Human Expansion across the Galaxy

 I was watching an interesting video on Youtube about NASA’s  plan to  build a colony on Moon as a stepping stone to launch/build colony on Mars. It brought into my mind a thought that I have had for the past year or so.. should humans expand beyond the Earth.

Let’s leave the question of human survivability (nor non-survivability) on Earth, it’s a different question and is not the subject of this particular blog.

Let’s make the argument for or against humanity expansion across the Solar system/Galaxy.. let’s not even discuss about spreading to other Galaxies.

Humans or Homo Sapiens survives to live across multiple planets/moons/space stations.

Now, lets look at a deeper perspective.

Do we really think that humans spreading across multiple planets/moons is going to remove all the social/economically/racially/caste/political/religious class distinctions that humans have?

Do we really think, instead of one country against another, it will become one planet against another?

I know, what its going to become like – sure some planets will be ethnically/politically/racially/caste/socially/economically/religioussly diverse. But some planets will become monogenic in terms of any of the above stated. And, do you think these monogenic planets will let the diverse planets be at peace? Or let the other planets/moons of what they consider inferior at peace? There will be wars fought against other planets for supremacy even at the cost of destruction of entire planets

Know how these planets will react if & when humanity comes across say a other sapience species (Species that is on same or above the technology level of humans at that time). Won’t they try to form alliances with the other species to destroy or rule over the other planets. And before you say No, look at human history. See what happened in Africa/ India. Some of the native population used/tries to use the Europeans to settle scores with their traditional enemies, and that is how the Europeans got a foothold in these places.

To say, this would not happen is to ignore humanity’s nature and ignore everything that has happened in human history.

Let’s not talk about what will happen if humanity comes across a sapience species that is technologically less developed. Let’s be honest they would be subsumed and made to serve under humans, no question about it.

So, simple answer – please lets no spread across multiple planets and do ourselves a favor.

The Flaw of the God Emperor

On seeing the title, I know many of you would assume that I am writing about a flaw in myself. I assure you that is not the case. I am the Lord Emperor remember, not the God Emperor.

The God Emperor Leto Atreides II (from the Dune Series) has the power of prescience and also lives for 4000 years to ensure peace and that humans survive in the universe. The same is the case for R. Daneel Olivaw (from the Robot series), the robot lives for a long time to guide humanity to prosperity. Hari Seldon (from the Second Foundation series) the poly-math who invents the algorithm to predict the future, uses the algorithm to leave clues to that ensure humans survive.

What’s common in all these three sentiment beings is that they all make tough choices & scarifies to ensure humans survive in the galaxy and spread across the galaxy/universe. They are all 3 also extremely intelligent, considered the best minds to ever live. They are all 3 also fictional characters, which is a minor point.

But there is a flaw that all these 3 have. Can anyone of you guess the flaw? Of course the flaw can be excused in that Anomander Rake (from the Malazan series) a sentient being (Tiste Andii) who lives for 100,000 years himself had that flaw.

What is the flaw you ask?  The flaw is that they assume that the survival of their species is requirement, a necessity. And they proceed on that premise. Let’s leave the question of Anomander Rake for now and return to it later.

My question is that why do they (Leto, R. Daneel & Hari) presume that the humans have to survive? I mean is survival of Humans really that important? What if the survival of humans causes others species into extinction as we have already seen happening on Earth? What if the survival of humans leads to the eventual destruction of the universe? I mean does Leto who has prescience see really that far into time? We do know that his father Paul has prescience, but that he could see only a part of what Leto saw.

In the book Inferno, the protagonist (Bertrand Zobrist) is seen trying to control the human population. Though, he chooses to do that by control the reproductive ability of humans than by just killing them, a choice that is supposed to “humanize” the character.  And even in this book which actually takes a good look at what humans have done to the planet; it deals with the topic of human survival as a right. It does not question, from where the right originates.  

There was a book (Rainbow Six by Tom Clancy), in which a radical fringe organization tries to introduce a virulent strain of Ebola called “Ebola Shiva” into the world in order to kill off humans to save the planet. In that book the organization is simply treated as a terrorist organization and their arguments are simply brushed off as that of mad people.

I would rather take the approach of Ozzie Isaacs (Again a fictional character from the Commonwealth Saga book series) who risks his life in order to prevent a alien species(a sentient species) from being wiped out, even though (and here is where you need to note) that alien species tries to wipe out all humans. Ozzie argues what right do humans have to wipe out another species (albeit there being only 1 member of the species alive as the others having being wiped out by the surviving member, which Ozzie argues goes in favour of preserving the lone member). Is Ozzie the only human who understands what I understand? Here, let me explain it to you.

What makes us assume that humans have to survive? Why do we never consider human destruction could may be result in a better world for all the other species? Why this question is never debated in schools and colleges? I mean we have started debating about climate change and the impact of human action. We do know for sure that human activity has leaded to the extinction of many a species. But do we ever question on what basis do we assume human survival as a right?

All our thoughts and knowledge are based on the Axiom of human survival. My question is how did human survival become an axiom?

Is it because as Richard Dawkins so beautifully puts in the Selfish Gene book, that our genes subconsciously makes us pursue that survivability of the species? But as sentient beings should we not overcome our base yearnings in order to do what is best for all rather than only ourselves. When I mean all, I mean all the species.

So you now all see why I, the Lord Emperor the best of all. For I question the very premise of all human knowledge. Why do I question that premise? For my subjects are not only humans but all of life, from the basic single organisms to the universe itself, thus the premise of all knowledge should be the survivability of the universe or is even that an axiom that is not self evident? What if the survival of this universe causes several other universes to become extinct?

So what should be the axiom on which to base all knowledge?

That is the question that drives me. To find the ultimate axiom on to base all knowledge.