THE CASE FOR SPACE COLONIZATION
NOW!

What expenditure should have first priority in American budgetary considerations? Defense? Pollution? Education? Inflation? Unemployment? Crime? Welfare? Integration? Bussing? Bureaucratic over-regulation?

What we present here is felt to be an extremely convincing argument for an adventure in space that a billion years from now might well be considered by far the best investment ever made at any time by any society.

The adventure is the colonization of space. The argument is that man may soon destroy himself on earth before he can set up a backup civilization elsewhere.

Now man may or may not be the only life in the universe capable of abstract thought, but we surely must agree that much would be lost if man's existence were to cease right now. Trillions of trillions of potentially happy and productive man-years would never come to pass. We are obligated to do all we can, now, to protect this future!

In the last generation or two, man has clearly reached some sort of milestone or turning point. The present is unprecedented, and so the future is completely unpredictable. For the first time in man's history, many things seem to be doubling every decade or two, such as population, research, energy usage, pollution, nuclear capability, total knowledge, and more.

In addition, man has achieved the ability to destroy himself and all his future generations. The probability of man's self- destruction is clearly increasing at a rate much greater than, for instance, population growth. An in-depth study could well uncover some alarming statistics here. It behooves us to immediately begin work toward getting a self-sufficient colony away from earth. We just may be the only life in the universe with the foresight to have "moved out" before it destroyed itself.

So, should America go all-out for space colonization? What follows can only touch the surface of this question. The points that are made, however, are felt to be convincing enough to warrant immediate and forceful action.

Many of the ideas in this book are very new and very important. Read them with a receptive mind and criticize them fairly and logically, remembering all the while the importance of what's at stake.

"What can happen, will happen." - Anon

Unfortunately, mankind reproduces itself in series. One generation begets the next. When one generation ceases to exist all future generations are lost. In the past, the human race was well dispersed, with little possibility for self-destruction. There was no reason to think that the existent generation might be the last. But times have changed. With weaponry and research advancing furiously, it could well be that our chance for self-destruction is doubling every year or two.

Carl Sagan, in a recent episode of his very fine TV series, "Cosmos", has reasoned that the chance of human life continuing to exist on earth is less than 1% per century. This is equivalent to less than a 50-50 chance of lasting the next 15 years! As it stands now, it appears that most Americans (half are less than 30) will die a violent death. When the odds against us are bad, and rapidly getting worse, it's time to search for a solution.

But it's impossible to solve the problem of preventing, with 100% certainty, our self-destruction here on earth. This problem is just too complicated, and asks too much of man - such as restraint, understanding, objectivity, intelligence, compromise, and common sense - characteristics which are necessary for future survival, but seldom met with in practice, particularly in politics. We are now left in the ludicrous position of hoping we'll survive through each year.

But the hope that no unforeseen catastrophe will destroy man is a flimsy basis on which to assume that our species will enjoy its maximum possible time in this universe. If you want insurance, you've got to pay the premium. And the premium is due now. The only known life in the universe exists on earth, and, for a surprisingly large number of reasons, could soon find itself destroyed.

Man is particularly susceptible to such a tragedy compared to the crustaceans, amphibians, insects, and the countless other hardy families. Only his superior brain has enabled him to successfully compete despite a relatively fragile constitution. Should we succeed in our self-destruction, it's doubtful that nature could once again turn the trick of creating another highly advanced being out of any primitive life remaining on earth.

By whatever philosophical standards one bases his thinking, one must conclude that life is better than no life at all. Man's first thought must be to preserve the human race at all costs. It must not be allowed to come to an end, and specifically, it mustn't be allowed to destroy itself.

In the far distant future, it appears that man will be doomed by the lack of available energy (the 2nd law). This may not come about for 100's of billions of years. Before that, a collapsing universe may put an end to all life. And before that, our sun will become a red giant, probably ending all life in our solar system. But even that won't come about for several billions of years. Whether these problems can be solved isn't known, but man has plenty of time to think about them.

More imminent, not in billions of years, but maybe in just a fraction of a decade, is the end of all life on earth that man himself has the capability to bring about!

