Forget manifest destiny, Musk's Mars fantasy is manifest vanity

The Advertiser

6 days ago

This is a sample of The Echidna newsletter sent out each weekday morning. To sign up for FREE, go to theechidna.com.au
Man turns 50. Buys red sports car. Leaves wife for girlfriend half his age.
Mid-30s man-child. Lives with parents. Refuses to move out. Plays video games all night. Relies on mother for laundry and meals.
Chances are you know someone who has Peter Pan syndrome, a condition that afflicts men more than women. Symptoms include stubbornly clinging to adolescent fantasies, avoidance of responsibility and a refusal to act emotionally or be socially mature.
There's also another striking example of this sad syndrome: billionaires with booster rockets.
The world's wealthiest individual, Elon Musk, regularly preaches about humanity's urgent need to colonise Mars. By becoming an interplanetary species, he insists, we can escape an Earth doomed by climate change, the prospect of nuclear armageddon, rogue artificial intelligence and the eventual death of the sun that will reduce our world to a cinder in, oh, a few billion years' time.
We hear much the same from Amazon czar Jeff Bezos, who envisions trillions of us living in self-contained space stations, a form of insurance against mankind's childlike destructive impulses on Earth.
Stirring stuff these dreams, rich with Hollywood romance and bravado. They're also fallacies, rooted not in science but escapism; seductive visions allowing the ultra-wealthy to portray themselves as saviours while diverting attention and funding from the crises facing us on Earth.
Climate change. Biodiversity collapse. Water scarcity. Inequality and wealth disparity. We know the threats. We know what causes them. We have the tools to address them. We only lack the leadership, investment and collective will.
If Musk and Bezos are so desperate for their place in history, their fortunes and influence could revolutionise energy consumption and mitigate poverty, illness and environmental destruction, transitioning the world to a more sustainable path.
Instead, they pursue vanity projects, burning through emissions with every launch while promising eventual salvation from a world destined to burn light years into the future. It's the ultimate abdication of responsibility, encouraging a mindset that Earth is disposable and that we can continue trashing our planet because there's another waiting for us.
A test flight of Musk's much-mooted Starship failed again this week, underlining the extreme engineering challenges now making his prediction of landing people on Mars before the end of this decade more unlikely.
But another more brutal reality undermines Musk's claims. Mars is not a backup Earth. Its surface is an airless, freezing, irradiated desert more hostile to life than Mt Everest's summit or the depths of the Mariana Trench.
It is blasted by radiation thousands of times more lethal than what we experience on Earth. Its soil is contaminated by perchlorates - toxic, cancer-causing chemical compounds highly dangerous to the human thyroid. Its gravity is only 38 per cent of Earth's, guaranteeing long-term health impacts on the human body.
Every drop of water, every mouthful of food, every breath of air would have to be manufactured or imported. Colonists would be forced underground or live in domes still vulnerable to radiation. Cost estimates for such a project begin in the trillions.
This is not starting over again. It's about grim survival; tenuous, laborious and entirely dependent on supply ships always six to nine months away carrying cargo costing astronomical amounts to lift into orbit.
The zealots sharing Musk's comic book Martian fantasies include his one-time paramour, Donald Trump, who absurdly announced this year that putting humans on Mars was America's "manifest destiny" - a popular 19th century phrase that invoked the divine right of the US to seize all territory in its expansion into the western frontier.
But humanity has already been to Mars, courtesy of low-cost orbiters and robotic vehicles. Given the limitations of our vulnerable bodies, surely that is the reality of future space exploration.
While the bromance between Musk and Trump might be over, the President's recent slashing of NASA's budget is likely to award the South African-born billionaire's company SpaceX billions in new contracts, further fuelling his adolescent ambitions.
Manifest destiny? Refusing to confront our current crises feels more like moral cowardice.
Being bold, curious and willing to explore the unknown made us who we are today. Dreaming of going to Mars might be human. But isn't investing in our own planet at this critical time more humane?
Surely the future should not be about who gets to escape our burning world, but who is prepared to stay behind to put out the flames.
HAVE YOUR SAY: Is it imperative that the human race colonises space? Should we devote our resources to fixing Earth's problems? Do the ultra-wealthy like Musk and Bezos have a moral obligation to use their fortunes to help others, or the right to pursue their own interests? Email us: [e-mail]
SHARE THE LOVE: If you enjoy The Echidna, forward it to a friend so they can sign up, too.
IN CASE YOU MISSED IT:
- Entertainer Magda Szubanski is battling stage 4 Mantle Cell Lymphoma, a rare and fast-moving blood cancer. Szubanski said the cancer was picked up during a routine breast screening, but admitted she had been feeling "rats---" for some time.
- Elon Musk is leaving his US government role as a top adviser to President Donald Trump after spearheading efforts to reduce and overhaul the federal bureaucracy.
- A recruitment firm has found that most Australians in its survey believe employers rarely or never hire people near or past the age of retirement and those over 65 years of age are generally excluded from employment.
THEY SAID IT: "I would like to die on Mars. Just not on impact." - Elon Musk
YOU SAID IT: Lamenting the effects of climate change one day, approving the extension of a giant fossil fuel project the next, the government's hypocrisy hides in plain sight, John wrote. (Apologies for the wrong questions being included. A gremlin snuck into the burrow.)
