The Impossibility of Colonizing the Galaxy

OriginalArlen writes "The science fiction writer Charlie Stross has written an excellent and comprehensive explanation of why, thousands of SF books, movies, and games notwithstanding, human colonization of other star systems is impossible. Although interstellar colonization seems common-sensical to many, Charlie makes a clear-headed and unarguable case, so far as I can see, that it ain't gonna happen without a 'magic wand' or two. Nevertheless it would be interesting to see reasoned responses from the community who believe that colonization is not merely possible, but inevitable — and even, as Hawking has said, vital for the survival of the species. So, who's right — Hawking or Stross?"

Comments

Both right?

[king-manic]

Well it may be physically impossible but also essential for our survival. Thus int he end we're really screwed.

Re:Both right?

[Original Replica]

His arguement is sound if you want to talk about space colonies in the next 50 to 100 years, but of course the advanced tech we will have in 100-150 years will look like magic from our prospective. Almost every technology we have today would get you burned for witchcraft in 1857. Automated factories, mobile phones, television, airplanes, nukes ... all the magic from a pre-industrial revolution viewpoint. Add to that the increaseing pace of progress (singularity or not) and I fully expect there will be some "magic wands" before the end of the century. And as of the times when he brings up economic reasons: What does "cost effective" matter if humanity starts to agree vicerally with Hawkins, that colonization is necessary for the susvival of the species?

Re:Both right?

[psykocrime]

Thus int he end we're really screwed.

I don't see any way that we aren't screwed anyway. Unless everything we think we know about
cosmology and physics is wrong, the Universe is going to eventually experience one of two things: Heat Death or collapsing into a Singularity. Neither of those
scenarios seems to leave much hope for the continued existence of human life.

Assuming the cosmological theories are sound; the only way to even theorize about human life continuing perpetually requires going back to "magic wands" like dimension-hopping or something.

Bottom line, IMO, is that human life has a hard-coded expiration date, and in the end we're all dead and the universe is just a cold, dead, empty wasteland.

Re:Both right?

[Firethorn]

but of course the advanced tech we will have in 100-150 years will look like magic from our prospective.

Are you sure about that? We're pretty blase about technology today compared to the eager visions of an earlier age.

Then there's the fact that finding new tricks is getting harder and harder.

Look at 1907 - The automobile, while not a standard item, was at least known. Trains were in extensive use, as were power tools. Automatic looms, various mechanical processes.

If you took an educated man from 1907 and brought him to 2007, he'd be able to understand just about everything we have except for our computational devices. They even understood a bit about nuclear energy.

What we've done is expanded our awareness and moved these items from the realm of theory to practicality.

The problem is, while we have many ideas; they get shot down left and right. I don't see a new source of energy orders of magnitude above previous ones, like what nuclear power provided. Sure, antimatter would work, but it's like non-nuclear hydrogen - it's only a storage method, not a generation method.

We're still advancing, but nowaday's it's hard, very hard.

Still, even with this, I remain optimistic - after all, we have thousands of years to reach the stars, if not millions.

Re:Both right?

[mattcasters]

I wonder if that's really true. History has many examples of scientific facts being disproven.

http://www.answers.com/topic/failed-predictions

The thing is: scientific development will continue. Just like you wouldn't be able to tell in the year 1900 I would be writing this post on a laptop with built-in multimedia capabilites, wireless communitaction and massive computing power, you can't predict what kind of funny effects you can create with space and time when given virtually unlimted amounts of energy. (from our 2007 perspective)

Re:Both right?

[JimDaGeek]

100 years is nothing on a cosmic scale. Even 1,000 years is a blink of the eye. If you brought a man from 1,000 years ago to present day, he would indeed be blown away. How about a man from 5,000 years? Or 10,000?

I don't like articles like TFA. The writer is looking at the world through a narrow straw. Where will we be technologically in 5,000 - 10,000 years?

If you go back in history far enough, man couldn't travel around the world because the Earth was flat. We now know that is not true. I am willing to bet that in 1,000 years our science of today will look as basic as the state of science from 1,000 years ago. I think man will be able to go faster than the speed of light one day. It is just that our current science doesn't understand how.

Re:Both right?

[packeteer]

Who says we have to send humans? Most likely we will send automated robots, nanobots would be even better. Sending maybe a dozen nanobots for redundancy would work just fine. When they arrive at a new system the use the carbon there to reproduce. They can terreform the planet.

A benefit to sending nano bots is that will very little energy we can send them close to the speed of light. Something that has a mass of maybe a few hundred atoms won't require huge resources to propel.