Now, let's look at just some of the ways that man can destroy himself....

We should interpret these historical facts as an ominous warning of man's vulnerability to forces beyond his comprehension and well beyond his control.

Less than a thousandth of an ounce of a certain bacterial toxin is enough to kill the entire human population. Bacteria, their toxins, and other substances that are even more deadly, very probably exist in many of the chemical, bacteriological, biological, and germ warfare laboratories of the world. Important questions are: Can these substances kill ALL human life? How secure are they from theft or leakage? Can they be controlled if used?

In 1974, at the now-famous Asilomar meeting, a group of 140 leading genetic researchers discussed the hazards of genetic manipulation, set guidelines, and pledged themselves to restrict certain aspects of their work in order to protect mankind from the potentially disastrous consequences of what modern science can create in a test tube. These scientists realized that they could produce a deadly virus or strain of bacteria against which there was no protection.

From France: "The threat of disseminating new infectious germs that have never existed in nature could provoke uncontrollable epidemics." And from the U.S. National Acadamy of Sciences: "Man has always been vulnerable to mass hazards, such as plagues and earthquakes, but he now has the capability of creating his own monumental disasters in a way never before possible."

But is a moratorium on experimentation in genetic manipulation the answer? Can one really believe that Russian, Israeli, or Chinese researchers will abide by such an agreement? Can you picture a German or Indian scientist, on the verge of a spectacular breakthrough, stopping his research? Of course not! He'll merely postpone publication. The final result of any such agreement is that the United States will have unilaterally disarmed itself in the field of genetic manipulation.

What's more, American scientists will no longer be in the position to lead an orderly, safe, development of the field. Advances will now be taking place clandestinely in backroom labs worldwide. Most scientists have the best intentions, but when God, country, or career enter the scene, nearsightedness can prevail.

In just the 4 years since the previous edition of this book, the progress made in genetic engineering and gene-splicing technology has been absolutely startling. The "miracle" of the creation, by man, of primitive life from mere inorganic chemicals is just around the corner. Also possible is the total destruction of intelligent life by some means that could never be predicted - and only understood in hindsight.

So we have ourselves a dilemma: On the one hand we must carry on genetic research, and on the other hand we must stop. How do we resolve this situation? The only answer seems to be that we allow genetic research to continue, as it would anyway, but that we take immediate steps to construct a backup colony away from earth in the event the genetic experiments get out of control.

Another illustration, closer to home, of how disaster might strike an intelligent and well-meaning civilization: much has been made of how vaccines could permanently eliminate German measles, polio, mumps, and many other maladies. By merely vaccinating all our babies and children, the United States might be entirely free of these problems and several hundred young lives would be saved per year. Aside from the economics and wisdom of each year subjecting millions of children to many millions of injections, with consequent errors, side effects, and deaths, just to save several hundred of the more frail children, we must consider the possibility of inflicting the whole American and world population with massive, permanent, genetic damage. Remember that German measles is notorious for causing defective offspring. Likewise, the Salk polio vaccine has been suspected of causing chromosome damage. And mumps often troubles the reproductive organs of both sexes.

It's quite clear that any promising new vaccines should be tried on only a very limited number of humans, and for at least several generations, before subjecting our entire population to a genetically unproven vaccine. Measles, for instance, is peculiar to humans and therefore a measles vaccine cannot be exonerated by animal tests. Incidentally, thalidomide was animal tested - and passed!

Today, vaccines can be used in the prevention of 18 diseases. The vaccines used to prevent measles, mumps, and rubella (German measles) have been developed only in the past several years, and the polio vaccine just a few years earlier.

And yet the U.S. Public Health Department recommends that ALL children have their polio and rubella shots when they're just one year old. The mumps shot is recommended for children approaching puberty! Already over 80% of all Americans between 1 and 20 have had 3 or more polio shots. God help us if we've overlooked some effect. We should be finding out in a few years - BUT only if the effect is dominant.