Bob writes: "We just saved two billion tonnes of Co2 by not going nuclear with the Coalition only to be saddled with four billion tonnes with the North West Shelf by Labor. Let's hope economics will change this idiocy, we can't rely on any government."
"It is an unbelievably criminal decision," writes Christopher. "Why, oh why do we have to put a number against every candidate on the ballot paper for the House of Reps. We should only need to number those candidates we could tolerate, and then neither of the grosser parties would get a number from me. A true preferential system."
Murray writes: "I'm the man on the corner with the sign bearing bad news. The sign says, 'You cannot change the climate with taxation.' There is a theory that if we pay lots more tax it will somehow halt the current trend of climate change. Not being an elite and in on the secret I have no idea how that's supposed to work. Maybe there's an altar at Davos where they burn money as a sacrifice to the climate gods. Who knows? On Tuesday I had to hose the mud off my car after the dust storm and a shower of rain. Maybe the climate gods were telling me something. I don't think so, I just enjoy the warm weather before we start heading back to the next ice age, heathen that I am."
"I wholeheartedly agree, John," writes Sue. "I can see some point to extending leases for another five years so that alternatives can be put in place for Australian power needs, but only just. That should have already been done, or at least be under way, but this is a form of hypocrisy that is more typical of the Conglomerate Party (I am thinking of the 'Let's get rid of public servants to save on salaries but secretly hire lots of consultants at greater cost to do the same job') style of policy making. Albo may be a quiet achiever, but there are times when he really needs to make a stand and perhaps to make a noise about it as well. Saying one thing and doing another is not acceptable."
Wayne writes: "I say 'right on, John'. Keep up the pointy stuff."
"I was shocked when the new Albanese government approved the extension of the gas fields off WA coast," writes Sue K. "It must have been a political trade-off to do with the recent election. WA is dependent on its fossil fuel and mining revenue and Albanese needed WA's support in the election."
Peter writes: "The Prime Minister's justifiable lamentation over the impact of the climate crisis, only to be followed immediately by approving a massive polluting, climate-destroying project, represents breathtaking hypocrisy and stupidity. That shortsightedness is why I didn't vote Labor on May 3, for the first time in 50 years. And yet Albanese was returned. With governments this dumb and dishonest, we are doomed."
"Thank you, Echidna, for drawing attention to the problems farmers face all the time," writes Arthur. "There is hypocrisy all round. Country people do not want wind farms, solar farms and high voltage electricity lines in their backyard but it seems OK to have a gas producing farm in the north west shelf which is not in the backyard of the people living in Perth. Just imagine the furore if wind turbines were erected in Sydney Harbour or Lake Burley Griffin. Likewise, if South Head in Sydney was covered with solar panels. The Nationals are right to support nuclear energy. Lift the moratorium on nuclear energy in Australia so our scientists can develop modern technology to replace outdated technology currently in use in nuclear power stations. Small modular nuclear stations which are the size of a shipping container may be the way to go. If mass-produced, the cost would be low. Hypocrisy is not confined to just politicians but to all of us. We have to wean ourselves off all fossil fuels. The sooner the better. A few blackouts might be necessary before the message gets through to city people just the way drought and floods are getting the message to farmers."
Mark writes: "You have to wonder how much money was left on the table for Labor to have done an about-face on the climate and approved the extension to gas exports from WA. Oh well, those who voted for the Labor Party on their (supposed) commitment on climate have got what they deserved. You mention floods. My question is why was there so much development on the floodplains in Lismore? If I am not mistaken, the local council would have got all the money from development approvals, and allowed this to happen, yet cried poor when it did happen; and then asked us to pay. Another example of hypocrisy. Just to be clear - I am not against governments stumping up with our money to support the SES, rural firies and the like, or paying to support farmers for natural disasters, but I am against short-sighted decisions."
"I used to work in WA and was always impressed with their gas reservation policy for local requirements, and their gas royalties," writes Mike. "Their turnaround on these (actually the federal government decision) is deplorable. One of the WA universities has researched and developed a process called HAZAR, using raw natural gas and iron ore (both in abundance in WA) which are converted to pure hydrogen and pure carbon. These are both non-polluting and are in demand, and have a lot of overseas interest. Why aren't the relevant governments backing this?"
Ken writes: "Your newsletter highlights once again the absolute perfidy of our politicians. Giving the North West Shelf project extension a gold card is treachery. The sanctimonious claptrap about climate and environment that came from Albanese and co during and following the election is immediately shown to be utterly untrue. Once again we the Australian people have been duped by the mendacity of this government who are firmly in the thrall of their fossil fuel masters."
"What happens to the countries that buy the gas if they can't buy it anywhere?" asks Phil. "It will lead to almost certain death to parts of their population. These countries currently rely on gas to power electricity generation. They do not have, nor can they currently afford, nor is it materially possible to transition to greener energy. So, refrigeration, domestic fans, hospitals, lighting, etc will cease in developing countries and people will die as a result. In philosophy, it is known as the trolley dilemma. I don't have an answer to this ethical question other than perhaps we need to fund the transition in the developing world. But this will take 30-50 years. In the meantime, gas production will be necessary."
