Extraterrestrial Population Control

If I were a space faring species who was non-conquest driven and didn't want conquest driven species from poisoning the galaxy like cancers... I would actively search for new species hell-bent on conquering the galaxy and stop them at their beginnings. I'd use effective long-term treatments to eliminate the disease. Probably the easiest: send asteroids big enough and numerous enough to prevent fast-paced development but not destroy them. Do this periodically. For most sentient species asteroids that weren't planet busting wouldn't eliminate them. Asteroid impacts would simply extend their gestation period, making it far more likely for a conquest driven species to self-terminate before becoming space faring.

The target species would likely fall into one of 3 categories

• a) self-termination: die off due to stupidity or internal conflict
  
• b) conquest-relaxation: successfully deal with the long-term environmental effects of asteroid impacts and subsequent delayed technological development
  
• c) live long and prosper: prevent multiple, sustained asteroid impacts through cohesive action
  

The first possibility helps eliminate threatening species. The second is unfortunate for the target species, but increases the chances that, if they survive nuclear winter, they won't destroy the rest of the galaxy as conquistadors (due to the higher probability of self-termination occurring). The last possibility would mean that the species had successfully run the gauntlet and that the species is capable of acting in a cohesive manner against an external threat.

The idea here is that there must be some way to 'test' a species for suitability. It is intuitively the case that a species which is very conquest driven is very likely to be factional and unable to cohesively act when threatened (especially for extended periods of time). Another possibility is for a conquest driven species to to be totalitarian, which may mean that they can act cohesively over long periods of time, but are unlikely to have the technological resources necessary to prevent asteroid impacts.


A couple of years ago I was listening to the Astrobiology Magazine podcast on a regular basis. On one episode, Frank Drake, the originator of the Drake Equation was interviewed. The thought experiments that the Drake equation explores allow us to take an interest in our self preservation that is very non-homo-sapien-centric. In all likelihood there are many, many thousands of other sentient species in just our arm of the galaxy. It is in our best interests in taking this into consideration when solving human problems. The prospect of being seen as a threat as we slowly reach into interstellar space has potentially dire consequences.

So as we all have been told, asteroids have hit the Earth in the past with devestating consequences. We can estimate (in a similar way to the Drake equation method) the likelihood of a random asteroid hitting the earth. Now what is really interesting is that we can also estimate the increase or decrease in this likelihood based on current Earth politics and the status of human space technology and weapons using an estimate of the number of peacekeepers present within the galaxies sentient races.

A trilogy by the Welsh science fiction author Alastair Reynolds explores some of these ideas on a grandiose scale.

Beneficial Environmental Impact

Climate change happens. Can we make it hotter by dumping carbon dioxide into the air? Sure. Would not dumping CO2 into the air stop climate change? Not likely. Climate change has been a regular occurrence for the last 400 thousand years as demonstrated by data from the Vostok ice core[1].

Clearly, we can affect things dramatically, but climate change has been happening without us and will continue to happen in spite of us. Further, of all of the affects that we have on Earth ecosystems, climate is one of the least measurable and most unlikely to be impacted positively by human activity. If we really wanted to affect climate change we would have to change our thinking and technology in revolutionary ways. Our automobiles would have to produce byproducts which counteract the accumulation of carbon dioxide. It is not important whether the source of a greenhouse gas is human in origin, geologic and caused by volcanic ash, or the result of bovine flatulence. If we want to prevent the impact of increased carbon dioxide we must create technologies (or perhaps just plant trees) to reverse it.

I think that we all agree that pollution sucks. And most pollution isn't just affecting our climate, it effects our ecosystems, it effects our lifestyle. It effects us. New research suggests that soluble nano-particulate matter produced by automobile exhaust contributes to or causes cardiovascular disease [2,3]. This might mean that we need to take drastic measures to prevent long-term exposure to the disease-causing particles. And we are currently faced with auto-mobile-ization by the developing world as incredibly cheap gas-powered automobiles are released. Even at 50+ miles per gallon, millions of new vehicles will still increase emission of harmful pollutants and CO2.

I find it very frustrating to realize that of all of the many things we do that we consider 'environmental' still do not have a beneficial impact on the environment. All of our gas-electric hybrid vehicles, solar panels, wind-power; the whole lot, still have a detrimental effect on the environment. The creation of these devices and their use still have a overall detrimental environmental impact. In a very self-serving and shallow logic, this is OK. It is better than if we had not used these things. Agreed. Better to pollute less than pollute more. At least some of us are somewhat more conscious of our environment. But it is not enough.

If we really wanted to 'control' the climate, we cannot do this by minimizing our impact. We must to optimize our impact. And the impact must be of positive benefit to the environment. We must create human by-products that have the effect of reversing environmental damage or removing pollutants from the air.

There are a few examples of this.

• Planting trees
• Preventing asteroid impacts: treaties and methods
• Preventing volcanic eruptions (we don't currently think this is possible, but it should be)
• Careful environmental monitoring and management
• Awareness and protection of endangered species (who are endangered for reasons which are not related to human activity)

Most of the things that we currently do as individuals, which are necessary but not sufficient, simply decrease our overall footprint:

• Buy local produce and products
• Grown your own crops and support community gardening
• Use recycled paper as much as possible (office supplied, toilet paper)
• Use cold-water wash in the laundry
• Don't use bottled water
• Recycle everything that is recyclable
• Re-use paper products (bags, printer scrap paper) and plastic containers (bags, washable food containers)
• Compost waste food instead of adding it to the landfills
• Bring your own re-usable bags to the grocery store
• Buy bulk cereals, grains, loose-leaf tea, and other bulk packaged products when possible
• Use greener transportation (use public or mass transit, a hybrid vehicle, or ride a bicycle)
• Use non-toxic and biodegradable cleaners and detergents (e.g. http://www.seventhgeneration.com/)
• Re-use 'grey-water' from the kitchen and bathroom for gardening (requires use of non-toxic cleaners)
• Use low-flow (aerated) faucets, shower-heads, and low water use toilets
• Use passive solar heating in the home

Note that all of these things are great things to do to minimize your footprint. However, none of them has a beneficial net effect on the environment.

References:

[1] Barnola et al. CO 2-climate relationship as deduced from the Vostok ice core: a re-examination based on new …. Tellus B (1991)

[2] Mills et al. Do Inhaled Carbon Nanoparticles Translocate Directly into the Circulation in Humans?. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine (2006)

[3] Zareba et al. Cardiovascular Effects of Air Pollution: What to Measure in ECG?. Environmental Health Perspectives (2001)