Review of Savannah Mandel’s Ground Control: An Argument for the End of Human Space Exploration
By Fernando Gutiérrez Olaizola
In her provocative new book Ground Control: An Argument for The End of Human Space Exploration, Savannah Mandel makes the argument that now is not the right time in history to be sending humans into space.
Her book takes us through her journey of becoming a Space Anthropologist and how she concludes that, despite being a space enthusiast and wanting to go into space herself, there are more pressing issues back on Earth in need of the funding and resources currently devoted to putting humans into space and bringing them back safely.
Savannah Mandel is a doctoral student whose research involves space, anthropology, and ethics. When she first decided to pursue a career in anthropology, she hoped to be able to focus on space, but found it difficult to conceive of how to research “space,” as traditionally anthropologists go and live in close contact with their subjects and, as her graduate advisor pointed out, “tickets onto the ISS (International Space Station) are a bit out of a graduate student’s research budget.” She persevered, doing research at Spaceport America in New Mexico and landing an internship at the Commercial Spaceflight Federation in Washington, D.C., a space-related non-profit trade association. She is now a highly regarded representative of the small (but growing) field of Space Anthropology: the study of human biological and cultural evolution in extraterrestrial (beyond-Earth) environments.
Ground Control begins with Mandel describing her struggle with trying to synthesize her research notes from her time visiting and studying Spaceport America and how the 2018 protests in London against the Turkish invasion of Syria became the catalyst that drove her to decide that there are more pressing problems to solve on Earth, and that space can wait for humans to explore it. She contrasts the social and financial issues facing Truth or Consequences, New Mexico, the city closest to Spaceport America, which has used taxpayer funds to incentivize the spaceport, with the wealthy and well-connected who will use and stand to benefit most from the spaceport, using T or C (as the locals call it) as a foil for the overwhelming majority of humanity that will never go to space or necessarily benefit directly from human space exploration.
Mandel does not, however, argue for the end of all space exploration; her argument – which she concedes she is not the first to make – is that human-built machines can explore the cosmos more efficiently, effectively, and less expensively than human bodies, with their selfishly low tolerance for cold and vacuum and their uncompromising need for sustenance, companionship, and stimulation.
The book is divided into three parts; one part focused on the current state of human space exploration and its current trajectory, one focused on the arguments for ending crewed space exploration, and one part describing alternative uses for the resources currently dedicated to human exploration of space.
She describes human space exploration today as a combination of state-sponsored programs, often tied to national or regional pride, and privately funded projects, which frequently serve as (literal) vehicles for ultra-rich customers such as Jared Isaacman (organizer and leader of the Polaris Dawn mission) to experience novel and exciting experiences. While state-run programs such as the ISS had previously been the norm, it is increasingly likely that new ventures will be either a public/private blend, or fully private, like the proposed commercial space station from Axiom Space.
FIVE ARGUMENTS AGAINST CONTINUED SPACE EXPLORATION
1. Money that is currently being spent to send humans into space can be better spent right here on Earth. This is an argument that (Mandel acknowledges in her book) goes all the way back to the Apollo era (see: Gil Scott-Heron’s Whitey on the Moon). While this might be a stronger argument against state-sponsored human spaceflight, the juxtaposition of ongoing issues here on Earth with the ultra-rich going on the ultimate in exclusive excursions can be jarring.
2. Humanity should focus on creating utopia here on the generally welcoming planet Earth rather than trying to create it out there where both space and the other planets are not currently suitable for human habitation. Mandel posits that it’s foolish to argue for the establishment of permanent off-world human habitations — Elysian Fields fit only for those with the resources and connections to reach them — when research and resources can be directed to creating a post-scarcity world for everyone right here on Earth.
3. If (a very small fraction of) humanity does venture out into space in search of another, better home, billions will be left behind. This is the other side of the previous argument; if human-centered space exploration continues to be the focus of space-related endeavors, resources that could be best used to benefit all of humanity would instead be expended for the benefit of an elite few.
4. Space exploration disproportionately benefits the rich, providing little benefit to anyone not directly involved in space-related activities: while there are many space-related technologies that benefit humanity greatly, from satellite communications to CAT scans, very few of them are derived from human space exploration. Freeze-dried food and memory foam are cited among the direct benefits of human-centered space activities, but they can hardly be argued to provide a universal benefit to all of humanity.
5. Most of humanity has NO voice in celestial matters, making space exploration a continuation of centuries of colonialism and imperialism. Mandel argues that very few wealthy nations and wealthy individuals drive nearly all space policy and space-related activities, despite framing the benefits of those activities as being “for all mankind,” and that more needs to be done to bring in alternative and diverse voices to the table.