It should be noted that thalidomide was caught quickly only because of its effect on the 1st generation. The mutation was dominant and HAD to appear in the 1st generation. If the mutation was recessive, the effects could not have been detected until the 2nd generation, by which time a tragic, and possibly fatal, blow may have been inflicted to our gene-pool.

If we continue to indiscriminately subject the whole population to every promising advance, be it vaccine, food additive, drug, etc., then the chances are not negligible that in some decade in the near future the U.S. or world population will be decimated or destroyed.

"Many voice the view that the Salk vaccine has been directly responsible for the major increase of leukemia in this country. The 'theory' that this vaccine had any value should be put to rest."

Dr Frederick R Klenner (1974) Acclaimed pioneer in medical research

After all, this is only the 20th century. In our supreme ignorance compared to the 21st, or the 31st century, we recklessly choose to play with fire. Hundreds of young lives a year, for instance, lost to polio, rubella, or whatever, isn't a high price to pay for protecting trillions of unborn Americans. A few generations of human testing for each new advance is probably all that's required to prevent a catastrophe.

But since it doesn't appear that the government, or the medical profession, or the drug industry, will ever be convinced of the above arguments, humanity's only protection is a space colony. There's an urgent need for an isolated backup civilization.

But earth's atmosphere is now being strongly modified by man and the risk of some runaway effect is not negligible. For the past half dozen years there has been a change in the global weather patterns. Tragically for us, they're changing in a highly unpredictable way. Is this the onset of a runaway situation? Our air now contains 15% more carbon dioxide than it did 100 years ago. There hasn't been that much CO2 in our atmosphere for about 800 million years. Dr WL Gates, Director of the Climatic Research Institute, states: "If atmospheric CO2 increases at its present rate, global warming may amount to a climatic catastrophe in the 21st Century."

Simple pollution will never kill off mankind. As the pollution level becomes lethal, the population decreases, and so does the pollution. A population-pollution equilibrium is thus established. However, we know very little about the complicated, non-linear interplay between the various pollutants and the environment. Increasing the concentration of some pollutant over and above an unknown threshold level might start a runaway reaction that quickly increases some lethal factor's level until all human life on earth is dead. We just don't know!

For instance, though he often tends toward abrasive exaggeration and incitement, Dr Paul Ehrlich may be right when he says that the SST (Supersonic Transport) may have ended all life on earth had the U.S. gone ahead with it. Exaggeration and incitement have been avoided in this discourse, but, in fairness to Dr Ehrlich, they might be justified in order to shock America and the world to the dangers around us.

We could well be in the midst of a different runaway situation where the ecological equilibrium of our oceans is flipping from one stable condition to another very different stable condition. The great concern is that the new equilibrium mode, of man's doing, may not include man. Senator Ernest F Hollings and Jacques Cousteau agree that mankind could perish merely from ocean pollution due to industrial wastes and human sewage. Cousteau feels that this could come about in 30 to 50 years. Margaret Meade gives man 25 years!

Of course, from time to time, for 1000's of years, persons have been predicting the end of man for one reason or another. But as mentioned before, the present is unprecedented. For the first time we can speak from a position of some intelligence, with convincing arguments. Cousteau has conveyed great "distress and concern at what is happening to our oceans, our planet, and ourselves." He pleads: "I beg you not to dismiss this as science fiction. The oceans can die, these horrors can happen. And there will be no place to hide.

"Civilization will end within 15 to 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems now facing mankind, especially pollution . . . "

Dr George Wald c. 1970 Nobel Laureate

Of course we have no way of knowing the unpredictable dangers we're living with today, but here are some "improvements" that predictably might do us all in:

Aerosols - By the innocent but widespread use of aerosol sprays, we are introducing into the atmosphere fluorocarbon gases that find their way to the upper stratosphere and eventu- ally disrupt the production of ozone by the sun's rays. This ozone is vital in the protection of all life from deadly ultraviolet and X-rays. It's estimated that, if we continue to use these sprays, the amount of ozone will decrease by 30% by 1990, causing catastrophic changes in the balance of nature with the possible demise of man.

This is all speculation based on theory, but a recent report by a federal task force confirms the need for concern. In addition, balloon experiments have verified "to an astounding degree" the theoretical calculations.