This is a sample of The Echidna newsletter sent out each weekday morning. To sign up for FREE, go to theechidna.com.au
Man turns 50. Buys red sports car. Leaves wife for girlfriend half his age.
Mid-30s man-child. Lives with parents. Refuses to move out. Plays video games all night. Relies on mother for laundry and meals.
Chances are you know someone who has Peter Pan syndrome, a condition that afflicts men more than women. Symptoms include stubbornly clinging to adolescent fantasies, avoidance of responsibility and a refusal to act emotionally or be socially mature.
There's also another striking example of this sad syndrome: billionaires with booster rockets.
The world's wealthiest individual, Elon Musk, regularly preaches about humanity's urgent need to colonise Mars. By becoming an interplanetary species, he insists, we can escape an Earth doomed by climate change, the prospect of nuclear armageddon, rogue artificial intelligence and the eventual death of the sun that will reduce our world to a cinder in, oh, a few billion years' time.
We hear much the same from Amazon czar Jeff Bezos, who envisions trillions of us living in self-contained space stations, a form of insurance against mankind's childlike destructive impulses on Earth.
Stirring stuff these dreams, rich with Hollywood romance and bravado. They're also fallacies, rooted not in science but escapism; seductive visions allowing the ultra-wealthy to portray themselves as saviours while diverting attention and funding from the crises facing us on Earth.
Climate change. Biodiversity collapse. Water scarcity. Inequality and wealth disparity. We know the threats. We know what causes them. We have the tools to address them. We only lack the leadership, investment and collective will.
If Musk and Bezos are so desperate for their place in history, their fortunes and influence could revolutionise energy consumption and mitigate poverty, illness and environmental destruction, transitioning the world to a more sustainable path.
Instead, they pursue vanity projects, burning through emissions with every launch while promising eventual salvation from a world destined to burn light years into the future. It's the ultimate abdication of responsibility, encouraging a mindset that Earth is disposable and that we can continue trashing our planet because there's another waiting for us.
A test flight of Musk's much-mooted Starship failed again this week, underlining the extreme engineering challenges now making his prediction of landing people on Mars before the end of this decade more unlikely.
But another more brutal reality undermines Musk's claims. Mars is not a backup Earth. Its surface is an airless, freezing, irradiated desert more hostile to life than Mt Everest's summit or the depths of the Mariana Trench.
It is blasted by radiation thousands of times more lethal than what we experience on Earth. Its soil is contaminated by perchlorates - toxic, cancer-causing chemical compounds highly dangerous to the human thyroid. Its gravity is only 38 per cent of Earth's, guaranteeing long-term health impacts on the human body.
Every drop of water, every mouthful of food, every breath of air would have to be manufactured or imported. Colonists would be forced underground or live in domes still vulnerable to radiation. Cost estimates for such a project begin in the trillions.
This is not starting over again. It's about grim survival; tenuous, laborious and entirely dependent on supply ships always six to nine months away carrying cargo costing astronomical amounts to lift into orbit.
The zealots sharing Musk's comic book Martian fantasies include his one-time paramour, Donald Trump, who absurdly announced this year that putting humans on Mars was America's "manifest destiny" - a popular 19th century phrase that invoked the divine right of the US to seize all territory in its expansion into the western frontier.
But humanity has already been to Mars, courtesy of low-cost orbiters and robotic vehicles. Given the limitations of our vulnerable bodies, surely that is the reality of future space exploration.
While the bromance between Musk and Trump might be over, the President's recent slashing of NASA's budget is likely to award the South African-born billionaire's company SpaceX billions in new contracts, further fuelling his adolescent ambitions.
Manifest destiny? Refusing to confront our current crises feels more like moral cowardice.
Being bold, curious and willing to explore the unknown made us who we are today. Dreaming of going to Mars might be human. But isn't investing in our own planet at this critical time more humane?
Surely the future should not be about who gets to escape our burning world, but who is prepared to stay behind to put out the flames.
HAVE YOUR SAY: Is it imperative that the human race colonises space? Should we devote our resources to fixing Earth's problems? Do the ultra-wealthy like Musk and Bezos have a moral obligation to use their fortunes to help others, or the right to pursue their own interests? Email us: [e-mail]
SHARE THE LOVE: If you enjoy The Echidna, forward it to a friend so they can sign up, too.
IN CASE YOU MISSED IT:
- Entertainer Magda Szubanski is battling stage 4 Mantle Cell Lymphoma, a rare and fast-moving blood cancer. Szubanski said the cancer was picked up during a routine breast screening, but admitted she had been feeling "rats---" for some time.
- Elon Musk is leaving his US government role as a top adviser to President Donald Trump after spearheading efforts to reduce and overhaul the federal bureaucracy.
- A recruitment firm has found that most Australians in its survey believe employers rarely or never hire people near or past the age of retirement and those over 65 years of age are generally excluded from employment.
THEY SAID IT: "I would like to die on Mars. Just not on impact." - Elon Musk
YOU SAID IT: Lamenting the effects of climate change one day, approving the extension of a giant fossil fuel project the next, the government's hypocrisy hides in plain sight, John wrote. (Apologies for the wrong questions being included. A gremlin snuck into the burrow.)
