through the environmental harms that those with the economic privilege of space travel have caused, but also leaving them with less resources to mitigate the crises on earth.
It's not about where the money can be better spent, because it can be better spent on almost anything in the world-- for the very reason that the good, service, innovation venture, etc. is in the world.
This is obviously a theory, but based on my astronomy class and extremely limited research about space, it is almost certain that highly developed organisms exist in the incomprehensibly large universe in which humans exist. Those species may have mastered the ability to live abroad (on other planets, solar systems, galaxies), but does that really mean we have to? Are we in competition with an entity that's not known to us? Are we trying to be the most adapted, developed cluster of cells to ever exist? This is a dangerous game, because we will never be able to conclusively prove our supremacy-so why spend all our resources trying?
I really enjoyed how you discussed why colonizing other planets is not the best use of our resources. I think it was important that you clarified that “It's not about where the money can be better spent, because it can be better spent on almost anything in the world-- for the very reason that the good, service, innovation venture, etc. is in the world.” The way you tied this critical theory into what you learned in your astronomy class made a clear and succinct point that I think is incredibly important. I agree that this fascination with colonizing space is a result of a fictional fetish and needs to be directed elsewhere to other more beneficial forms of innovation.
I think that for such revolutionary new technologies, the only ways to make the financial feasible are to make them desirable for wealthy individuals or organizations. Richard Branson, for example, needs to establish a proof of concept before offering commercial space travel to the masses. I personally believe that investment into intergalactic travel is important. The benefits might not be realized within our life times, but I think its critical to establishing a way for humans to better engage with our own solar system. Asteroid mining, for example, is a great way to import resources, especially as population growth results in resource depletion on earth.
Hi, Kimberly! I think the tone and content of this piece are a good match for each other; the humorous, exasperated tone you use very much adds to the absurdity of space tourism and planet colonization you are trying to highlight here. While the topic of this post is very expansive, I think you did a great job of narrowing your focus to use of resources and economic disparity. I don't think that anything is going to necessarily stop billionaires from continuing these efforts independently, so I think the answer might be to offset their harms with environmentally-positive efforts on Earth. But it's much harder to inspire people to back those kinds of innovations, because they're less sensational and glamorous…