That the billions of years of biological development, resulting in modern man, could all be for naught, merely because of a fluorocarbon aerosol spray, is a sobering thought.

Food Additives - There are hundreds of new, little-tested, additives in our American foods (France allows just 6). Chemicals such as preservatives, artificial colors and flavors, discoloration inhibitors, tenderizers, and sweeteners, can be potentially dangerous to the whole population. The average American is, with the FDA's blessing, eating over 5 pounds of additives every year. Long term genetic effects are of course unknown.

MSG (monosodium glutamate) might be considered safe after 5000 years of use in China, but even this chemical was questioned recently because of the vast use now made of this flavoring agent. And who's to say that no genetic damage can occur when a generation of children have been gulping down Kool-Aid, the powdered form of which contained 28% pure cyclamates, a suspected killer.

Fluoridation - Mass fluoridation of our water is much like mass vaccination of children. We don't know what the long term effects will be. One 20-year study discovered that cancer affecting the gastrointestinal, urinary, and female organs is 15% higher in fluoridated cities than in non-fluoridated ones, for a total of 500,000 additional deaths over the 20 year period. Over 90 million Americans now drink artificially fluoridated water, which seems risky considering what little we know, much of which is bad. If cancer is the only problem, we should consider ourselves very lucky.

Nuclear Reactors - The furious proliferation of nuclear power plants is of greatest concern to most people because of the thousands or millions of casualties resulting from a leak of radioactive material or from the reactor going past "critical". But just a million lives is of no importance to us here. We are concerned only with any effect that will exterminate all of mankind.

For instance, from Prof James D Watson, Nobel Laureate, we have: "Only the tiniest traces of plutonium are needed to induce cancer, and, if its use becomes widespread, accidental or deliberate catastrophies may cause wide regions of our earth to become uninhabitable for 1000's of generations." Here we are just a miscalculation, a misconception, or a misdeed away from finding our whole planet to be uninhabitable.

Another example: Krypton-85, a reactor by-product, is being produced and released into the atmosphere in such quantities that inadvertent weather changes are predicted within several decades.

"Our present understanding of atmospheric processes is insufficient to determine the extent of consequent weather changes . . . It is likely that Krypton-85 will accumulate in the atmosphere faster than our knowledge of related phenomena accumulates." W.L. Boeck, Prof of Physics Niagara University, N.Y.

Of equal concern is the problem of the nuclear waste. This also can be fatal to all human life, and is discussed later.

Television - Nearly every child and young adult in the world, especially in the U.S., spends a good part of his prechildbearing years in front of a television set absorbing "soft" X-rays emanating from the high voltage circuitry. The "recommendation" is that if one remains more than 6 feet from the set, then the chances of a mutation are "negligible". This is just another case where the whole population is simultaneously exposed to a new variable, capable of vast long term damage, whose effects have never been adequately tested considering what's at stake.

And just how many extremely subtle, innocent, activities are unknowingly and unpredictably leading us to a tragic premature end? We of course can never hope to predict, or even detect, every eventuality in time. A backup colony in near space appears to be the only solution.

". . . I'm glad I'm not a young man and I'm sorry for my grandchildren." David E Lilienthal - Jan 1976 First Chairman of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission

** Worldwide lead pollution over the centuries is indicated by the concentration of lead in different levels of polar ice. Since industrialization began, about 200 years ago, the lead content of polar ice has increased by a factor of 400!! The World Health Organization warns that the average human lead intake is already 70% of the "provisional tolerable intake". Recent work has found, however, that WHO's safety level should have been set much lower, meaning we're ALL now absorbing intolerable amounts of lead. As Rome fell, so falls mankind?

We are now performing experiments wherein the value of certain parameters are seldom surpassed in the entire universe. For example, by means of the laser, recent techniques have produced magnetic and electric fields, energy densities, and temperatures that are found only at the center of our sun. Within decades we'll greatly surpass nature itself in many domains. Are we absolutely sure that some obscure physical effect won't chain react the earth right out of existence?

