If humanity remains a single planet species, our extinction is all but assured as there are so many ways the world could end. The mundane self-inflicted apocalypses include war and environmental devastation. There are also more exotic dooms suitable for speculative science fiction, such as the robot apocalypse or a bioengineered plague. And, of course, there is the classic big rock from space scenario. While we will certainly bring our problems with us into space, getting off world would dramatically increase our chances of survival as a species.
While species do endeavor to survive, there is the moral question of whether we should do so. While I can easily imagine humanity reaching a state where it would be best if we did not continue, I think that our existence generates more positive value than negative value, thus providing the foundation for a utilitarian argument for our continued existence and endeavors to survive. This approach can also be countered on utilitarian grounds by contending that the evil we do outweighs the good, thus showing that the universe would be morally better without us. But, for the sake of the discussion that follows, I will assume that we should (or at least will) endeavor to survive.
Since getting off world is an excellent way of improving our survival odds, it is ironic that we are not suited for survival in space and on other worlds such as Mars. Obviously enough, exposure to the void would prove fatal very quickly; but even with technological protection our species copes poorly with the challenges of space travel.
While there are many challenges, there are some of special concern. These include the danger presented by radiation, the impact of living in gravity different from earth, the resource challenge, and the travel time problem. Any and all of these can be fatal and must be addressed if humanity is to expand beyond earth.
Our current approach is to use our technology to recreate our home environment. For example, our manned space vessels are designed to provide some radiation shielding, they are filled with air and are stocked with food and water. One advantage of this approach is that it does not require any modification to humans; we simply recreate our home in space or on another planet. There are, of course, many problems with this approach.
One is that our technology is still very limited and cannot properly address many challenges. For example, while artificial gravity is standard in science fiction, we now use mostly ineffective means of addressing the gravity problem. As another example, while we know how to block radiation, there is the challenge of being able to do this effectively on the journey from earth to Mars.
A second problem is that recreating our home environment can be difficult and costly. But it can be worth the cost to allow unmodified humans to survive in space or on other worlds. This approach points towards a Star Trek style future: normal humans operating within a bubble of technology. There are, however, alternatives.
Another approach is also based in technology but aims at either modifying humans or replacing them entirely. There are two main paths here. One is that of machine technology in which humans are augmented to endure the conditions of space and other worlds. The scanners of Cordwainer Smith’s “Scanners Live in Vain” are one example of this. They are modified to survive while operating interstellar vessels. Another example is Man Plus, Frederik Pohl’s novel about a human transformed into a cyborg to survive on Mars. The ultimate end of this path is the complete replacement of humans by intelligent machines, machines designed to match their environments and free of human vulnerabilities and short life spans.
The other is the path of biological technology. On this path, humans are modified biologically to better cope with non-earth environments. These modifications would presumably start modestly, such as genetic modifications to make humans more resistant to radiation and better adapted to lower gravity. As science progressed, the modifications could become more radical, with complete re-engineering of humans to make them ideally match their new environments. This path, unnaturally enough, could lead to the replacement of humans with new species.
These approaches do have advantages. While there would be an initial cost in modifying humans to better fit their new environments, the better the adaptations, the less need there would be to recreate earth-like conditions. This could result in considerable cost-savings and there is also the fact that the efficiency and comfort of the modified humans would be greater the better they matched their new environments. There are, however, the usual ethical concerns about such modifications.
Replacing homo sapiens with intelligent machines or customized organisms would also have a high initial startup cost, but these beings would be more effective than humans in the new environments. For example, an intelligent machine would be more resistant to radiation, could sustain itself with solar power, and could be effectively immortal as long as it is repaired. Such a being would be ideal to crew (or be) a deep space mission vessel. As another example, custom-created organisms or fully converted humans could ideally match an environment, living and working in radical conditions as easily as standard humans work on earth. Clifford D. Simak’s “Desertion” discusses such an approach; albeit one that has unexpected results on Jupiter.
In addition to the usual moral concerns about such things, there is also the concern that such creations would not preserve humans. On the one hand, it is obvious that such beings would not be homo sapiens. If the entire species was converted or gradually phased out in favor of the new beings, that would be the end of the species, the biological human race would be no more and the voice of humanity would fall silent. On the other hand, it could be argued that the transition could suffice to preserve the identity of the species. A way to argue this would be to re-purpose the arguments used to argue for the persistence of personal identity across time. It could also be argued that while the biological species homo sapiens could cease to be, the identity of humanity is not set by biology but by things such as values and culture. As such, if our replacements retained the relevant connection to human culture and values (they sing human songs and remember the old, old places where once we walked), they would still be human, although not homo sapiens.
In another blog today, generative AI was discussed, towards the mapping of Bob Dylan’s mind, over six decades of creative life. I read it, out of curiosity but was left unfulfilled. Granted, I am non-plussed regarding AI in the first place, but to use any sort of inferential analysis to assess creative genius seems lame to me. Dylan’s wit and humor are uniquely his own, in my opinion, and AI lacks those attributes. My neighborhood white palace adopted an AI order taker, which is consistently unhelpful. Today, it argued with me when I asked for extra pickle on the company’s legendary sandwiches, saying, in brief, I could not have that.
I dismissed the advisory, drove up to the take out window, and got what I wanted. The AI order taker is not sufficiently adaptable or up to the job. People wanting fast food, habitually drove past me while I waited for mine, after bypassing the machine. The take-out joint has been popular for decades. But recent reliance on a deficient AI order system is hurting their business. I don’t panic: panic, like apology, is a sign of weakness–the apology piece, a mainstay of my ex-military buddies. I ought to eat better, but grocery shopping and preparing food for myself is a double chore, not counting clean-up. So, I eat fast food, even when I have to fight for it. Keeps me sharp, grounded and keenly aware of where I am. And, when.
The engineering(s) suggested are both laudable and speculative. They may also embody doubt and uncertainty—placing them in the family of PHILOSOPHY.
Some may get that comparison; others would say I am full of baloney or comparing apples to oranges. In a very broad sense, It can be held that planet Earth is in perpetual decay, while she at once retains regenerative powers. We are not helping her, ergo, we are not helping ourselves. Climate change, once upon a time, was not the concern it has now become. I have railed against excess, exaggeration and extremism. It is not just about our hedonism and wastefulness, The bottom line is how much of those frivolities can ma Earth take before we destroy her—and ourselves? We can philosophize all we want. Much of that IS speculation. Engineering and science demand actions and outcomes that make differences, beneficial towards our survival. I am not sure engineering human resilience is as useful as some believe it to be. But, I’m neither engineer nor scientist. My grasp of math was never good enough.