From Ben Craven
Richard Gott says that the future survival of the human race is a “compelling” reason for colonising other planets, but doesn’t even try to justify the assertion (8 September, p 51). Why is the continued existence of humans into the far future anything other than a neutral proposition? Barring time travel, it can’t affect anyone alive right now. If the human race dies out, there’ll be nobody around to worry about it. Granted, should natural disaster, war or disease eliminate the human race on Earth, the people involved will have a very unpleasant time of it, but knowing there’s a human population on Mars won’t make them feel any better.
No other creature operates such a species-based team spirit. Gott mentions the Copernican principle – that the Earth is not special – but appears to regard the human race as being special and as having some innate worth that we must make every effort to preserve. This is a point of view verging on the religious.
In his proposal for the infection of other planets by human life, Richard Gott ignores the potential impact on native life forms adapted to those planets. He also ignores our connection with all of life on Earth.
If Earth-based life has some unique value in the universe – an admittedly questionable position – we could potentially colonise many nearby star systems with micro-organisms of one kind or another at far less social and environmental cost than a small human colony on Mars. Who knows, some of those extremophiles might evolve into life forms as interesting as, or more interesting than, us.
Advertisement
Nevada City, California, US
Do I think humanity has a place in space? Absolutely, but not before we have finished trashing this planet. There are still expanses of the Antarctic and the Amazonian rainforest yet to be exploited.
Crymych, Pembrokeshire, UK
Menstrie, Clackmannanshire, UK
