Rubenstein's book Astrotopia is a fascinating study of these billionaire visions. It begs some interesting questions. The most obvious of these is why should these billionaires be able to impose their visions of humanity's future? But there are others. By what rules can they divert resources and capital to these plans? What rights do they, or anyone, have to use the mineral resources of the solar system in the interest of furthering the wealth of their class? Finally, what basis is there to their compulsion to go into space itself?
As regular readers of this blog will know, I am a space enthusiast and I have a particular fascination for the early space programme and Apollo missions to the moon. As a socialist and anti-capitalist I was looking forward to Rubenstein's demolition of the ideas of the NewSpaceniks, but was pleased that she develops this into a subtle critique of ongoing space programmes as being motivated by right-wing, colonialist ideologies. As she says, the astropians have a "deeply conservative nature" and "the rocket men seek more land and resources to plunder in space", despite the fact that people, communities and ecologies are under desperate threat in the here and now.
Rubenstein explores how visions of US expansion have been shaped by very similar politics to those that backed up the expansion of European colonialists across the Americas and the genocide against the indigenous people of the Americas. Donald Trump perhaps exemplifies this, and Rubenstein offers several quotes where he refers to America's history as a "frontier nation" and she paraphrases him saying "America is again being called to settle a wild new frontier and embrace its 'manifest destiny in the stars'." The concept of "manifest destiny" having been used for near 200 years to justify European colonial rule. Such language is not restricted to more recent Presidents. Rubenstein quotes Kennedy worrying in the 1960s about the space threat from the Soviets, "This does not mean that the US desires more rights in space than any other nation. But we cannot run second in this vital race. To insure peace and freedom, we must be first". As Rubenstein points out, Kennedy disingenuously argues for US equality in space, at the same time as insisting they'll be top dog.
Such ideas run through the visions that Trump and the billionaires have for space today. Their vision for space is couched in the language of helping humanity, but is really about ensuring a particular vision of society - one where billionaires control everything and the rest of us toil to support them - continues. This is a space were the rocks, minerals and energy available is there to maintain an Earthly status quo, and keep us subordinate. It is, as she says "deeply conservative" not least because we know what such policies have done to indigenous peoples, ecological systems and natural resources in the past.
However I was prepared to disagree with Rubenstein's book. While we share many politics - anti-capitalism, anti-colonialism and a clear hatred of oppression - we come from a very different ideological place. She is a "professor of religion and science", has a religious background and her personal beliefs are clearly important to her. They shape her approach to this work, and I was concerned that her framing of this study as one of "religion" on the part of the billionaires would undermine her critique. But the more I read the more I appreciated the framing given that it is closely tied to the sort of ideological beliefs that have shaped US history so far.
But the use of religion also allows Rubenstein to develop wider understandings of the relations between nature, the universe and humanity - ones that would be completely alien to the billionaire class. In exploring all this, she touches on literature, poetry and religion. I did not always agree with her, but I found it stimulating indeed. Rubenstein is an entertaining writer, and at her best when eviscerating the billionaires and their ludicrous ideas (Musk wants to drop 1000s of nukes on Mars to warm it up...!)
Given my interest in space and astronomy, I was intrigued by how she would answer the question she sets herself at the end: "Should we explore outer space?" She answers in the affirmative, but cautions:
[Only] if we can find a way to study it without doing further damage to its ecology and our own and without escalating human violence. Yes, if we can rein in private interest enough to privilege knowledge over profit and cooperation over competition. Should we try to live there? I'm honestly not sure. But either way, we need to stop pretending that escaping Earth is going to solve our problems... because... we'll bring them all along with us one way or another.
I would argue that this cannot happen without the destruction of capitalism itself. While there remains a need to accumulate for profit's sake, the capitalists will only understand space in terms of capital. We can and must do scientific research, send probes out and use Earth's orbit to help improve peoples' lives. But exploration, permanent bases and new colonies are a distraction from the urgent work to be done - and that includes the fight against a system that would mine the moon for raw materials to make electric cars for Elon Musk's bank balance.
Related Reviews
Burgess - The Greatest Adventure: A History of Human Space Exploration
Shetterly - Hidden Figures
Prescod-Weinstein - The Disordered Cosmos: A Journey into Dark Matter, Spacetime & Dreams Deferred
Moore - What Stars Are Made Of: The Life of Cecilia Payne-Gaposchkin
Brzezinski - Red Moon Rising: Sputnik and the Rivalries that Ignited the Space Race
No comments:
Post a Comment