A further example - the race for the biggest high-energy particle accelerator could easily be the mechanism by which all life on earth is ended. After all, even back during World War II, farsighted people in the Manhattan Project made a cursory examination into the possibility that the 1st atomic bomb at Alamagordo might set off a chain reaction in the atmosphere. Such studies probably aren't being made today. The rush to publish and the need to cut corners, time-wise and money-wise, are the reasons.

1000 Gev particles from the Batavia Accelerator, and laser powers to trillions of watts, could initiate some catastrophe that man could never have hoped to predict. And of course, larger and more powerful devices are being planned.

A form of bacteria has actually been found to live and reproduce in an operating swimming pool reactor. In addition, research has shown that several chemicals and vitamins increase the human body's ability to withstand the effects of nuclear radiation. Progress has been made in this field of radiation resistance and treatment on both sides of the Iron Curtain.

Now let's suppose the Russians make a great research breakthrough and discover how to enable their citizens to take 10 times the total radiation that the rest of the world's population can take. Would they precipitate a nuclear war? They would certainly consider it. What would they have done in 1945-7 if they had the atomic bomb and we didn't? And suppose they miscalculated and accidentally killed everybody off - or brought about some unpreclicted environmental runaway event that had the same effect? Not probable, but possible, and so another reason for a space colony.

" . . . science seems ready to confer upon us, as its final gift, the power to erase human life from this planet." Dwight D Eisenhower Inaugural Address - 1953

But unquestionably there will be wars, there will be nuclear wars. International Communism versus "Imperialistic" Capitalism has been the cause of an enormous buildup of increasingly sophisticated nuclear weapons in Russia and the United States. And now several other countries have joined the buildup for whatever reasons they've found to justify nuclear capability. So will there be war ?

Five panelists at a 1975 Harvard-MIT Arms Control Seminar said they believed nuclear war in some form will erupt before 1999, originating most probably with a small nation in the Near East, Middle East, or Africa.

The 3rd World nations, by the very fact they are backward, don't have the manpower, the finances, or the competence to properly care for their sophisticated nuclear weapons. Compared to the superpowers, 3rd World nuclear devices won't be as properly guarded, maintained, transported, or even deployed. Their leaders, from small, predominantly unqualified populations, chosen by so-so methods, advised by similarly deprived subordinates, and lacking such decision-aids as good communications and intelligence, may well drop nuclear devices on the basis of emotion, immaturity, or incorrect or badly translated information. And when one considers that there will be many more 3rd World nations joining the "club", each trying to outdo a neighbor, it becomes almost obvious that a nuclear war will be upon us well before 1999.

We are all well aware of the nuclear confrontation during the Cuban Missile crisis. If the two most advanced, and presumably most mature, of the world's countries can almost have a nuclear war, it's clear that several of the smaller countries will in time, probably soon, have their own nuclear war. We can only hope that the war will be a very limited one, and that it won't trigger some atmospheric or runaway event. But recent studies indicate that the nitrogen oxides released into the stratosphere by even a "limited" nuclear war can affect the ozone concentration to the extent that our earth's ecological balance would be so completely altered that all life could cease to exist.

The West is now facing a major dilemma: despite a highly developed technology and an advanced standard of living, it appears highly probable that much of our highly prized and hard-to-come-by financial and tangible assets will gravitate to Arab control in the next decade or two. The present thinking is that this cannot be allowed to take place, and we increasingly hear talk of a forceful takeover of Arab oil by Western countries. Ridiculous? Maybe so, and maybe not. The dreaded nuclear war could easily result from problems in the Near East, particularly as it's now conceded that Israel already has nuclear weapons in its arsenal. It would be hard to believe otherwise as the fathers of the atomic, hydrogen, and neutron bombs (Oppenheimer, Teller, and Cohen) are all Jewish, and a surprising percentage of highly-placed Jewish scientists have been involved with nuclear development, both in the West and in Russia. Even Fermi was half Jewish. And of course, Jewish nuclear spies are not unheard of. Israel is well known to have one of the world's best intelligence gathering networks.

