As I take man’s last step from the surface, back home for some time to come — but we believe not too long into the future — I’d like to just say what I believe history will record: that America’s challenge of today has forged man’s destiny of tomorrow. And, as we leave the Moon at Taurus–Littrow, we leave as we came and, God willing, as we shall return, with peace and hope for all mankind. - Eugene Cernan, 14 December, 1972

The past 50 years of the great stagnation have been marked by a marked decline in humanity’s ambitions. I am referring to, among other things, humanity’s unfortunate retreat from space exploration. Today, marks 50 years since a human being left Low Earth Orbit. Of course, there has long been the argument that we need to focus on making things right here on earth, and keep our heads, and astronauts, firmly planted on the ground.

And here on earth, there has been progress. Most notably, we have seen amazing advances in more broadly shared prosperity. At an interpersonal level, violence and discrimination against minorities and women is an ongoing problem, but one that is thankfully (if too-slowly) being addressed. Child abuse is now rare and widely condemned, instead of a fact of life for most children. And obviously, life expectancies have been greatly increased. Humanity has eliminated smallpox, and is poised to do the same for polio. Global poverty has declined precipitously, and while poverty is far from eliminated, the worst-off fraction of the population in most of the world today has access to foods, entertainment, and material comforts undreamt of by kings centuries ago. 

Of course, there is the concern that with prosperity and newer technology comes capacity for violence, and through World War Two it seemed humanity was on a trajectory to destroy itself. But instead of destruction, we have seen a continuation and expansion of the post-WWII long peace. While this is at present threatened, the Western world has taken steps to curtail future territorial incentives to violence, reaffirming post-WWII norms against territorial conquest. Our international structures have been wildly successful.

Even newer threats like climate change and engineered pandemics are being addressed - slowly, but with every expectation of success. These new and more global problems could not have been managed by a world at war with itself, but by-and-large, we have found ways to cooperate and coordinate globally. We should be aware of the growing threat of retrenchment or reversal of the trends and expected continued successes, but we should also celebrate progress. 

At the same time, there is a sharp limit in how much progress can be achieved by seeking only to stop bad things, whether violence and war, or climate change. Ambition and continued progress require more than just avoiding unacceptable outcomes. The progress in material comforts is primarily the product of innovation, trade, and policy, not redistribution of existing goods. The progress against war is primarily the product of global cooperation, economic statecraft, and robust global institutions, not an imposed peace by the victors of the last war. And the progress against diseases is primarily the product of scientific understanding, medical research, and ambitious global programs, not closing borders or isolating patients.

Unfortunately, ambition has recently been placed in contrast with continuing progress towards equality. This is disappointing. Humanity has been successful so far when it both pushes for ambitious goals and continues to pursue widespread prosperity and safety. Either on its own seems much less viable. Lives that are nasty, brutish, and short are the default, and much lack of equity and violence was due to humanity remaining in, or uneven emergence from that state. At the same time, progress imposes new harms, and active government intervention is needed to redistribute the gains to the otherwise-losers. But that possibility is a feature of modern life - governments are stable enough to have persistent and well-run economic policy.

The great stagnation's seemingly widely-shared pessimism undermines progress in every sense. I certainly can’t claim causation, but there is a notable confluence of dystopian sci-fi and escapist fantasy replacing futurist visions, a decline in innovation, and decreasing optimism among the public. People are despairing not only about the long term future and ignoring progress on things like climate, but even about things that have already improved, and seem likely to continue to do so, like air pollution, poverty, or health. That’s not to say there are no threats, but the pessimism, such as not having children because of misplaced concerns about climate, goes far beyond rational concern about future prospects, well into the realm of depression and anxiety disorder.

It took incredible progress to bring humanity to our current far-from-perfect but incredible position, and continued striving for ambitious goals doesn’t undermine that. More poetically, space travel does not require abandoning earth. In fact, quite the opposite; ambition is critical for allowing flourishing. The vast majority of human suffering has been the result of a lack of plentiful resources, either directly, or from humans fighting over those resources. We are winning that fight. So to me, the most worrying thing about the future is not retrenchment and a loss of progress, but a lack of ambition to do more. 

