My spouse and I agree about most issues in life. Family plans, personal values, current issues, even whether Reggaetón should be considered culture (we believe it should). We don't blindly agree with what the other believes, we respect each other's perspectives and listen actively to learn from them. But there is one topic that we agree to disagree on but still debate about all the time. Well, they agree to disagree, I agree they're wrong, mostly.
This debate began about one year ago when the news reported that Jeff Bezos said he was committing $10 billion to fight climate change. Many received this as great news, including my spouse, but I was not buying it - I found it very lacking and very suspicious. Just a few months before hundreds of employees walked out to protest Amazon's meager climate action. We started talking about it and talked about it for at least an hour. Since we rarely disagree, it's fascinating when we do, and we really get into it. I don't remember exactly every point we made, but we eventually got to the case of the space race, and whether a renewed space race could benefit society and climate change.
Now, before I continue with the story, there are some things I want you to know. I love the concept of space exploration. I am a huge Trekkie, I watched whole TOS, TNG, DS9, (IYKYK), and Voyager. I haven't watched most movies, but I think that with the series I've put in enough hours to earn the title. I am also an engineer and a scientist, both of which are fundamental disciplines to space exploration. So I don't have an issue with space exploration in general, but I have many reservations about it.
My spouse on the other hand is a huge history enthusiast, and space exploration is one of their favorite topics (we got engaged after visiting the Houston Space Center, but for other life reasons). He agrees with some of my arguments and concerns, but still supports the endeavor.
During our debate, they argued that thanks to the space race, society benefited from many technological advances, such as modern microchips, solar energy cells (the ones that power solar energy panels), LED lights, water filtration, insulation, and precise timekeeping (he's still listing, but I think those prove his point). He also argues that "space exploration allows us (as a society) to direct and distribute money in a very intentional way to science and engineering research and skilled well-remunerated labor, thus advancing technology and communities in a significant way (e.g., how textile workers from Waltham, MA became an essential part of the Apollo moon effort by weaving its computer)."[Source: he wrote it].
For these reasons, he believes a renewed space race might be beneficial for humankind and our fight against climate change. While I don't disagree with his position about the outcomes and impacts of the original space race (mainly because I don't know enough or more than him, and because I trust his knowledge on the topic), I don't agree that this is what humanity needs right now and in the context of the climate crisis, especially as it is being played out. Before delving into each point I do want to make the disclaimer that these are very summarized arguments and that each of these points has resulted in its own hour-long discussion between us.
One of my spouse's main arguments is that a renewed space race will bring technological innovation that might be useful to help solve climate change, just like it did before. These technological advances were possible because humanity had a big enough challenge that they had to develop the technology to overcome it. While this is not untrue, I think anthropological climate change is a big enough issue to challenge us to develop new technologies. In fact, there is a lot of technological research and innovation going on already in the context of climate change showing great promise. There are some technologies, however, that raise concerns to many others for their potential negative impacts, such as geoengineering.
Beyond this, I don't think it's a lack of technological innovation that's holding us back from avoiding the climate crisis, and focusing only on technological innovation distracts us from the harder yet more important social innovation required. Technology in and of itself cannot solve any issue for us, it's humanity that gives it moral and social value. Think of a knife: in the hands of a person, it can be used to feed or to kill. In this example what would be more important, to invest in developing better knives, or to promote the values that incentivize people to feed others over killing others? Does it matter if you develop the best knives if not everyone has access to them?
His second main argument is that space exploration allows us to redirect resources (money) into science, research, and highly skilled jobs " thus advancing technology and communities in a significant way". This is a point where the discussion gets murky and we really go into the weeds. You will never get an objection from me about governments investing in science and research. Government is indeed a sausage that we sometimes don't want to know how it got made or what went into making it, but overall, if a government is transparent and democratic, there shouldn't be an issue about this. And that is one of the biggest differences I find between the first and the current space races. Right now, space exploration is being led by private companies that are escaping the accountability that governments are held to. My issue is not so much with the market or the companies. My issue is not with Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos either, but the system that allows them to amass so much fortune and power.
There is so much I want to say but in the interest of staying on topic, let me pose the following question: do you think that two individuals that have amassed more fortune than they and their descendants will ever be able to spend, will make sure that access to space exploration and its outcomes is equitable? Do you think the individual that patented the "one-click buying button" will make sure that everyone gets taken to the new Eden when we burn the Earth to the ground? Do you think they'll donate their inventions and innovations to society to ensure life on this planet?
This brings me to the point that started this whole debate. No, Jeff Bezos donating $10 billion to climate change-related organizations will not solve the problem; that is chump change for a fortune of $200 billion with a B. No, space exploration will not save us from climate change; in the current state of the world, I do believe they (the rich and powerful) will up and leave the rest of us all here to deal with the mess they got us all in. With all of this, I can't help but think of the phrase "the road to hell is paved with good intentions".
I think at this point I can boil down my position regarding "using space exploration to solve the climate crisis" to the metaphor of a parent telling their child that they can't go to play outside until they have done their homework and cleaned their room. What do you mean you'll do it afterward? You'll be tired and hungry by then, and you won't have enough time to do it.
This post was written with the consent and revision of my spouse. Don't worry, you won't be snitching on me ;)
What are your thoughts about this issue? Do you agree with me or my spouse? Let me know in the comments below!
An Impossible Astronaut? Image by Adam Miller