[grid-school] [TDF-2005-01] Earth is not sick: She is .pregnant!
adriano.autino at tdf.it
Fri Jan 7 08:59:51 CST 2005
Newsletter TDF 1/2005 - http://www.tdf.it/
this newsletter has never respected any deadline of any nature. I have always
given absolute priority to have something relevant to communicate, never
surrendering to self-serving celebrations. Nor would I have made an exception
this time, and I would have waited, maybe for one month, for all the articles of
the new number of TDF to be ready.
But the events of December 26th 2004, which occurred in Southern Asia, have
decided otherwise. I thought that the new-humanist point of view can be of some
help, in the assessment of such facts and, above all, in the formulation of new
visions of the world and new strategies, more suitable to this age. Therefore
here I am, trying to put in a logical order the jumble of thoughts lifted by the
Seaquake of Sumatra and by the consequent Tsunami that struck all the countries
faced on the Oriental Indian Ocean.
First of all I want to express my friendship, proximity and solidarity to all
the populations struck by the disaster, and particularly to whoever (both
residents and tourists) has lost dear people in the disaster.
In many quarters it was described as an epoch-making event, unprecedented, that
strikes straight at the concept of humanity as a whole. We listened to
considerations on the stinginess of Western aid, and on different ideological
oppositions: prevention vs. business, ethical tourism vs. wasteful tourism,
ecologism vs. consumerism, charity vs. aids for development. I also listened to
criticisms of militarism that concentrates huge resources on destructive
strategies, rather than on the protection of human lives and activities. And
somebody called for a philosophy of values, able to supercede the cold economism
of a politics that celebrated, early, the funeral of all the ideologies. For
once, in what I read and heard on the media, it seems that science and
technology were not targetted by the comments of opinion-makers and politicians.
This is due, without any doubt, to the resurgence of the blind strength of
Nature with all the brutal ferocity of an adversary: only our myopic haughtiness
was able to make us believe that such an enemy was defeated and worthy of our
condescending pity. I have heard someone quoting Japan, and partly also the
emergent China, as virtuous examples of research and application of anti-seismic
technologies and systems, able to concretely protect lives and buildings, in one
of the most seismic areas of the planet.
I just want to mention, at glance, the ideological sterility of the ones which
oppose the concept of prevention to the one of business: we can make business by
the prevention, the safety and the reliability of the systems and the
structures, as it was shown in Japan and other virtuous areas. If the business'
objective is the protection and safety of human life, why should we demonise
business? The (ethical) problem is how to extend such business (and other ones)
and its benefits to poor areas. The (technological) problem is how to bring
business out of the boundaries of our mother planet, creating safe artificial
ecosystems, for us and for the humans to come. We need the business method, to
work and to survive: it is still the only available exchange tool, that can be
used (as all the tools of our culture), both in an ethical and in a non-ethical
way. Last century saw various attempts of overcoming the market as
socio-economic paradigm. All of those tries ended badly, and however they're not
re-proposable in the modern post-industrial society. From those attempts,
however, something we should have learned. As Nobel Amartya Sen told in an
interview some years ago, the abolition of the market is a fanciful and
self-defeating objective. A worth objective is, instead, the abolition of
commercial barriers and monopolies, which still prevent the poors and the
outcasts from entering the market and undertaking. To free the market,
therefore, and to free the business: options that almost coincide 1:1 with the
demand of an objective and free information, free from any affairs and
patronages, be they of bureaucratic or monopolistic nature.
Undoubtedly natural disasters, in comparison to those provoked by man (typically
wars), are much more worrisome, especially when they move the rotation axle of
the planet, and they cancel in a few hours whole populations - something that
even the mind of the worst tyrant ever existed could never conceive. We shall
appeal to a science-fiction tyrant: Dart Vader, with his Death Star, the
absolute weapon, endowed with a laser gun able to break a planet and to disperse
it in minuscule pieces through the space. I believe therefore that the ones
which spoke about epoch-making event are right. This event brings us to reason
about the condition of extreme brittleness of us Humans, inhabitants the surface
of a small planet in the midst of the Void.
I think that, during these days, many Earthlings formulated such a thought.
There are, obviously, many different ways to react, according to the different
metaphysics, nihilist on an extreme of the range, humanist on the other head.
The discussion about prevention makes me, humanist, well to hope, provided that
it won't quickly exhaust, just after the clamour will be appeased. The danger,
induced by apparently incontestable events of such course, it is that after
clamour depression will follow, sister and mother of the nihilism: there's
nothing to do, if the future of our planet foresees an intensification of crust
fractures, we cannot do anything else than to resign to the end of our
civilization. I can foresee even the emerging of movements supporters of a
suppository "justice" (natural or divine: up to your taste) that, as in the
biblical event of the Babel Tower, sweep away or at least confuses our kind,
seen as an avid and arrogant parasite, deserving a similar destiny.