Israel clearly has the technical know-how and the financial capability for possessing and delivering a nuclear device, and what's worse, the opportunity and desperation to use it. They'd use it if pressed. This is not to cast aspersions on the Jewish people. They're exceedingly intelligent. However, they're also extremely nationalistic and motivated, and in the exuberance of solving their own problems might take steps that are not entirely in the best interests of the human race.

But the first bomb to fall wouldn't necessarily be an Israeli one. It'd indeed be naive to assume that the Arabs aren't going all out to develop a nuclear capability with their gigantic monetary windfall. (just in 1976 alone, the Arabs purchased $8 billion worth of prime U.S. farm land, 4 times the cost to develop our nuclear capability from scratch in the 1940s.) With the help of the right German or the right Judas, the Arabs soon will join the nuclear club. When this happens, we can fully expect that they will attempt the fullfillment of their oft-announced intention of "returning" to Israel. This is no idle statement. The Arab's intense hatred of the Jews can only be felt by a first-hand extended visit. The Arab bomb would be used even if only a fair chance of success was predicted. And Israel would surely drop theirs first if their intelligence discovered that the Arabs were contemplating a first strike.

Almost certainly, if the Arabs and Israelis can have a nuclear war, they will. Clearly, if we invoke this "Semitic Murphy's Law", we have much to fear and should expect the worst. The next Arab-Israeli war could take the rest of the world with it into oblivion. Perhaps a Western takeover of the Arab countries would solve more than the oil problem.

The recent series of crises in the Near East is just one line on our long list of possible catastrophes, any one of which might bring on the end. True, any single event may be improbable, but so is a hole-in-one or a royal flush. However, if lots of people play games for long enough, the improbable will happen sooner or later.

So the Arabs don't drop bombs on Israel. Maybe the Indians will drop some on Pakistan. Or the Chinese will drop some on Russia. Or Russia on the States. If it CAN happen, WILL it?

". . . a nuclear war by the end of the century is a distinct possibility." U.S. News and World Report - Mar 3, 1975

But if the superpowers have a war, a last rite for mankind is in order. The quantity of weapons involved is staggering. Take for instance just one weapon - the Trident:

The United States Navy is presently working furiously on 10 Trident submarines. Each submarine will contain 24 missiles. Each missile will contain 17 independently targeted warheads. each warhead is capable of destroying a city, for a grand total of 4080 cities. 4080!!

What with the Communist threat, these subs can be a valuable weapon, and in fact could actually be a great deterrent. However it's clear that, in the light of what we've been discussing, they could, by themselves, spell the end of life on earth.

We have that same dilemma: We must provide for our defense, but in so doing we bring man closer to his extinction. And so, the same answer: The perceptive few must alert the slumbering many to the necessity of a self-sufficient colony in space.

"There is no defense in science against the weapons which can now destroy civilization." Albert Einstein - c. 1950

2. Mass Vaccination - of populations with vaccines that were insufficiently researched and tested, or improperly prepared, either accidentally or deliberately. Mass sterility, death, or genetic destruction, now or later, could result.

3. Ecological "Flip" - The establishment of a very different, but stable, environmental equilibrium by man's exceeding an unknown pollution threshold level.

a. Atmospheric pollution, affecting earth's thermal balance, from auto, industry, or SST effluents.

b. Atmospheric pollution, affecting the ozone layer, from aerosol sprays, SST's, and nitrogen oxides from a limited nuclear war.

c. Ocean pollution, from industrial wastes and human sewage. The manner of man's demise, soon, by important authorities.

d. Weather (or climate) manipulation, but with no knowledge of short and long term effects, or threshold levels. The effect of reactor effluent Krypton-85.

4. World War III - Third World nuclear capability plus irresponsible, impulsive, actions of incompetents, or a great nuclear holocaust due to large quantities of superweapons: B-52's, B-l's, Minuteman III, Polaris, Trident, etc. , and their Russian counterparts, resulting in man's extinction due to excessive worldwide radiation level or by inducing an ecological flip.

5. Chemical, Bacteriological, Biological, or Germ Warfare, resulting in uncontrolled epidemics, long term genetic effects, or an ecological flip, eliminating human life.