Re:Both right?

[cgenman]

If you took an educated man from 1907 and brought him to 2007, he'd be able to understand just about everything we have except for our computational devices. They even understood a bit about nuclear energy.

Which is to say that what we have today is by and large based off learning from 100 years ago. Except for Liquid Crystal displays. And programming. Data mining. Most of the advanced materials science we take for granted. The amazing science that goes into modern bad food. Instantaneous worldwide communication VIA satellite networks. Cloning. MagLev regulation. Angioplasty.

To say that we haven't made huge strides in the past 100 years is ridiculous. 100 years ago, a trip from New York to Japan would take months and be considerd a culmination of a life's work. Today it can be undertaken for a month's salary and a half-day in a plane.

The problem is, while we have many ideas; they get shot down left and right. I don't see a new source of energy orders of magnitude above previous ones, like what nuclear power provided.

Fusion? Something involving quantum or String, once that mess gets sorted out? Fission has a rough energy conversion of about one thousandth the available energy. Fusion has a current rough energy conversion of about 3 thousandths. That leaves 99.9% of the available energy on the table, if we can figure out how to unlock it.

The edge of physics is still raw, and still amazing. Unfortunately, it is a bit difficult to describe to the average person these days... I've visited the laboratory of a Professor friend of mine, and never cease to be amazed by how difficult it is to describe even low-energy waveform interactions without delving into either highly forced metaphors or obscure mathematical modeling.

We're still advancing, but nowaday's it's hard, very hard.

It has always been hard. We've been working on Quantum computing for something like 20 years now, but we were working on regular digital computing for longer than that before it was useful... and we understood electricity pretty well by then.

Cars took a while, then planes took a while, now we're seeing a nanoscent space travel industry opening up.

If you were in a small village in Greece where you had to walk everywhere by foot, the next village over would be a long way away. The village four villages over would be a tremendous distance. A whole country over would be a gigantic distance, and going to France, for example, would be way out of your league. Traveling to eastern Asia, the Americas, or Australia would look like a pipe dream.

Well, we've got a long time to get there. And we've got a lot of little steps on the road to galactic civilization, including permanent space stations, profitable manufacturing, colonization of nearby planets, colonization of planets further our in the solar system, etc. 100 years to galactic expansion is ridiculous... after 100 years, we'd be lucky if we've got a buzzing little colony on the moon, let alone Mars or other solar systems.

--

Re:Both right?

[Deadplant]

I'm not sure i agree with you about the technological wonders of 2007.

Look at 1907 - The automobile, while not a standard item, was at least known. Trains were in extensive use, as were power tools. Automatic looms, various mechanical processes. So in 100 years we advanced from basic forms of mechanical locomotion with speeds of maybe 40kph (i'm totally guessing) and ranges in the hundreds of kilometers to vessels with interplanetary range and speeds in excess of 60,000kph (Voyageur 1).
The Aussies recently tested their new scramjet engine in our atmosphere at mach 10.
Also, 180kph automobiles with 400+km ranges are available to teenagers.

If you took an educated man from 1907 and brought him to 2007, he'd be able to understand just about everything we have except for our computational devices. They even understood a bit about nuclear energy. They (a few people) understood a bit about nuclear energy. Now we have the power the literally obliterate the entire habitable surface area of the planet. We have ships the size of small towns that can run for 25 years without refueling while putting out more electricity every day than all of civilization had done up until 1907.

Then there is the whole computerization thing... that is kinda a hard one to dismiss.
The advances in Information Technology are probably THE most significant advance during that century.

Then there is the revolution in biotech.
This one is arguably more significant than computerization.
We have gone from categorizing life forms by their colours and shapes to a basic understanding of DNA and proteins and for the first time beginning to understand what life IS and to control/create it.
We now have a basic understanding of the mechanics of biological systems. When this progresses to 'a mastery' of the mechanics of biological systems we will have what could easily be described as god-like powers to design and create life.

What else.... um, how about all the cyborgs walking around these days?
Sure, an open-minded person in 1907 could conceive of an artificial heart or lung but we've got 'em and we can fit you with one if your heart stops working. (sometimes)
Of course we can also make your boobs bigger or your penis harder... You can even have someone else carry your baby to term if there is a problem with your uterus.

What else... um, the majority of people in the western world can sit down at their desk on whim and look down on any part of the planet from space.

Actually physically leaving the planet is a vacation option for the rich. (this one would have to blow the mind of a 1907'er)

I think we're blase not because our advances are meager but because our advances have been so frequent and mind-blowing that we've come to expect new tech that is twice as good as the old tech every few years.