Bob writes: "We just saved two billion tonnes of Co2 by not going nuclear with the Coalition only to be saddled with four billion tonnes with the North West Shelf by Labor. Let's hope economics will change this idiocy, we can't rely on any government."
"It is an unbelievably criminal decision," writes Christopher. "Why, oh why do we have to put a number against every candidate on the ballot paper for the House of Reps. We should only need to number those candidates we could tolerate, and then neither of the grosser parties would get a number from me. A true preferential system."
Murray writes: "I'm the man on the corner with the sign bearing bad news. The sign says, 'You cannot change the climate with taxation.' There is a theory that if we pay lots more tax it will somehow halt the current trend of climate change. Not being an elite and in on the secret I have no idea how that's supposed to work. Maybe there's an altar at Davos where they burn money as a sacrifice to the climate gods. Who knows? On Tuesday I had to hose the mud off my car after the dust storm and a shower of rain. Maybe the climate gods were telling me something. I don't think so, I just enjoy the warm weather before we start heading back to the next ice age, heathen that I am."
"I wholeheartedly agree, John," writes Sue. "I can see some point to extending leases for another five years so that alternatives can be put in place for Australian power needs, but only just. That should have already been done, or at least be under way, but this is a form of hypocrisy that is more typical of the Conglomerate Party (I am thinking of the 'Let's get rid of public servants to save on salaries but secretly hire lots of consultants at greater cost to do the same job') style of policy making. Albo may be a quiet achiever, but there are times when he really needs to make a stand and perhaps to make a noise about it as well. Saying one thing and doing another is not acceptable."
Wayne writes: "I say 'right on, John'. Keep up the pointy stuff."
"I was shocked when the new Albanese government approved the extension of the gas fields off WA coast," writes Sue K. "It must have been a political trade-off to do with the recent election. WA is dependent on its fossil fuel and mining revenue and Albanese needed WA's support in the election."
Peter writes: "The Prime Minister's justifiable lamentation over the impact of the climate crisis, only to be followed immediately by approving a massive polluting, climate-destroying project, represents breathtaking hypocrisy and stupidity. That shortsightedness is why I didn't vote Labor on May 3, for the first time in 50 years. And yet Albanese was returned. With governments this dumb and dishonest, we are doomed."
"Thank you, Echidna, for drawing attention to the problems farmers face all the time," writes Arthur. "There is hypocrisy all round. Country people do not want wind farms, solar farms and high voltage electricity lines in their backyard but it seems OK to have a gas producing farm in the north west shelf which is not in the backyard of the people living in Perth. Just imagine the furore if wind turbines were erected in Sydney Harbour or Lake Burley Griffin. Likewise, if South Head in Sydney was covered with solar panels. The Nationals are right to support nuclear energy. Lift the moratorium on nuclear energy in Australia so our scientists can develop modern technology to replace outdated technology currently in use in nuclear power stations. Small modular nuclear stations which are the size of a shipping container may be the way to go. If mass-produced, the cost would be low. Hypocrisy is not confined to just politicians but to all of us. We have to wean ourselves off all fossil fuels. The sooner the better. A few blackouts might be necessary before the message gets through to city people just the way drought and floods are getting the message to farmers."
Mark writes: "You have to wonder how much money was left on the table for Labor to have done an about-face on the climate and approved the extension to gas exports from WA. Oh well, those who voted for the Labor Party on their (supposed) commitment on climate have got what they deserved. You mention floods. My question is why was there so much development on the floodplains in Lismore? If I am not mistaken, the local council would have got all the money from development approvals, and allowed this to happen, yet cried poor when it did happen; and then asked us to pay. Another example of hypocrisy. Just to be clear - I am not against governments stumping up with our money to support the SES, rural firies and the like, or paying to support farmers for natural disasters, but I am against short-sighted decisions."
"I used to work in WA and was always impressed with their gas reservation policy for local requirements, and their gas royalties," writes Mike. "Their turnaround on these (actually the federal government decision) is deplorable. One of the WA universities has researched and developed a process called HAZAR, using raw natural gas and iron ore (both in abundance in WA) which are converted to pure hydrogen and pure carbon. These are both non-polluting and are in demand, and have a lot of overseas interest. Why aren't the relevant governments backing this?"
Ken writes: "Your newsletter highlights once again the absolute perfidy of our politicians. Giving the North West Shelf project extension a gold card is treachery. The sanctimonious claptrap about climate and environment that came from Albanese and co during and following the election is immediately shown to be utterly untrue. Once again we the Australian people have been duped by the mendacity of this government who are firmly in the thrall of their fossil fuel masters."
"What happens to the countries that buy the gas if they can't buy it anywhere?" asks Phil. "It will lead to almost certain death to parts of their population. These countries currently rely on gas to power electricity generation. They do not have, nor can they currently afford, nor is it materially possible to transition to greener energy. So, refrigeration, domestic fans, hospitals, lighting, etc will cease in developing countries and people will die as a result. In philosophy, it is known as the trolley dilemma. I don't have an answer to this ethical question other than perhaps we need to fund the transition in the developing world. But this will take 30-50 years. In the meantime, gas production will be necessary."
