Capitalist production is key to sustaining space col – that’s solves every existential threat

Existential risks are risks that might lead to the extinction of humankind[1]. Natural existential risks (such as asteroids that might crash into Earth) are basically constant. The risks of a giant asteroid crashing into Earth today is the same as it was 500 years ago. Anthropogenic, man-made existential risks, on the other hand, are growing in number and severity. They are a side-effect of technological progress: The more we develop technologically, the greater man-made existential risks become. Nuclear weapons, to name only one example, are a direct consequence of scientific and technological progress. There are different approaches to existential risk mitigation. One approach is to develop targeted strategies for specific existential risks. If we want to reduce the existential risk posed by nuclear weapons, then we can and should develop specific strategies for that risk. Another approach is to develop and pursue what can be called meta-strategies that target all existential risks at once. One of most effective meta-strategies for tackling existential risks in general is space colonization: If we manage to establish permanent and self-sustainable human habitats beyond Earth, then our proverbial existential eggs are not all in one basket anymore. For example, if disaster strikes on Earth, but there are billions of humans living on Venus and Mars, humankind would continue to exist even with Earth-humans gone. Because of existential risks, a long-term future in which humankind still exists almost certainly has to be a future in which humankind has succeeded in colonizing space. Today, even though we regularly venture into space, we do not yet have space colonization capabilities. There are a number of technological challenges that we need to overcome in order to become capable of space colonization. One of those challenges is energy. There are several reasons why. First, if we establish permanent and self-sustaining habitats beyond Earth, those habitats will have to power themselves somehow. Even if our goal is to establish only one small colony on Mars that consists of no more than 10’000 people, that colony will have to have a reliable supply of energy at its disposal. Second, habitats beyond Earth will almost certainly be less hospitable than Earth in the early stages of space colonization. There is no planet or moon in the vicinity of our Solar system that is as pleasant as Earth. For example, we can easily survive a couple of days without electricity on Earth. In a colony on Mars, on the other hand, a couple of days without electricity would almost certainly mean swift and, for those affected, horrific death, because Mars is much colder than Earth and contains no breathable air in its atmosphere. In other words: The energy requirements for sustaining one human life are likely to be much greater beyond Earth than they are on Earth. Third, energy sources will also play a role for transit in space. Space colonization means that (many) more humans than today will be voyaging through space. In order to make long-term space voyage possible, we will need to have adequate energy sources available on board, both for the purpose of life support as well as for propulsion. 1.2 Criteria for colonization-conducive energy sources If future energy sources are an important part of space colonization capabilities, what kind of energy sources do we need? Obviously (and unfortunately), we do not know with certainty today what energy sources might be available in the future. But we can specify a set of criteria that future energy sources have to meet as much as possible in order to help achieve the goal of space colonization. There are at least five such criteria: 1. Portability. Future energy sources must be as portable as possible so that they can be used in as many circumstances as possible. For example, a hydroelectric power plant has very low portability. A spaceship could never be powered by a hydroelectric power plant. 2. Availability. The energy sources have to be readily available, both in a geographical and a temporal scope. If, for example, some new form of fuel was very hard to obtain, then that fuel would represent a source of energy with very low availability; almost no one could use it. 3. Sustainability. The energy sources should not be finite and easily depletable, but ideally abundantly available and practically unlimited (or “renewable”). For example, crude oil is not sustainable, because its quantity is limited to the steadily depleting reserves on Earth. 4. Energy Density. Per unit of mass, future energy sources should oer as much energy as possible. For example, a kilogram of wood provides less energy than a kilogram of crude oil. Technically speaking, this criterion is not energy density but specific energy; energy density refers to energy per unit of volume. I use the term “energy density” for the sake of simplicity. In cases where energy density (or specific energy) is not really applicable because to fuel in the traditional sense is used, we can approximate energy density by looking at power density (e.g., wind), the energy output per unit of surface area. 5. Acceptable levels of risk. Future sources of energy should create as few and as small risks as possible. Through the lens of these criteria, we can take a look at existing sources of energy and at potential future sources of energy and assess whether and to what degree they are “future-proof”. The better an energy source meets the five criteria outlined above, the more “future proof” it is, in the sense of having high utility for sustaining human habitats beyond Earth.