Re:Both right?

[lhbtubajon]

My personal opinion is we need to concentrate on having LESS people in the Universe rather than spreading out. This goes against every biological imperative ever experienced by any life form on earth. And for good reason. The way species improve themselves is to expand until they fill their available space to the limit, and beyond, of sustainability. Once that is reached, a die-off culls the weak and strengthens the remaining gene pool for further adaptation and expansion. This is species survival, and humans are just as good at it as any other life form. Once we fill this planet to the breaking point (which we will), we'll either die off, improving the "herd", or we'll send parts of us away to seed nearby star systems. Death, life, freedom, poverty, and exploration are all the reasons we need, just like our forefathers who struck out across oceans to find new land for colonization. I'm afraid this notion of "fewer humans on earth" is fundamentally nonsense. Biology demands that we expand and multiply, or die trying.

eh, thats just silly

[Anonymous Coward]

You are comparing some sci fi writer with Hawking? C'mon.

Re:No shit

[Anonymous Coward]

It never ceases to amaze me at the perpetual and unwavering defeatist attitude expressed by people during every generation.

It is mere physics obstacles that need to be overcome, that includes dimensional hopping or more likely controlled black-holes or worm holes, to colonize the galaxy.

We will overcome the hurdles eventually, including the radiation, the vital resources, and spacial 'deserts'.

To even say it is impossible or requires a 'magic wand' is absurd.

author needs to revistit history and the countless times that silly notion was postured.

Clarke's first law

[Zarhan]

When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.

Generation ships. Suspended animation. Bussard Ramjets.

Baby steps throughout Kuiper Belt and Oort Cloud.

Incredibly short-sighted

[HEbGb]

This article is incredibly short-sighted and unreasonably pessimistic. He's using current technology, economics, and incentive to make specific conclusions about something that will most likely happen in the next few hundred years. Just consider how much science and technology has changed in the last 100 years - can you possibly imagine what will be possible 100 years from now, much less draw conclusions about feasibility?

I think that technology's march is not only inevitable, but accelerating. To outright dismiss these possibilities is completely unreasonable and irrational.

Re:Impossible...?

[dreamchaser]

Currently laughable != Impossible

My money is on Hawking.

common sense is not reality

[Anonymous Coward]

We can't colonize other planets now. However, given his fondness for analogies....

If you collapsed the whole of human history down to a single day, we were wandering hunter-gatherers for 11 hours and 56 minutes. Only in the final four minutes before midnight have we been farming for a living, and in those four minutes our scientific knowledge (and achievements) have increased exponentially.

In the last four minutes we went from spears and loincloths to long range missiles and synthetic fabrics. We are now the only species on the planet that can survive organ transplants, travel at hundreds of miles per hour, walk on the moon, and communicate instantly from opposite sides of the planet. All of this we gained in the last four minutes of our first day of existence as humans.

The kind of scientific momentum we have going right now is mind-boggling. Things that our ancestors couldn't even imagine are now common reality. Imagine what kinds of "magic wands" our scientists will make for us tomorrow.

I am not saying that interstellar colonization will be possible, I am just saying that a quick review of the history of science robs us of any grounds upon which to form an opinion of "it will never be possible."

Re:common sense is not reality

[FLAGGR]

Of course it seems slower to you. It's a pretty quick job to read a history book, at least faster than waiting for more history to happen.

Magic?

[Barkmullz]

that it ain't gonna happen without a 'magic wand' or two

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

- Arthur C. Clarke
'nuff said.

Define "the species"

[Colin Smith]

Cos just over the last 10,000 years we've evolved to be able to metabolise cow milk, over the last 100,000 or so we've evolved white skins in cool regions to improve production of vitamin D, our limbs have shortened in proportion to the rest of the body and become more muscular to aid with heat retention etc etc etc etc etc.

And that's all in the blink of an eye... On interstellar and galactic timescales... You're going to have to tell me what a human being is.

1800's logic though that travelling100MPH=death

[spineboy]

But we now know that it's not true. There is a class G star (like our own Suns class) only 5 light years away - a mere 50 years traveling at 10% C (it'll take about 34 days accelerating at a constant 1 G to reach 10% C).

There are 50 star systems (66 stars because of several binary systems) within 16 light years of earth. 50 of these stars are M class or red in color - about 80% of these are red dwarfs - probably not a great place to look for habitable planets.