We have a promising future. Without being particularly optimistic, it seems likely humanity will eliminate more diseases, build and provide clean and effectively unlimited energy, enhance agricultural productivity and reduce impacts on humans and animals, explore and protect the oceans and other natural habitats, all over the coming century. And these are all worthwhile opportunities - but we can do far more.

It seems that the United States has decided to return to deep space, including missions to send humans back to the moon - redoing a feat accomplished half a century ago. Two years ago, China launched the third space station, following the precedent of the USSR’s Mir and the International Space Station. But if we want to be ambitious, we need to do more than what’s already ben done. Much more daring plans for the coming decades, and centuries, seem critical. We can and should work on widely shared prosperity, basic income, and continued planning to explore the universe. We should begin by dreaming bigger for ourselves and our children and continue launching ambitious projects on earth, and beyond.

New Comment
7 comments, sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

build and provide clean and effectively unlimited energy

How? The closest thing I can think of is nuclear fission but calling it "clean" seems controversial to say the least. Nuclear fusion seems a long way away from being economically viable. If you're talking about solar and wind, I think there are good arguments against calling it "effectively unlimited", or "clean" for that matter. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xXv-ugeTLlw for a lecture about this.

I am referring to, among other things, humanity’s unfortunate retreat from space exploration.

Can you say more about why you think this is unfortunate? My default view (i.e., not having thought a huge amount about this) is that there are currently lots of investment opportunities with better expected returns than space exploration, almost regardless of what your values are (e.g., whether you care about making money, or want to reduce x-risks). Maybe a couple of exceptions are 1) you care about space exploration for its own sake and 2) you want to use it to signal intelligence/competence or to compete for national prestige. What is your own thinking about this?

Solar is effectively unlimited. Yes, our storage capacity is not yet sufficiently developed to carry solar energy to the darker & colder periods, but that will get developed & installed as solar gets more and more competitive with other energy sources - which it rapidly is becoming year by year. More energy comes to the Earth from sunlight every year than we have received from fossil fuels throughout the entirety of human history.

clean and effectively unlimited energy

I think that I would consider people's access to food "effectively unlimited" - the binding constraint is how much you have any reason to want, not cost. We are short of that for energy not just because energy is dirty, but because it's a limiting cost factor for many people's travel, etc. So I would claim that we don't need costs to come down by more than an order of magnitude to get there, and that's plausible with current technology - traditional nuclear, solar electric, solar thermal, geothermal, etc. (And there is a key issue with making the available clean energy usable in transportation - but it seems unrelated to the eventual limits.)

I am referring to, among other things, humanity’s unfortunate retreat from space exploration.

Can you say more about why you think this is unfortunate?
...there are currently lots of investment opportunities with better expected returns

Tow answer these in the wrong order, yes, I agree that there are many other goals we can and should pursue, but excepting a few areas where we don't know how to get what we want - AI Safety being the most critical example - I think we could saturate them in terms of funding and manpower without dedicating more than a moderate fraction of humanity's resources.

But I view space exploration as both an investment into a prosperous longer term future, and a signpost. I'm not claiming that it has a near-term very large return, just that it's very clearly net positive. Given that, it's bizarre that we'd stop doing it, especially given how cheap government capital is and has been. (And see the comment here for more on that point.)

Child abuse is now rare and widely condemned, instead of a fact of life for most children.

I suspect this only applies to developed countries, and maybe not all of them, depending on where we draw the line.

Great post! I enjoyed reading it, and agree with most if not all of it. We really should dream bigger!

It also sounds like your estimate of extinction caused by AGI is relatively low. Is that correct?

Alright, thanks for your answer. That doesn't sound like a promising future to me though - is it that AGI is still a long way off in your view?