This is a sample of The Echidna newsletter sent out each weekday morning. To sign up for FREE, go to theechidna.com.au
Man turns 50. Buys red sports car. Leaves wife for girlfriend half his age.
Mid-30s man-child. Lives with parents. Refuses to move out. Plays video games all night. Relies on mother for laundry and meals.
Chances are you know someone who has Peter Pan syndrome, a condition that afflicts men more than women. Symptoms include stubbornly clinging to adolescent fantasies, avoidance of responsibility and a refusal to act emotionally or be socially mature.
There's also another striking example of this sad syndrome: billionaires with booster rockets.
The world's wealthiest individual, Elon Musk, regularly preaches about humanity's urgent need to colonise Mars. By becoming an interplanetary species, he insists, we can escape an Earth doomed by climate change, the prospect of nuclear armageddon, rogue artificial intelligence and the eventual death of the sun that will reduce our world to a cinder in, oh, a few billion years' time.
We hear much the same from Amazon czar Jeff Bezos, who envisions trillions of us living in self-contained space stations, a form of insurance against mankind's childlike destructive impulses on Earth.
Stirring stuff these dreams, rich with Hollywood romance and bravado. They're also fallacies, rooted not in science but escapism; seductive visions allowing the ultra-wealthy to portray themselves as saviours while diverting attention and funding from the crises facing us on Earth.
Climate change. Biodiversity collapse. Water scarcity. Inequality and wealth disparity. We know the threats. We know what causes them. We have the tools to address them. We only lack the leadership, investment and collective will.
If Musk and Bezos are so desperate for their place in history, their fortunes and influence could revolutionise energy consumption and mitigate poverty, illness and environmental destruction, transitioning the world to a more sustainable path.
Instead, they pursue vanity projects, burning through emissions with every launch while promising eventual salvation from a world destined to burn light years into the future. It's the ultimate abdication of responsibility, encouraging a mindset that Earth is disposable and that we can continue trashing our planet because there's another waiting for us.
A test flight of Musk's much-mooted Starship failed again this week, underlining the extreme engineering challenges now making his prediction of landing people on Mars before the end of this decade more unlikely.
But another more brutal reality undermines Musk's claims. Mars is not a backup Earth. Its surface is an airless, freezing, irradiated desert more hostile to life than Mt Everest's summit or the depths of the Mariana Trench.
It is blasted by radiation thousands of times more lethal than what we experience on Earth. Its soil is contaminated by perchlorates - toxic, cancer-causing chemical compounds highly dangerous to the human thyroid. Its gravity is only 38 per cent of Earth's, guaranteeing long-term health impacts on the human body.
Every drop of water, every mouthful of food, every breath of air would have to be manufactured or imported. Colonists would be forced underground or live in domes still vulnerable to radiation. Cost estimates for such a project begin in the trillions.
This is not starting over again. It's about grim survival; tenuous, laborious and entirely dependent on supply ships always six to nine months away carrying cargo costing astronomical amounts to lift into orbit.
The zealots sharing Musk's comic book Martian fantasies include his one-time paramour, Donald Trump, who absurdly announced this year that putting humans on Mars was America's "manifest destiny" - a popular 19th century phrase that invoked the divine right of the US to seize all territory in its expansion into the western frontier.
But humanity has already been to Mars, courtesy of low-cost orbiters and robotic vehicles. Given the limitations of our vulnerable bodies, surely that is the reality of future space exploration.
While the bromance between Musk and Trump might be over, the President's recent slashing of NASA's budget is likely to award the South African-born billionaire's company SpaceX billions in new contracts, further fuelling his adolescent ambitions.
Manifest destiny? Refusing to confront our current crises feels more like moral cowardice.
Being bold, curious and willing to explore the unknown made us who we are today. Dreaming of going to Mars might be human. But isn't investing in our own planet at this critical time more humane?
Surely the future should not be about who gets to escape our burning world, but who is prepared to stay behind to put out the flames.
HAVE YOUR SAY: Is it imperative that the human race colonises space? Should we devote our resources to fixing Earth's problems? Do the ultra-wealthy like Musk and Bezos have a moral obligation to use their fortunes to help others, or the right to pursue their own interests? Email us: [e-mail]
SHARE THE LOVE: If you enjoy The Echidna, forward it to a friend so they can sign up, too.
IN CASE YOU MISSED IT:
- Entertainer Magda Szubanski is battling stage 4 Mantle Cell Lymphoma, a rare and fast-moving blood cancer. Szubanski said the cancer was picked up during a routine breast screening, but admitted she had been feeling "rats---" for some time.
- Elon Musk is leaving his US government role as a top adviser to President Donald Trump after spearheading efforts to reduce and overhaul the federal bureaucracy.
- A recruitment firm has found that most Australians in its survey believe employers rarely or never hire people near or past the age of retirement and those over 65 years of age are generally excluded from employment.
THEY SAID IT: "I would like to die on Mars. Just not on impact." - Elon Musk
YOU SAID IT: Lamenting the effects of climate change one day, approving the extension of a giant fossil fuel project the next, the government's hypocrisy hides in plain sight, John wrote. (Apologies for the wrong questions being included. A gremlin snuck into the burrow.)