It should be a fairly attainable goal to send out 20 ships to the 10 most likely close habitable stars, and expect to see a result in 60 or so years (50 years travelling + 10 years for radio message to be sent back)

Re:No shit

[Lemmy Caution]

I considered this when I chose the example. Alchemy included a lot of wasted effort. It 'became' chemistry as a kind of by-product. A lot of wasteful research generates useful by-products of knowledge, and I suspect that if we devoted a massive percentage of our resources and effort to a failed attempt to colonize another system, we would probably still get some useful inventions and discoveries on the side. It probably wouldn't be the best use of our resources.

The author is a science fiction writer. Many people ascribe their choices of careers and fields of research to the science fiction they've read. The result of his essay may be this: someone is discouraged from a career in space exploration, and instead chooses one in nanotechnology or the bio-sciences, which could offer significant benefits now and later. The cost of not have a certain amount of naysaying would have been a huge opportunity cost: instead, this skepticism gives us a bright mind directed toward more promising lines of research. I don't think that's a bad thing.

Man from 1907

[tomhudson]

"If you took an educated man from 1907 and brought him to 2007, he'd be able to understand just about everything we have except for our computational devices. They even understood a bit about nuclear energy. "

He'd freak out. Too much social change along with technological change.

Flat-screen TVs. Gay, lesbian and transsexual rights. Cell phones (with mp3 and video), even for kids. A speed limit of over 30 mph!!! Airplanes that can fly faster than the speed of sound, faster than a speeding bullet. Permanent press fabrics. Microwave cooking. Fast food. Tofu. Sushi. Light beer.

Genetic screening. Debit cards. Credit cards. Routine heart transplants. Smoking banned in most places. Abortion on demand. "God is dead." Televangelists. No-fault divorce. Divorce on demand. Mickey Rooney and Liz Taylor (8 marriages each). Britney Spears and pop-tarts in general.

Photocopiers. Samizdat. Color printers. Glossy advertising printed so cheaply that it is literally thrown out. Remote controls of all sorts. VCR. DVD. USB fobs with the space for 1000 copies of The Bible. The Rolling Stones, The Beatles, David Bowie.

Playboy centerfolds. Hustler. Downloadable porn. AIDS. China being the biggest exporter of consumer goods. "Average" houses worth 250,000 to 1 million. Tanning booths.

No spitting on the sidewalk. Poop and scoop. Deodorants. Ballpoint pens. Nylons. Artificial fabrics of all types. Polyester (okay - NOBODY understands polyester). Rap music. Parking restrictions. Jaywalking being illegal. State lotteries.

T Shirts. Jeans, capri pants and slacks for women. "Casual business attire." Disposable watches, calculators. The near-death of pencils and erasors. Surgery as fashion statement. Michael Jackson. Boy George. Madonna.

"You can't hit your wife." "You can't hit your kid." "You can't beat your animals." "You can't threaten someone." You CAN burn the flag. You CAN call the President an idiot to an audience - and you'll even get laughs.

Black and latino movie stars being the big box office draws, and a black woman - Oprah - being the #1 entertainer. "The Joy of Sex" This guy. Try explaining him to anyone in 2007 ...

He'd think either the world went crazy, or he did.

Re:Man from 1907

[lawpoop]

I think he would freak out, simply because it's too much change in a short time. But I don't know if it would be too much different than an average culture shock of some villager walking into the big capital city 1,000 years ago. But a lot of what you list, from new technologies to various cultures practices, have been found all throughout history. Here's just a few:

Gay, lesbian and transsexual rights.

Various cultures have had gay rights, or even elevated positions for gays or transgendered persons. Examples: Ancient Greeks, Sacred Hermaphrodites and transgendereds in Hindusism, Berdache shamans in Apache culture.

Smoking banned in most places.

Smoking was considered unhealhy, devilish, and lower-class stuff when tabacco first found it's way into Europe. It was also considered a medicine and health promoter in certain circles.

and Abortion on demand

Abortion and infanticide has long been practices in tribal societies and non-Monotheistic, Godess-worshipping cultures.

"God is dead."

Hereticism and atheism is nothing new. Greeks.

No-fault divorce. Divorce on demand

Practiced in various tribes and in Muslim countries, and places where men and women had more equal rights.

Photocopiers. Samizdat. Color printers.

Rapid printing presses.

Glossy advertising printed so cheaply that it is literally thrown out.

Colorful decorations that were thrown out and flowers that wilted for days-long religious ceremonies are old practices.

The Rolling Stones, The Beatles, David Bowie.

Music is nothing new. Other people's music is always weird.

Playboy centerfolds. Hustler. Downloadable porn.

