More assaults on the commons
Every day there is another report of some disruptive technological advance. Too frequently these amount to another assault on the commons. So many planetary problems reduce to degradation of the commons, our collective heritage, our only home, our only livable planet. From people’s stealing of oxygen from the commons to burn their fuels, to the crap being launched through our only breathable atmosphere that falls on the Moon as Space trash, such as the most recent example of “Intuitive Machines’s” lunar lander which landed on its side. How is a narrow 4.3 meter-high object supposed to land on an unknown surface and stand upright? Any engineers involved? Nobody is ever going to clean up this trash on the Moon, just like none of the “scientists” take away disposed clothes dryers in Antarctica. Yes, there are dumps in Antarctica, a wilderness which should be a carry-in, carry-out wilderness refuge.
We are seeing the same European-human traits of conquest, exploration and extractivism that occurred in the 1400s and 1500s with the “discovery” of the “New World.” “We” have learned nothing in all these years? Why, exactly, launch directly into these same mindsets and notionalities of “adventure” in yet another “New Frontier” of Space? Apparently, just as soon as “We” can get to the Moon, or to asteroids, or to Mars, they are immediately fodder for extractionism. It seems that anything that has been “found,” absolutely must be exploited for profit or “science,” which often means the search for items and processes adaptable to military purposes.
The same mindset relates to Earth as well - any non-claimed area is automatically presumed to be open to exploitation, whether for mineral resources on land, or the seabed for horridly damaging processes such as seabed mining or offshore drilling. These incursions by business or governments represent yet another assault on the commons. Nobody thinks about long-term or unintended consequences. These disruptions to the seabed could begin the release of seabed methyl hydrates, then you will see the REAL global warming! Earth not belong you!
Humans have inherited a “furnished suite,” the only livable one in this “neighborhood” in Space. We treat it like slum tenants. We would sell off any part of it for profit - the furniture, the walls, the windows, the lawn and the earth beneath it, as well as any trees, wildlife and other plants, then dig up any minerals below that. We treat our only home like crap, as a resource to leverage to achieve some other goal. This mindset is totally wrong - we must learn to live in this furnished suite in usufruct - living off the fruits of the land, rather than taking what belongs to a higher power, to the commons, and liquidating it. Earth not belong you! Each person lives and dies. Given the lousy mindset of humanity, this species will live then DIE! Thus we are temporary residents, transitory tenants and are not making ANY attempt to leave a livable planet for any species that may follow. I should write “Shame” so large that it does not fit on the page.
Also, Moon not belong you!
“Continuous research is being conducted globally on using the Moon as an advanced base for deep space exploration, and Korea is no exception in these efforts.” - this from an article on phys.org about Space research: “Korean researchers create an electrostatic environment that simulates the moon's surface.” Sorry, OUR atmosphere will NOT survive all these Space launches! By the way, there are many articles on phys.org about good innovation in science. Sign up for their news bulletins!
Such activities as this exploitation of Space and the Moon represent an assault on the commons, defiling objects which in an earlier age would have been considered sacred - protected from defilement. Yet we have any nation with an ego-problem and lots of public money to waste, shooting their rockets through OUR atmosphere and dropping more Space-crap on the Moon, to stake out their resource claims. ENOUGH! And now individual corporations can play this same game of defilement! Where are the adults in the room? Oh, that’s right, they’ve all become Space-Boosters!
Then I get this nasty article from Undark Magazine, about a company intent on juicing an earthquake area with a carbon-sequestering project? Again, where’s the adults in the room?
It’s titled “For Captured Carbon, Scientists Plot a Sub-Ocean Tomb,” subtitled “It’s a contentious idea, but advocates say storing CO2 under the seafloor could help address climate change—if it works.” By Ian Morse 02.19.2024, who writes on Green Rocks Newsletter.
Remember talk of "The Big One," along the Cascadia Fault running along the West Coast? Imagine a writer from Seattle totally ignoring this and suggesting to inject CO2 into the basalt under the Cascadia Basin. Incomprehensible!
This writing by Ian Morse glorifies the work of Solid Carbon which is developing a "negative emissions technology" for this offshore region. This is hyped by the Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions. Yes, at one of our local universities (UVic)! See a report on the CBC.
Another report link is at leverforchange.org, another UVic site!
A major contributor to this grief is Dr. Kathryn (Kate) Moran, OC, president and CEO of Ocean Networks Canada.
Also read about Dr. Kate Moran on wikipedia.
Part of Oceans Network funding comes from DFO of Canada.
ENOUGH of technologicallizing this planet! ENOUGH of drilling into it! All of N. America is a big pin-cushion already, with so many oil and gas wells drilled everywhere. As it says in this Green Rocks/Undark article: "Another cautionary note: the immense costs involved with scaling up carbon capture technology and installing the injection equipment necessary to drill into the seabed." Not to mention all the energy required to do this damage?? Just cut the emissions, choose a simpler life! "Normal" STINKS!
But we just can’t let go of “innovation,” can we! In the February 26 issue of The Bulletin, in an article titled “Responsible science: What Sam Altman can learn (and not learn) from Nobel and Oppenheimer,” by Sarah Kreps, look at this section:
In science, technology, and business, “disruptive innovation” is a goal. But the same innovations that start in the business world often end up in the national security space. Disruptive innovations are both dual-use and double-edged. Not only can they go from civilian to military applications, but they can also present opportunities as well as dangers. There is no stopping innovation, nor should there be.
Innovators can start by asking the right questions. “Deciding what not to do,” Steve Jobs said, “is as important as deciding what to do.” This means asking what should not be done or how something can be done more ethically, sustainably, transparently, and responsibly, rather than focusing entirely on whether, or how fast, it can be done technologically.
Seriously, “There is no stopping innovation, nor should there be”? Really? On one hand, if you could think up ONE NEW PRODUCT that is needed but not yet available, you could make millions. But this continuous pushing on every planetary boundary beyond what Life can endure? We need to redirect Progress away from the edge of fantasy back to where real progress is needed, in improving the human condition in this finite world. THAT should be the choice of “what not to do” and “what to do.” But for all the Big Egos of the world, well, that would be too boring.
As for the above-mentioned geo-engineering “negative emissions technology,” I defer to a post in phys.org about the possibility of drying out the upper atmosphere:
"If you're going to do lab experiments indoors, maybe that's all right," UNEP Executive Director Inger Andersen told The Associated Press. "But we do believe, from a UNEP perspective, that the moment we step outdoors and we begin to do small- and large-scale experimentation outdoors we need actually need to have a global conversation."
"I do think that solar radiation modification is a little bit like artificial intelligence," Andersen said. "Once a genie is out of the bottle, you can't put it back in. It's a technology that is there. We do not think in any way shape or form that it should be considered as a climate solution."
Exactly! That’s because such schemes tamper with the commons, ergo acceptance by all peoples must be required! That process should follow the principle of FPIC: Free, Prior, Informed Consent.