Can we stay out of space?

This has been the debate between these two sides ever since Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin walked on surface of moon

There are those who argue that we have bigger and more serious issues to deal with right here on earth instead of venturing out into space. Former US President Barack Obama recently criticised Amazon founder Jeff Bezos and other billionaires who are working hard to send humans to other planets, especially Mars, by saying that instead of going into other planets, it was best to save the earth instead. The rebuttal provided by Jeff Bezos is the same that many others have — that venturing out into space is the only plausible way to save not only humanity but planet earth as well.

This has been the debate between these two sides ever since Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin walked on the surface of the moon. Should we or should we not go to the moon? Should we or should we not go to explore other planets and understand the solar system and beyond? It has been this debate that has succeeded to keep America out of space exploration for decades. America went to the moon in 1969 with the technology of the day. It has been more than half a century ever since and no moon walking has happened even with a much improved technology today. It is the result of the victory of that argument that Obama is putting forward. Should we or should we not has been the debate and frankly that wording and that approach is actually the problem rather than the debate in itself.

The real question is not if we should or should not go to space, but: can we actually stay out of space? Can we afford to? Can we escape from it? And a more refined question should be this: why shouldn’t we go further into space after reaching this point?

We are already in space. The only question is: what is a plausible reason not to keep moving forward? We harness the space for the energy the planet uses everyday from a giant generator called the sun. We owe our continued existence to a thin layer called the ozone, which is the one line of defence between life and instant annihilation. We have put satellites into space, which help us communicate, watch global news, use GPS navigation to help find the best route to our destination, fly overseas, watch and understand weather patterns, keep an eye on floods, observe wildfires, fight climate change, and so forth.

Would you want to avoid being late for your flight by using the GPS to find the best route to get to the airport? Would you like to check for rain updates before you invite your friends for a BBQ? Would you like to use the internet during those long flights? I believe the answer to all of those questions is yes by an overwhelming majority. We need to be in space for the lifestyle we have come to live and love.

When you focus on the arguments of both Obama and Bezos, both are actually saying the same thing without realising it. The race to reach space has improved the technology in computers and given mankind the tools we have today. During the days of the American moon landing, the need for carrying materials to space had risen. Astronauts needed to minimise the size of things because radios and computers used to be the size of a seven-seater sofa in those days. It was the space race that created the need for smaller objects. Apple Computers and many others were created out of that buzz that was created when NASA scientists basically knocked on the doors of Silicon Valley entrepreneurs to minimise the electronics. And they did. Had that not happened, computers would still perhaps be those giant machines that IBM used to produce. And you wouldn’t be reading this article on your phone.

To plan for being a multi-planetary species is to improve the species and the planet they call home.

Published in The Express Tribune, March 24^th, 2024.

Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.