Porn? As old as the cavemen. How about being suprised by the lack of whorehouses and streetwalkers?

AIDS.

In the olden says, you would find people with open sores dying in the streets. Obivious, disgusting disease was everywhere. AIDS is a relative benign fatal affliction. One of the diseases from the 1800s, I forget which one, would cause a seemingly healthy man to collapse in the street, dead a few hours later.

"Average" houses worth 250,000 to 1 million.

Mansions and palaces are nothing new. He would be surprised by our amount of wealth.

No spitting on the sidewalk.

A function of wealth and our sewer/plumbing system. Plumbing and sewers go back to the oldest cities.

Artificial fabrics of all types.

On the surface, not distinguishable from an unfamiliar natural fabric.

Rap music.

White people have been freak out by blacks with drums (i.e. African culture) for a long time.

State lotteries.

Gambling and games of chance, even state-sponsored - Very old.

T Shirts. Jeans, capri pants and slacks for women.

Other people always dress weird. Indians in the jungle are running around naked! Women have their breasts exposed!

"You can't hit your wife." "You can't hit your kid." "You can't beat your animals."

This is pretty new. But you find a lot of non-violent, pacifist religions all throught history and the world. Case in point - Judaism (don't abuse your domestic animals, slaughter them humanely), Early Christianity, Buddhism and Jainism.

"You can't threaten someone."

BIG offense in oral cultures. Likely a capital crime.

You CAN burn the flag.

Political protest is nothing new. Greek rulers worried about it all the time.

You CAN call the President an idiot to an audience - and you'll even get laughs.

Who doesn't make fun of their boss or political leader? The only place you couldn't do this was in facist, tightly controlled Kingdoms. Ever heard of the court Jester? It was more a problem for upper-class ind

Science is descriptive, not normative.

[Estanislao Mart�nez]

This goes against every biological imperative ever experienced by any life form on earth.

Science is descriptive, not normative. However convenient it may be to picture whatever biological facts as an "imperative," you still can't derive an ought from an is.

The way species improve themselves is to expand until they fill their available space to the limit, and beyond, of sustainability. Once that is reached, a die-off culls the weak and strengthens the remaining gene pool for further adaptation and expansion.

Oh my god. Where do I start?

1. Natural selection does not "improve" species in any evaluative sense, only in a trivial, tautological sense that the types that reproduced more successfully will tend to be more frequent in the succeeding generation. If you think these organisms are "better," you are guilty of overlaying a value judgement on a valueless matter.
2. The "weak" can only be identified in retrospect; they turned out not to be adapted for those circumstances, but they could in principle have been adapted to others. But by the same token, natural selection does not "strenghten the remaining gene pool," because there is no guarantee that yesterday's adaptations will actually help in tomorrow's environment.
3. In fact, too much of a purging of genetic diversity, by excessive disappearance of "weak" genes, may weaken the species' chances of survival in the case of a change of environment.

Once we fill this planet to the breaking point (which we will), we'll either die off, improving the "herd", or we'll send parts of us away to seed nearby star systems. Death, life, freedom, poverty, and exploration are all the reasons we need, just like our forefathers who struck out across oceans to find new land for colonization. I'm afraid this notion of "fewer humans on earth" is fundamentally nonsense. Biology demands that we expand and multiply, or die trying.

No, biology does not demand anything, you silly. Stop wishfully thinking that science justifies your sick cosmological fantasies, and engage biology seriously if you do so. (And for that matter, engage seriously the actual history of European colonialism, that you're glorifying there.)

Re:Science is descriptive, not normative.

[inviolet]

Science is descriptive, not normative. However convenient it may be to picture whatever biological facts as an "imperative," you still can't derive an ought from an is.

A self-replicating assembly like DNA is an end-in-itself. Its 'ought' is inseparable form its 'is', in that it exists in order to exist.

It grows a human in order to accomplish this end, and that makes things more complicated, but from the point of view of the DNA, the imperative is inherent in its structure.

Meanwhile the human can also strongly marry 'is' to 'ought' by realizing that the choice of life versus non-life is not a choice at all, because non-life isn't. As long as life on a human level is practicable, it is also imperative, because non-life is not a thing that can be compared to it.

"The Impossibility of Colonizing the Galaxy"

[tibike77]

Well, for starters, the title is hardly correct.
It shouldn't say "The Impossibility of Colonizing the Galaxy", it shoud actually say "The Economic Unfeasability of Colonizing the Galaxy, and the added Sociological Difficulties in Colonizing our Solarsystem".
That being said, I rest my case, because, well, I just said everything that needed to be said.