Personally, I immediately want to put myself decidedly in opposition, to any
position expressly or implicitly contrary to the defence of my kind and of the
Civilization. I prefer to run the risk even to appear a bit disrespectful,
toward the people died in the disaster, and at such extent I re-confirm my deep
respect for all the victims of the cataclysm. As a new humanist, I maintain that
it is our duty to save each life and its descent, because their work and/or
their ideas could be precious to solve some of the problems we have to face. But
I want immediately to propose a key of interpretation, perhaps not less
worrisome, nevertheless set up to the hope and the good will, against any idea
of renouncement and/or abandonment to the natural or divine fate. It will be
maybe worth to remember that, also in the Jesus Christ's words, he encouraged
"men of good will": such words didn't certainly suggest to abandon ourselves in
the hands of Nature and its presumed moralizing actions.
To any religion of Death, whatever the aberrant metaphysics that inspired it -
militarism, religions of the sacrifice, of the punishment or of the revenge,
ecozism, rests of coercive collectivist ideologies by now superseded by
history - we have to oppose a religion of Life, i.e. the union of men and women
of good will, not resigned to the end of the only intelligent species of the
known universe. In order to share and to support such religion, it is not
required to believe in a Superior Entity, but obviously each one shall remain
free, if he/she wants, to iconise his/her own faith in Gods or Goddesses
symbolizing life, love, the continuation of our civilization, the liberty, the
search of an higher ethics in our human relationships. And, why not, a more
gentle relationship with the rest of nature. It doesn't mean to renounce to
fight with nature for our survival, to eat other species (animal and vegetal),
and neither to be gentle because we are afraid of its revenge: we want to be
gentle because we are human, we are intelligent, and we are (ethically) superior
to the ferocious nature's laws.
The secular ones, and all, obviously should constantly remember and to carry on
the work of the figures of the past, men and women, great and small ones, famous
and unknown ones, believers, ateists and agnostics, which believed in the future
of our kind, and contributed to the cultural progress of our Civilization.
It should spontaneously be born (but it isn't, because our culture lead us not
to see things that are evident in front of our nose since centuries) a
consideration: as soon as we will establish self-maintaining colonies at least
on another celestial body, as soon we will halve the possibilities of extinction
of our kind. Please also see, on this topic, my "Answer to James Van Allen on
Astronautics" (http://www.tdf.it/cgi-bin/dcforum/DCForumID2/487.html), in which
I discussed exactly such aspects.
But I recently found, on the web, a wonderful metaphor, proposed by an American
philosopher: David Buth. What is really amazing, is that a couple of years ago I
formulated the same identical metaphor.
Earth is not sick: She's pregnant!
Two years ago I proposed a document to the yearly congress of the International
Astronautic Federation, whose title was: "Lady Earth, would you like to have a
baby?" (http://www.tdf.it/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcforumid13/13.html). The document
discussed this concept indeed: a Baby Solar Civilization, given to the light by
our Mother Earth, impregnated by the technological and cultural progress of
human kind. In the paper, and in a book of mine not yet published, I discussed
the role of the pressure in the process of pregnancy. The pressure grows up, and
it's a dangerous process, that can bring to a disastrous abortion, and to the
death of both baby and mother. However the pressure is useful, and inevitable,
if we wanted that a pleased event followed to pregnancy. David Buth introduces
some considerations of great relevance, speaking about the awareness of the
pregnancy, and about the need of assistance.
Similar comments we can also find in a 2003 article of mine: "Why not to hope
(and work) for a miracle??"
(http://www.tdf.it/cgi-bin/dcforum/DCForumID2/369.html): Lady Terrestrial
Civilization is pregnant, and it will give birth to a little baby Solar
Civilization, but nobody takes care of such pregnancy, so we risk the abortion
and the shutdown of the process. As in a pregnancy (or in a boiler) the pressure
is growing up (number of individuals, increasing in a closed system). If we keep
on not recognizing this critical process, and we don't start to assist it and to
check it (opening at least a valve, to start modulating it), the boiler will
explode or (in the opposite case) we will get the shutdown of the pressure with
the abortion of the process. Today we could also say that such valve exists, and
it appeared in 2004, year for so many reasons disastrous, that however also saw
some events of enormous positive course. The "valve" is called SpaceShipOne, and
opened the hope for a low cost access to space, finally affordable to private
entrepreneurs of good will!
David Buth compares the pregnant biosphere to the hypothesis of Gaia, proposed
by Dr. Lovelock. I owe to confess that the Gaia's hypothesis never attracted me
too much, until now, since it was mainly used by the nihilistic thought.
Obviously nothing prevents us to take out, from any theory, any conceptually
positive items it might contain. Since in our globalised political strategies
the space colonization is still (absurdly) considered less than an option among
so many - a matter of speculation for a bit fanatical researchers - our
biosphere is exactly in the conditions of a pregnant woman that isn't aware
about her pregnancy, and even doesn't know that children can exist.