Bob writes: "We just saved two billion tonnes of Co2 by not going nuclear with the Coalition only to be saddled with four billion tonnes with the North West Shelf by Labor. Let's hope economics will change this idiocy, we can't rely on any government."
"It is an unbelievably criminal decision," writes Christopher. "Why, oh why do we have to put a number against every candidate on the ballot paper for the House of Reps. We should only need to number those candidates we could tolerate, and then neither of the grosser parties would get a number from me. A true preferential system."
Murray writes: "I'm the man on the corner with the sign bearing bad news. The sign says, 'You cannot change the climate with taxation.' There is a theory that if we pay lots more tax it will somehow halt the current trend of climate change. Not being an elite and in on the secret I have no idea how that's supposed to work. Maybe there's an altar at Davos where they burn money as a sacrifice to the climate gods. Who knows? On Tuesday I had to hose the mud off my car after the dust storm and a shower of rain. Maybe the climate gods were telling me something. I don't think so, I just enjoy the warm weather before we start heading back to the next ice age, heathen that I am."
"I wholeheartedly agree, John," writes Sue. "I can see some point to extending leases for another five years so that alternatives can be put in place for Australian power needs, but only just. That should have already been done, or at least be under way, but this is a form of hypocrisy that is more typical of the Conglomerate Party (I am thinking of the 'Let's get rid of public servants to save on salaries but secretly hire lots of consultants at greater cost to do the same job') style of policy making. Albo may be a quiet achiever, but there are times when he really needs to make a stand and perhaps to make a noise about it as well. Saying one thing and doing another is not acceptable."
Wayne writes: "I say 'right on, John'. Keep up the pointy stuff."
"I was shocked when the new Albanese government approved the extension of the gas fields off WA coast," writes Sue K. "It must have been a political trade-off to do with the recent election. WA is dependent on its fossil fuel and mining revenue and Albanese needed WA's support in the election."
Peter writes: "The Prime Minister's justifiable lamentation over the impact of the climate crisis, only to be followed immediately by approving a massive polluting, climate-destroying project, represents breathtaking hypocrisy and stupidity. That shortsightedness is why I didn't vote Labor on May 3, for the first time in 50 years. And yet Albanese was returned. With governments this dumb and dishonest, we are doomed."
"Thank you, Echidna, for drawing attention to the problems farmers face all the time," writes Arthur. "There is hypocrisy all round. Country people do not want wind farms, solar farms and high voltage electricity lines in their backyard but it seems OK to have a gas producing farm in the north west shelf which is not in the backyard of the people living in Perth. Just imagine the furore if wind turbines were erected in Sydney Harbour or Lake Burley Griffin. Likewise, if South Head in Sydney was covered with solar panels. The Nationals are right to support nuclear energy. Lift the moratorium on nuclear energy in Australia so our scientists can develop modern technology to replace outdated technology currently in use in nuclear power stations. Small modular nuclear stations which are the size of a shipping container may be the way to go. If mass-produced, the cost would be low. Hypocrisy is not confined to just politicians but to all of us. We have to wean ourselves off all fossil fuels. The sooner the better. A few blackouts might be necessary before the message gets through to city people just the way drought and floods are getting the message to farmers."
Mark writes: "You have to wonder how much money was left on the table for Labor to have done an about-face on the climate and approved the extension to gas exports from WA. Oh well, those who voted for the Labor Party on their (supposed) commitment on climate have got what they deserved. You mention floods. My question is why was there so much development on the floodplains in Lismore? If I am not mistaken, the local council would have got all the money from development approvals, and allowed this to happen, yet cried poor when it did happen; and then asked us to pay. Another example of hypocrisy. Just to be clear - I am not against governments stumping up with our money to support the SES, rural firies and the like, or paying to support farmers for natural disasters, but I am against short-sighted decisions."
"I used to work in WA and was always impressed with their gas reservation policy for local requirements, and their gas royalties," writes Mike. "Their turnaround on these (actually the federal government decision) is deplorable. One of the WA universities has researched and developed a process called HAZAR, using raw natural gas and iron ore (both in abundance in WA) which are converted to pure hydrogen and pure carbon. These are both non-polluting and are in demand, and have a lot of overseas interest. Why aren't the relevant governments backing this?"
Ken writes: "Your newsletter highlights once again the absolute perfidy of our politicians. Giving the North West Shelf project extension a gold card is treachery. The sanctimonious claptrap about climate and environment that came from Albanese and co during and following the election is immediately shown to be utterly untrue. Once again we the Australian people have been duped by the mendacity of this government who are firmly in the thrall of their fossil fuel masters."
"What happens to the countries that buy the gas if they can't buy it anywhere?" asks Phil. "It will lead to almost certain death to parts of their population. These countries currently rely on gas to power electricity generation. They do not have, nor can they currently afford, nor is it materially possible to transition to greener energy. So, refrigeration, domestic fans, hospitals, lighting, etc will cease in developing countries and people will die as a result. In philosophy, it is known as the trolley dilemma. I don't have an answer to this ethical question other than perhaps we need to fund the transition in the developing world. But this will take 30-50 years. In the meantime, gas production will be necessary."