6. Nuclear Reactors - The present controversy centers around major accidents, leakage, transport of fuel and waste, sabotage, release of extremely carcinogenic plutonium, waste disposal, theft of fuel or waste by individuals or terrorist groups.

7. Advanced Experimentation - Furious competition in all fields of research, possibly initiating some catastrophe which man had no reasonable possibility of predicting. Modern lasers, particle accelerators, etc., are creating effects unknown in the universe until now. Also, a research breakthrough could tempt a country to undertake world conquest, accidentally ending all human life.

8. Short or Long-Term Genetic Effects - due to:

a. Irresponsible mass vaccination or fluoridation.

b. Mass ingestion of vast quantities of large numbers of untested food additives.

c. Massive irradiation from television sets, medical X-rays, and industry.

d. Accidental or deliberate leakage from many nuclear reactors now extant or planned.

e. Deterioration, leakage, theft, or sabotage of underground or underwater radioactive waste disposal sites.

Above have been listed many different ways in which man can be wiped out. Further study should uncover many, many more. And surely no amount of study will be able to ferret out the vast number of very subtle, and thus very unpredictable ways of ending our fragile human existence. We should marvel at how the aerosol problem was predicted before there was any indication of a problem. Many thanks are due chemists Molina and Rowland, for they just may have given mankind a few more important years on Earth.

Examining the above list, both known and unknown, one must be impressed with its quantity, variety, and subtlety. Hopefully these deleterious effects will only add, and not multiply. We might allay our fears by applying some sort of "Environmental Superposition Theorem" and thus justify addition instead of multiplication, but again, we just don't know.

In our ignorance we should take urgent steps to protect man's future and proceed with the colonization of space immediately.

So, that is what may be at stake. If it were possible to know, it's certain that every yet-unborn person would appeal to us that we must, at all costs, assure his existence by immediately taking steps to prevent our self-destruction.

Life on earth will certainly cease to exist some day, but can we predict how soon? Unfortunately, every science (except mathematics) is based upon laboratory and field observations of the world as it's handed to us. The experimentalists are usually far ahead of the theorists who spend the great majority of their time trying to explain what has been observed. It's clear, since we're almost always one step behind in our understanding of the facts, that no advance warning of our imminent demise can be expected from the theorists.

Since our scientists can't enlighten us, what about our politicians? Can they somehow control the geometrically increasing indicators (population, energy, etc.) and peacefully level them out to a stable plateau? Or will there be some sort of earthly "big bang"? One might only predict from the manner in which world leaders have solved their problems in the past, and by judging the caliber of our leadership in the world today.

It may be that the only way we can have of predicting the time by which we should set up our colony is to look at the curves that depict these geometrically increasing indicators of impending disaster. These rates of increase surely cannot be maintained for many years - and so we must get on with the construction of space colonies - Now!

For many present-day decision makers, the argument that immediate space colonization may save 10-to-the-60th man-years in the future may not be as persuasive as an argument that space colonization can solve problems of the moment and that taxpayers and constituents will be benefitted now or in the near future. Well, space colonization CAN solve other problems here on Earth, and can actually save a far greater amount of money than the amount required for this project.

For example, take the problem we have with radioactive waste disposal. For the next 50 years or so, until fusion reactors are phased in, man will be accumulating fearsome amounts of radioactive waste products. If by some engineering miscalculation, or by some premeditated sabotage, his method of storage were to fail, the accumulated radioactive waste of decades would be released, and man's continued existence on earth would be jeopardized. Agreed, the chance of this taking place is very small, but with no backup colonies away from earth, any chance at all is too much. (Note that many of the steel and cement canisters, designed to last decades, are already leaking.)

The point to be emphasized here is that to outlaw fission reactors, or to find another method of waste disposal that is 100.00% reliable, would ultimately cost the society more money and resources than it'd take to set up a colony. With backup colonies elsewhere, we can still use fission reactors and take chances with present (but still very highly reliable) methods of waste disposal.