Buth says: a pregnant woman experiments an unsustainable growth in her abdomen,
in her own reproductive organs. Just imagine how much such process would be
appalling, if She didn't know the pregnancy. Likewise, Earth is experimenting an
unsustainable growth of the human population - that, in our metaphor, is the
Mother Earth's reproductive system. A pregnant woman bears changes in the
chemistry of her body. Likewise, the biosphere is suffering climatic and
chemical changes, of air and water, because of the pollution induced by human
The pregnancy and the birth, before the advent of the modern medicine, could be
very dangerous for the woman. The death of the mother or the child was rather
common. Likewise, the nuclear weapons, the pollution, and the resources
problems, threaten the civilization (although the biosphere has survived to very
worse conditions). A conscientious lady treats her own body with greater care
during the pregnancy - eating well, sleeping a lot, avoiding smoke and alcohol,
and she submits herself to an appropriate medical monitoring. The implications
for Lady Earth are obvious, considering that doctors or experienced midwives
In our Mother Earth's metaphor, the task of humanity is obvious. We are here to
help Mother Earth to give birth. We are the reproductive apparatus, and part of
us is the fetus, that is growing. The dinosaurs failed, after a long period of
success, because a comet or an asteroid, seems, struck the Earth and swept them
away. Subsequently a kind able to fly in the space is evolved - and that is able
to avoid the same destiny, expanding itself out of Earth. The expansion of the
life environment of a kind is a rather frequent and well-succeeded survival
strategy. The expansion in the solar system and, subsequently, in the galaxy,
should assure a substantial and immense capital of survival to our kind.
I have wanted to put my matters together with those proposed by David Buth, not
out of foolish boasting, but to underline their complementarity, and above all
because it seems to me extraordinary that the same metaphor came to mind of two
people, living thousands of kilometres of distance, and they never came in
contact before! I also do want to read such fact as a kind of sign of the
destiny (our history saw other miracles, and we could say that our kind reached
up to here thanks to a long series of miracles; therefore why not to give a
value to unequivocally positive signs?), or however as a proof of the great
value of this metaphor, turned to the future and to the hope of survival for our
kind and our Civilization! Close to the grief for the victims, together with
doing our best to help the people struck by the break-up of the crust near
Sumatra, this thought can perhaps help us to choose an active strategy, of
prevention, of assistance, of acceleration in the development of the Space
One birth of ours is outlining, in many senses: a Baby Solar Society, a more
ethical Civilization, a society able to use very better the abilities and the
talents of all the Earthlings:
Mother Earth begun her contractions, and the pains of the birth
are drawing near, let's take care of her, and let's help her to give birth!
I think that we are in serious delay. We should already have at least 20 years
of experience of life and working on the Moon. We should be very much more in
advance, in solving the main problems, about supporting the human life out of
Earth: the artificial gravity, to fight the bony and muscular decadence; the
defence against cosmic radiations; the generation of oxygen and water; the
cultivation and breeding of food in completely artificial environments. Such
delay becomes more and more serious: think if Mum pushed us out of her uterus
before we are leastly ready to survive! It is therefore extremely urgent and
vital relevant that this vision of pregnancy and birth spread more broadly the
possible among all the Earthlings of good will: each one of us can do something.
More than ever:
Please visit Technologies of the Frontier http://www.tdf.it/ for other news,
articles and papers on the topics of space age philosophy, politics and
The pages by David Buth are on the NASA' web site:
A comment by Michael Martin-Smith, who kindly revised the English version of
You will find also in my book the idea that, if you follow the Gaia hypothesis
(namely that the Earth and biosphere have helped to nurture each other) it is
logical to see Earth's biosphere as a kind of Mother; the function of Mothers is
We should also reflect that the ability to recover from the Asian tragedy
requires aid from affluent countries and revived local economies; the move to
limit growth in the name of ecology, as advocated by the Kyoto Treaty, directly
opposes this possibility - it is all the more ironic that even the proponents of
Kyoto offer no guarantees that we will delay global warming by more than a few
years - even if we assume that the global warming we observe is all due to
It would be ironic if the world sacrificed £150 billions per year and
impoverished billions only to have little or no effect on climate change. We
should surely look for cleaner and more efficient energy - but not put on hair
shirts! This will help no-one.
IF YOU DON'T WANT TO RECEIVE THIS NEWSLETTER, PLEASE ANSWER TO THIS EMAIL WITH
'UNSUBSCRIBE' IN THE SUBJECT.
ATTENTION PLEASE: YOUR ONLY DATA IN OUR DATABASE IS YOUR EMAIL ADDRESS, THUS
PLEASE ANSWER USING THE SAME ADDRESS ON WHICH YOU RECEIVED THE NEWSLETTER,
OTHERWISE THE TDF' ROBOT WILL NOT FIND YOU, AND YOU CANNOT BE REMOVED.
IF YOU CANCEL THE EMAIL WITHOUT READING IT WE WILL TAKE IT AS AN UNSUBSCRIBE.
IF YOU WANT TO BE SURE TO KEEP ON RECEIVING THIS NEWSLETTER PLEASE ANSWER TO
THIS EMAIL WITH 'CONFIRM' IN THE SUBJECT.
Technologies of the Frontier - www.tdf.it - adriano.autino at tdf.it
This e-mail has been scanned for any known virus by Norton Antivirus.
More information about the grid-school