This is a sample of The Echidna newsletter sent out each weekday morning. To sign up for FREE, go to theechidna.com.au
Man turns 50. Buys red sports car. Leaves wife for girlfriend half his age.
Mid-30s man-child. Lives with parents. Refuses to move out. Plays video games all night. Relies on mother for laundry and meals.
Chances are you know someone who has Peter Pan syndrome, a condition that afflicts men more than women. Symptoms include stubbornly clinging to adolescent fantasies, avoidance of responsibility and a refusal to act emotionally or be socially mature.
There's also another striking example of this sad syndrome: billionaires with booster rockets.
The world's wealthiest individual, Elon Musk, regularly preaches about humanity's urgent need to colonise Mars. By becoming an interplanetary species, he insists, we can escape an Earth doomed by climate change, the prospect of nuclear armageddon, rogue artificial intelligence and the eventual death of the sun that will reduce our world to a cinder in, oh, a few billion years' time.
We hear much the same from Amazon czar Jeff Bezos, who envisions trillions of us living in self-contained space stations, a form of insurance against mankind's childlike destructive impulses on Earth.
Stirring stuff these dreams, rich with Hollywood romance and bravado. They're also fallacies, rooted not in science but escapism; seductive visions allowing the ultra-wealthy to portray themselves as saviours while diverting attention and funding from the crises facing us on Earth.
Climate change. Biodiversity collapse. Water scarcity. Inequality and wealth disparity. We know the threats. We know what causes them. We have the tools to address them. We only lack the leadership, investment and collective will.
If Musk and Bezos are so desperate for their place in history, their fortunes and influence could revolutionise energy consumption and mitigate poverty, illness and environmental destruction, transitioning the world to a more sustainable path.
Instead, they pursue vanity projects, burning through emissions with every launch while promising eventual salvation from a world destined to burn light years into the future. It's the ultimate abdication of responsibility, encouraging a mindset that Earth is disposable and that we can continue trashing our planet because there's another waiting for us.
A test flight of Musk's much-mooted Starship failed again this week, underlining the extreme engineering challenges now making his prediction of landing people on Mars before the end of this decade more unlikely.
But another more brutal reality undermines Musk's claims. Mars is not a backup Earth. Its surface is an airless, freezing, irradiated desert more hostile to life than Mt Everest's summit or the depths of the Mariana Trench.
It is blasted by radiation thousands of times more lethal than what we experience on Earth. Its soil is contaminated by perchlorates - toxic, cancer-causing chemical compounds highly dangerous to the human thyroid. Its gravity is only 38 per cent of Earth's, guaranteeing long-term health impacts on the human body.
Every drop of water, every mouthful of food, every breath of air would have to be manufactured or imported. Colonists would be forced underground or live in domes still vulnerable to radiation. Cost estimates for such a project begin in the trillions.
This is not starting over again. It's about grim survival; tenuous, laborious and entirely dependent on supply ships always six to nine months away carrying cargo costing astronomical amounts to lift into orbit.
The zealots sharing Musk's comic book Martian fantasies include his one-time paramour, Donald Trump, who absurdly announced this year that putting humans on Mars was America's "manifest destiny" - a popular 19th century phrase that invoked the divine right of the US to seize all territory in its expansion into the western frontier.
But humanity has already been to Mars, courtesy of low-cost orbiters and robotic vehicles. Given the limitations of our vulnerable bodies, surely that is the reality of future space exploration.
While the bromance between Musk and Trump might be over, the President's recent slashing of NASA's budget is likely to award the South African-born billionaire's company SpaceX billions in new contracts, further fuelling his adolescent ambitions.
Manifest destiny? Refusing to confront our current crises feels more like moral cowardice.
Being bold, curious and willing to explore the unknown made us who we are today. Dreaming of going to Mars might be human. But isn't investing in our own planet at this critical time more humane?
Surely the future should not be about who gets to escape our burning world, but who is prepared to stay behind to put out the flames.
HAVE YOUR SAY: Is it imperative that the human race colonises space? Should we devote our resources to fixing Earth's problems? Do the ultra-wealthy like Musk and Bezos have a moral obligation to use their fortunes to help others, or the right to pursue their own interests? Email us: [e-mail]
SHARE THE LOVE: If you enjoy The Echidna, forward it to a friend so they can sign up, too.
IN CASE YOU MISSED IT:
- Entertainer Magda Szubanski is battling stage 4 Mantle Cell Lymphoma, a rare and fast-moving blood cancer. Szubanski said the cancer was picked up during a routine breast screening, but admitted she had been feeling "rats---" for some time.
- Elon Musk is leaving his US government role as a top adviser to President Donald Trump after spearheading efforts to reduce and overhaul the federal bureaucracy.
- A recruitment firm has found that most Australians in its survey believe employers rarely or never hire people near or past the age of retirement and those over 65 years of age are generally excluded from employment.
THEY SAID IT: "I would like to die on Mars. Just not on impact." - Elon Musk
YOU SAID IT: Lamenting the effects of climate change one day, approving the extension of a giant fossil fuel project the next, the government's hypocrisy hides in plain sight, John wrote. (Apologies for the wrong questions being included. A gremlin snuck into the burrow.)