The above discussion attempts to impart the notion that parallel civilizations can progress more efficiently and quickly and less expensively when it isn't necessary for each civilization to plan for a certain existence forever. Shortcuts can be taken by one colony for faster progress, secure in the knowledge that in the event of a catastrophic miscalculation or misdeed that other sister civilizations would carry on.

The radioactive waste disposal illustration of course also applies to the SST, genetic research, mass vaccinations, etc. The overriding concern is that mankind is presently in the unfavorable position of taking shortcuts, yet not having parallel backup civilizations to carry on, thus almost insuring the death of the human race in the next 10 or 100 years.

But even the above argument may not satisfy a politician's requirement for a clear saving of taxpayer dollars in the near future. In a few pages we'll discuss how "O'Neill Space Colonies" will not only pay for themselves, but also solve the energy problem. An exciting development, coming in the nick of time.

Another theory has it that the number of advanced civilizations in the universe (not just our galaxy) about equals the average life of an advanced civilization (in years) before self-destruction. Assuming we're average, and that we've been "advanced" for the last 1000 years, and that we'll destroy ourselves in the next few decades, we have that there are some 1000 civilizations in the universe capable of abstract thought. This, too, could be completely in error in either direction.

Since there are over 10-to-the-10th galaxies in the universe, the above 2 theories differ by over 17 orders of magnitude, presumably due to the definitions of "life" and "advanced civilization". So we have absolutely no idea whether the universe is host to just one civilization, or to trillions of civilizations having an intelligence enough to understand the question.

If the universe is populated with trillions of thinking, reasoning civilizations, then one might easily drift into the belief that an extra-terrestrial venture at this time would serve no purpose since our one single civilization, just one of many, is unimportant. On the other hand, the human being of planet earth is basically adventurous and should not settle for eternal oblivion when the future holds so much promise of achievement and happiness. Whether or not other life exists, we should not be satisfied with merely existing on earth - shackled to a small planet and a mediocre sun. We inhabitants of earth, especially we Americans, have the industrial and financial capability to free ourselves of this troubled and precarious existence.

Now that we have the motivation, all we need to do is to recognize the priority, roll up our sleeves, and get on with it. The earth, for the most part, consists of industrious people capable of enjoying their short lives. These people deserve, and should demand, a place in the universe far larger than the planet earth.

The point to be emphasized: Even if the universe abounds with life, we should still attempt to preserve our form of life and assert our rightful place. But most importantly, it must be done now, before it can't be done at all.

However, there's good reason to believe that few, if any, other intelligent civilizations exist in the universe (see next section) in which case it becomes even more imperative that we get on with the colonization of space.

Now about that single instance - that chance combination of chemicals - it almost certainly happened only once on the earth's surface in all those billions of years. It was clearly a very fortuitous event, possibly never duplicated in all the universe. In labs the world over, many are trying to duplicate it in very ideal conditions. Scientists are injecting into sealed containers all sorts of combinations of amino acids; ammonia; water; gases; heat; sparks; UV, gamma and particle radiation; - whatever they can conjure up. They've come up with interesting organics, some simple proteins, but certainly nothing even closely resembling the most primitive form of monosexual life.

Even when this monosexual life appeared on earth, another giant step had to be taken: bisexual life had to be created. A monosexual species, though it undergoes mutation, can improve its species only at a very slow rate. Mutations must take place serially, whereas with a bisexual species, mutations in different members can both be passed on into the offspring. Thus improvement by mutation and selection can take place in bisexual species at rates many orders of magnitude faster than in monosexual species. In order for advanced forms of life to appear on earth, a bisexual species had to appear. This is no mean task and must be considered another very fortuitous event in man's creation.

One could make a long list of very improbable mutations necessary for an intelligent species: hands that grasp, legs that transport, sight, hearing, speech, etc., plus that one lucky development in the brain that differentiates us from the apes. But for that one mutation we could have been spending the next ten billion years foraging, grooming, and swinging from trees.

Because of the long sequence of beneficial mutations required, intelligent life may not be as ubiquitous throughout the universe as most think. If life is so easily created, and so easily develops, spontaneously, all over the universe, then: