A Step Farther Out Page 6

  And note well—Europe has always been the most densely populated area of the Earth; far more so than Latin America or Asia. Latin America, in fact, is almost under populated compared to Europe.

  No: our civilization will not collapse from overcrowding, at least not in the foreseeable future; and the silly assertions about imminent DOOM from crowding come mostly from a failure to do elementary calculations. (Incidentally: although our schools abound with doom crying teachers, there is a hopeful sign, namely, that pocket calculators are readily available and very cheap. What will happen when the nation is ruled by a generation that habitually uses elementary arithmetic because it's easy and one doesn't make mistakes? The effect could be highly beneficial.)

  Moreover, we have the technology right now to support a large population while preserving wilderness. Soleri's Arcologies is a fascinating book he shows enormous cities providing for millions built on a few square miles of land, leaving parks and woodlands around them.

  We even have the technology to make the whole Earth a park if we really wanted to: by going to space for our messiest operations we could end most pollution on this planet; in a hundred years we could, if we'd just get to work, restore practically all of North America to her pristine state.

  Less ambitiously, I have "designed" a city for a story about Los Angeles in the future: in my design, a 50-level building contains lodging, stores, conveniences, recreation, employment, and the transportation for 250,000 people. The "Independency of Todos Santos" is 2 miles on a side and sits on an area 4 miles on a side; 250,000 people in 16 square miles. Fewer than a hundred such buildings would hold the entire U.S. non-farm population—and my structure is not only small by Paulo Soleri's standards, but uses very little technology we don't already have.

  When Larry and I began our story, incidentally, we thought it a bit far-fetched that people might prefer to live in our "city" rather than in suburbs. Now we've seen condominiums with full conveniences, recreation, transportation, even employment; they cost more than the suburbs, yet most of their inhabitants are refugees from suburbia. It no longer seems fantastic at all. Why not live in a convenient place where you can walk to work, take an escalator to the opera, and a train to the beach? Why fight commuter traffic?

  * * *

  The evidence is plain: the population bomb will not kill us, nor even drive us mad, within our lifetimes. Certainly we can't keep on doubling populations as fast as we have in the past—but why assume that we will? When the Reverend Thomas Malthus made his gloomy predictions, someone blindly running off the exponential growth equations (doomcryers are fascinated by exponential growth, although I don't know of a single case of it in nature) would have calculated that England in 1970 would have 400 million people instead of the present 55 million.

  Population stability won't happen of itself, but most of the really alarming population growth has been through the prolonging of life. Birth rates have declined through this century, but people live longer' despite wars, famines, pollution, insecticides, crowding, and all the other forms of doom. Since there's a limit to just how long anyone can live, the death rate is due to climb before 2000. Already many countries have aging populations; including the US of course. It was never true since Colonial times that "over half of the people are under 25" and it gets less true all the time. Much of the "population explosion" is a one-time artifact, and you can't simply apply equations of exponential growth to predict the future.

  Certainly population pressure can finish us off; but why believe we'll get to the Soylent Green stage before something is done about it? The evidence is that the technologically advanced countries, and even some not so advanced, such as China, have already done something about it; and certainly we won't be destroyed by overpopulation before 2020 or even 2100.

  * * *

  If we have defused, or at least delayed, the population bomb, what's the next thing to kill us? Asimov says that if we survive going mad from overcrowding we'll still be finished because of energy limits.

  We've dealt with this in another chapter; there are non-polluting systems to supply us with all the energy we need to run not only Western high-energy civilization, but to industrialize the world. Ocean Thermal; Solar Power Satellites; hydrogen fusion; any one would do the job provided we have the gumption to build it.

  Another doom, the rising levels of carbon dioxide which convert our planet into a sterile hothouse, falls to quantitative analysis: it's true enough that the levels of CO2 in our atmosphere have risen since 1900, but not so sharply as all that; and before they can get to a point where they do any real damage, we'll have run out of fossil fuels to burn. It's true we should concern ourselves with the climatic future of the planet—there's evidence that we're about due for an Ice Age—and some evidence that we'd be in one now, if it were not for all the fuels we've burned and the heat we've introduced. But that too is something we can deal with, provided we don't lose faith in ourselves.

  In fact—on any careful analysis we're not doomed at all. Quite the opposite. We have it in our power to go to space; to liberate man from the prison of Earth; to get humanity spread across a number of planets and moons and space colonies so that no one disaster can exterminate us.

  We can turn the Earth into a park

  This is the first generation in history to not only be concerned about ecology and conservation, but also to have the resources to do something practical about them without condemning much of the world to starvation. This generation can give Mankind the stars and planets.

  We live in one of the most exciting times of all history. Surely we can do better than cry Doom!