Bob writes: "We just saved two billion tonnes of Co2 by not going nuclear with the Coalition only to be saddled with four billion tonnes with the North West Shelf by Labor. Let's hope economics will change this idiocy, we can't rely on any government."
"It is an unbelievably criminal decision," writes Christopher. "Why, oh why do we have to put a number against every candidate on the ballot paper for the House of Reps. We should only need to number those candidates we could tolerate, and then neither of the grosser parties would get a number from me. A true preferential system."
Murray writes: "I'm the man on the corner with the sign bearing bad news. The sign says, 'You cannot change the climate with taxation.' There is a theory that if we pay lots more tax it will somehow halt the current trend of climate change. Not being an elite and in on the secret I have no idea how that's supposed to work. Maybe there's an altar at Davos where they burn money as a sacrifice to the climate gods. Who knows? On Tuesday I had to hose the mud off my car after the dust storm and a shower of rain. Maybe the climate gods were telling me something. I don't think so, I just enjoy the warm weather before we start heading back to the next ice age, heathen that I am."
"I wholeheartedly agree, John," writes Sue. "I can see some point to extending leases for another five years so that alternatives can be put in place for Australian power needs, but only just. That should have already been done, or at least be under way, but this is a form of hypocrisy that is more typical of the Conglomerate Party (I am thinking of the 'Let's get rid of public servants to save on salaries but secretly hire lots of consultants at greater cost to do the same job') style of policy making. Albo may be a quiet achiever, but there are times when he really needs to make a stand and perhaps to make a noise about it as well. Saying one thing and doing another is not acceptable."
Wayne writes: "I say 'right on, John'. Keep up the pointy stuff."
"I was shocked when the new Albanese government approved the extension of the gas fields off WA coast," writes Sue K. "It must have been a political trade-off to do with the recent election. WA is dependent on its fossil fuel and mining revenue and Albanese needed WA's support in the election."
Peter writes: "The Prime Minister's justifiable lamentation over the impact of the climate crisis, only to be followed immediately by approving a massive polluting, climate-destroying project, represents breathtaking hypocrisy and stupidity. That shortsightedness is why I didn't vote Labor on May 3, for the first time in 50 years. And yet Albanese was returned. With governments this dumb and dishonest, we are doomed."
"Thank you, Echidna, for drawing attention to the problems farmers face all the time," writes Arthur. "There is hypocrisy all round. Country people do not want wind farms, solar farms and high voltage electricity lines in their backyard but it seems OK to have a gas producing farm in the north west shelf which is not in the backyard of the people living in Perth. Just imagine the furore if wind turbines were erected in Sydney Harbour or Lake Burley Griffin. Likewise, if South Head in Sydney was covered with solar panels. The Nationals are right to support nuclear energy. Lift the moratorium on nuclear energy in Australia so our scientists can develop modern technology to replace outdated technology currently in use in nuclear power stations. Small modular nuclear stations which are the size of a shipping container may be the way to go. If mass-produced, the cost would be low. Hypocrisy is not confined to just politicians but to all of us. We have to wean ourselves off all fossil fuels. The sooner the better. A few blackouts might be necessary before the message gets through to city people just the way drought and floods are getting the message to farmers."
Mark writes: "You have to wonder how much money was left on the table for Labor to have done an about-face on the climate and approved the extension to gas exports from WA. Oh well, those who voted for the Labor Party on their (supposed) commitment on climate have got what they deserved. You mention floods. My question is why was there so much development on the floodplains in Lismore? If I am not mistaken, the local council would have got all the money from development approvals, and allowed this to happen, yet cried poor when it did happen; and then asked us to pay. Another example of hypocrisy. Just to be clear - I am not against governments stumping up with our money to support the SES, rural firies and the like, or paying to support farmers for natural disasters, but I am against short-sighted decisions."
"I used to work in WA and was always impressed with their gas reservation policy for local requirements, and their gas royalties," writes Mike. "Their turnaround on these (actually the federal government decision) is deplorable. One of the WA universities has researched and developed a process called HAZAR, using raw natural gas and iron ore (both in abundance in WA) which are converted to pure hydrogen and pure carbon. These are both non-polluting and are in demand, and have a lot of overseas interest. Why aren't the relevant governments backing this?"
Ken writes: "Your newsletter highlights once again the absolute perfidy of our politicians. Giving the North West Shelf project extension a gold card is treachery. The sanctimonious claptrap about climate and environment that came from Albanese and co during and following the election is immediately shown to be utterly untrue. Once again we the Australian people have been duped by the mendacity of this government who are firmly in the thrall of their fossil fuel masters."
"What happens to the countries that buy the gas if they can't buy it anywhere?" asks Phil. "It will lead to almost certain death to parts of their population. These countries currently rely on gas to power electricity generation. They do not have, nor can they currently afford, nor is it materially possible to transition to greener energy. So, refrigeration, domestic fans, hospitals, lighting, etc will cease in developing countries and people will die as a result. In philosophy, it is known as the trolley dilemma. I don't have an answer to this ethical question other than perhaps we need to fund the transition in the developing world. But this will take 30-50 years. In the meantime, gas production will be necessary."