Mandel’s arguments are those that can be made for sidelining almost any endeavor that does not provide some type of universal benefit or that does not provide a forum for the views and opinions of those who may ultimately be impacted by the actions – or inaction – of an elite few. However, this is not sufficient cause to dismiss her arguments outright, as they are provocative and should be used to drive discussion on the benefits of human-centered space exploration, and how we may want to rethink the motivations and goals related to the goal of sending humans ever further into space. She ends her book with a call to action to take care of Earth and her inhabitants before venturing further into space and, while the two endeavors may not be mutually exclusive, she does make a good case for rethinking our priorities between the two.
FIVE QUESTIONS FOR SAVANNAH MANDEL
Mandel made time to answer a few additional questions about her new book, Ground Control…
Q. What does a world without human-crewed space exploration look like?
SM: A world without human space exploration looks like a world filled with all sorts of other technological advancements and developments. Ground Control doesn’t advocate for the end of all space exploration, just human space exploration and only for the time being, so the future it imagines is one where unmanned space exploration and scientific advancements related to pressing issues on Earth are prioritized. Scientific and technological development, funding and resources would be relocated toward these issues.
Q. What is your nightmare or "collapse" scenario future of human-centered space exploration/colonization?
SM: I’m personally most concerned that emphasis will continue to be placed on human space exploration for the sake of tourism or nationalism and that as a result pressing issues such as climate change management, scarcity, and civil conflict, won’t be managed. As well, at the current rate human space exploration is being developed, very little of humanity is being involved in conversations about the motivations for the creation of a space colony and how a colony might be created. If we continue down that path, many of Earth’s inhabitants might be left behind as the elite populations head into outer space.
Q. Would you revise your conclusions if the Global South and other groups who are currently excluded from the bulk of space activities were given a real seat at the table (e.g. Kenya in Andy Weir's novel Artemis)?
SM: Great question and a good one to consider within a speculative frame. If the Global South and other groups currently excluded from the bulk of space activities were given a real seat at the table, I think the space race (commercial or otherwise) would take on a completely different form and one we should consider in an entirely different light. It’s hard to say what my conclusions would be at that point.
Q. What do you say to people who say that we can do both — send humans to space and renew our home planet/end scarcity?
SM: I’ve been thinking about this a lot lately. I do think it's possible to focus on renewing our home planet while sending humans to outer space, but not with our current space landscape. Currently the space landscape, especially the commercial space landscape, is focused on commercialization and capitalism. Many space enterprises are interested in capitalizing and economizing space. If we’re still thinking about the space environment as a “frontier” to be “colonized” then we’re already off to a bad start. The only way we’re going to be able to balance renewal on Earth and expansionism in space is to decolonize space exploration. Which is a monumental task that has barely begun.
Q. If human-crewed space exploration continues, what are some of the ways that you think we can give a voice and agency to the majority of the planet’s inhabitants who have little to no influence on public space policy or private space endeavors?
SM: I believe there are a couple of ways we can give a voice and agency to the majority of the planet that currently has little to no influence on public space policy or private space endeavors. First, we could enact legislation that makes it mandatory to include indigenous representatives and representatives from a specific number of countries. Second, we could create a governing body that works to understand the multi-generational repercussions of space industry actions and the actions of other large scale technological developments.
Fernando Gutiérrez Olaizola is a Uruguayan-born futurist based in the United States with a passion for space and science fiction, a focus on Latin America, and a drive to identify opportunities for emerging and developing nations to participate in space-based commerce and exploration. He is a member of the Association of Professional Futurists (APF) and the Grey Swan Guild and holds a Graduate Certificate in Foresight from the University of Houston, where he is completing a Master of Science in Foresight. He is also editor of the upcoming book Ecofascism, from the onedayin2050 collaborative. To learn more, you can find Fernando anywhere on social media as @LatinoFuturist.
Fernando Gutiérrez Olaizola es un futurista Uruguayo viviendo en los Estados Unidos con una pasión por el espacio y la ciencia ficción. Como futurista, Fernando busca oportunidades para que las naciones emergentes y en desarrollo participen en el comercio y la exploración del espacio, especialmente en Latinoamérica. Es miembro de la Asociación de Futuristas Profesionales y del grupo Grey Swan Guild y tiene un Certificado de Posgrado en Prospectiva de la Universidad de Houston, donde está completando una Maestría en Ciencias en Prospectiva. Es editor del próximo libro Ecofascism, de la colaboración onedayin2050. Para obtener más información, puede encontrar a Fernando en las redes sociales como @LatinoFuturist.
Comments