  That Buck Rogers Stuff

  The young lady was very serious, and although I might have wished that she looked like an ogre with raucous voice and nose and chin meeting in front of her lips, she was actually very professional in appearance, highly attractive, and according to most objective standards, intelligent. My wife and I had come to a typical Los Angeles show-business party, and the young lady had been waiting for me. Before I could get properly into the room she advanced menacingly.

  "You write science fiction," she accused. "Escapism. What good does it do to get people dreaming about that Buck Rogers Stuff?" (I swear it, she used that phrase, the same one that countless teachers used in the days of my youth when they caught me reading Astounding Science Fiction.)

  Naturally, she had A Cause. "We spent billions for what? For some pieces of rock and pretty pictures on television!

  And there are millions out of jobs, we need better schools, and—"

  Readers have probably had similar experiences and can finish off the speech for themselves. It's not the only time I've been put to The Question: "Why throw money away on space when there's so much that needs doing here on Earth?" All right, let's talk about space and see just how far we can get.

  First, for a really beautiful job of presenting what we've already got out of space, see the NASA SPINOFF documents; they print another each year, and they tell what new economic impact space research has had on American lives.

  The SPINOFF documents are written by Neil Ruzic, who's also the author of an excellent book on the future uses of the Moon called WHERE THE WINDS SLEEP. Between the SPINOFF annuals and Ruzic's book you can find plenty of answers to the silly question about why we should spend money on space.

  In fact, the problem is knowing where to begin, Weather predictions? Remember when the weatherman was a joke? Now true, the Weather Bureau makes some mistakes even yet; but not very many, and almost never when it comes to hurricanes. You can show that the space program has pretty well paid for itself just in better weather forecasting alone.

  Those concerned about pollution will be pleased to hear that Earthwatch satellites finally give us a chance to see the real effects of pollution. Mining prospecting has been revolutionized by satellite photography. The international Food and Agricultural Organization in Rome can, from satellite data, get a good forecast of famine areas and global food prod
uction.

  That's all satellite stuff Industry benefits are nearly incalculable, and I don't mean frivolities like Teflon frying pans. Test procedures and quality control: the inspection methods developed for man-rating spacecraft and boosters are now routinely used in building better plows, tractors, automobiles, skis, hiking boots and packframes, electronic equipment, and darned near anything else you can think of.

  In my early days in the space program one of the hardest jobs we had was monitoring physiological conditions in a stress environment. Just getting an ordinary electro-cardiograph (EKG) through a pressure wall required great ingenuity. We invented a number of such devices; we had to. My own inventions are long since obsolete—but the space medicine technology that grew out of our early efforts is routinely used in hospitals and clinics all over the world. Mass spectrometers to analyze exhaled breath; microminiature EKG systems worn by hospital patients and displaying abnormalities to the duty nurse; blood analysis equipment; even heart condition diagnosis from moving vehicles; all routine, and all developed as part of the NASA package.

  Your tires last longer, you can buy large fiberglass structures, firemen can keep your house from burning, your electrical system is simpler, crash helmets work better (remind me sometime to tell you about the purchase order for "nine freshly-killed human male corpses, ages 21 to 40 at time of death, must not have any abnormalities of brain or upper spine; expendable research item; no salvage value." The Purchasing Officer's reaction to that was, uh, interesting); driver-training simulators work, paint lasts longer, and golf clubs do a better job of driving the ball.

  "Whoa. That's all technology, and technology is evil. It causes pollution, and kills people in wars, and—"

  And at that point my usual reaction is a loud "Aaargh!" and a burning desire to find a drink Quickly. Especially when it was said by a young person wearing a thin wristwatch and polyester imitations of honest blue denim, driving a Mercedes, and feeling committed because he hasn't eaten table grapes for weeks. I should control that reaction, of course; but if I were able to do that I'd probably still be in aerospace management instead of living the unnatural life of a writer.

  Still, such people ought to be answered; our whole future may depend on it. Let's try.

  * * *

  California's Governor Jerry Brown has built himself quite a reputation by pushing "Alternate Technology" and the philosophy that goes with it. "Make do. Expect less. Conserve. Smaller is better. Recycle. Be satisfied with what you have. There's Only One Earth."

  Now there are some attractive points about all that. Moreover, the vision of a stable, low-to-zero-growth economy, concentrating on adventures of the mind, with a lot of "cottage industry" can be a noble one. It's probably possible, too—for us, and for a while.

  It is not a philosophy likely to appeal to the poor of this world. Like it or not, a conservation-oriented low-growth world economy dooms most of the world's people to wretched poverty. But what has that to do with us? Can we not, ourselves, change our ways and let others go theirs?

  Probably not. Like it or not, we've got most of the technology—and we don't have enough to develop the Earth to a point of satiation. If all the world gets rich through the same wasteful processes we employed, we're probably in big trouble. Worse, what of our grandchildren? The Earth's resources will not last forever; and what then?

  I've argued here before that this generation is crucial: we have the resources to get mankind off this planet. If we don't do it, we may soon be facing a world of 15 billion people and more, a world in which it's all we can do to stay alive; a world without the investment resources to go into space and get rich. Usually I think it won't come to that; it's only in odd moments—such as when faced with The Question—that I get depressed.

  I don't think it will come to that, because the vision of the future is so clear to me.

  We need realize only one thing: we do not inhabit "Only One Earth."

  Mankind doesn't live on Earth. Man lives in a solar system of nine planets, 34 moons, and over half a million asteroids. That system circles a rather small and unimportant star that is part of a galaxy containing tens of billions of stars. Only One Earth, indeed! There are millions of Earths out there, and if we use up this one, we'll just have to go find another, that's all.

  We needn't use up this one. In a previous chapter I went through the numbers: how we can, with present-day technology, deliver here to Earth as much metal for each person in the world as the US disposed of per capita in the 60's. We can do that without polluting our planet at all, and we can keep it up for tens of thousands of years. The metal is out there in the asteroid belt. For starters we don't even have to look very hard; most of the asteroids were once spherical, large enough to have metallic cores, and now the worthless gubbage topside has been knocked away, exposing all that lovely iron and lead and tin and such we'll need to give the wretched of the Earth real freedom.

  Why not? The refinery power's there; the Sun gives it off for free. We have a propulsion system to get us to the asteroids; Project NERVA was cancelled, but the research was done, and it wouldn't be that hard to start up again. Nuclear-powered rockets would be rather simple to build, if we wanted them.

  But first we'll need a Moonbase. We can get that the hard way, carrying stuff up bit by bit from the top of disintegrating totem poles, but there are easier ways.

  We could do it in one whack Project ORION was also cancelled, but we could build old Bang-Bang in a very few-years if we wanted to. ORION used the simplest and most efficient method of nuclear propulsion of all: take a BIG plate, quite thick and hard; attach by shock-absorbers a large space-going capsule to it; put underneath one each atomic bomb; and fire away.

  Believe me, your ship will move. When you've used up the momentum imparted by the first bomb, fling another down underneath. Repeat as required. For the expenditure of a small part of the world's nuclear weapon stockpile you have put several million pounds into orbit, or on the Lunar surface.

  But that will cause fallout.

  Yes; some. Not very much, compared to what we have already added to background radiation, but perhaps enough that we don't want to use ORION—although, he said happily, ORION is one reason why I think we'll eventually do what has to be done, even if this generation fails in its duties to the future. ORION is cheap and the bombs won't go away; if we're still alive in that grim world of 15-20 billion and no space program, somebody's going to revive Bang-Bang and get out there.

  ORION gets a few big payloads to orbit or the Moon. A more systematic way would be to build a big laser launching system and make it accessible to anyone with a payload to put into orbit. Freeman Dyson calls laser launch systems "space highways." The government builds the launch system, and can use it for its own purposes; but it also gives private citizens, consortiums, firms, a means of reaching orbit.

  Dyson envisions a time when individual families can buy a space capsule and, once Out There, do as they like: settle on the Moon, stay in orbit, go find an asteroid; whatever. It will be a while before we can build cheap, self-contained space capsules operable by the likes of you and me; but it may not be anywhere near as long as you think

  The problem is the engines, of course; there's nothing else in the space home economy that couldn't, at least in theory, be built for about the cost of a family home, car, and recreational vehicle. But then most land-based prefabricated homes don't have their own motive power either; they have to hire a truck for towing.

  It could make quite a picture: a train of space capsules departing Earth orbit for Ceres and points outward, towed by a ship something like the one I described in "Tinker." Not quite Ward Bond in "Wagon Train," but it still could make a good TV series. The capsules don't have to be totally self-sufficient, of course. It's easy enough to imagine way stations along the route, the space equivalent of filling stations in various orbits.

  Dyson is fond of saying that the US wasn't settled by a big government settlement program, but by individuals
and families who often had little more than courage and determination when they started. Perhaps that dream of the ultimate in freedom is too visionary; but if so, it isn't because the technology won't exist.

  However we build our Moonbase, it's a very short step from there to asteroid mines. Obviously the Moon is in Earth orbit; with the shallow Lunar gravity well it's no trick at all to get away from the Moon, and Earth orbit is halfway to anywhere in the solar system. We don't know what minerals will be available on the Moon. Probably it will take a while before it gets too expensive to dig them up, but as soon as it does, the Lunatics themselves will want to go mine the asteroids.

  There's probably more water ice in the Belt than there is on Luna, so for starters there will be water prospectors moving about among the asteroids. The same technology that sends water to Luna will send metals to Earth orbit. I've already described one ship that can do the job. There are others. The boron fusion-fission process is a good example.

  Take boron-11 (llB5). Bombard with protons. The result is a complex reaction that ends with helium and no nuclear particles. It could be a direct spacedrive. For those interested, the basic equation is