So recently I finally finished the remarkable 1980 PBS series "Cosmos" with Carl Sagan. It really is very good, and quite educational too- I can see why Sagan was so popular. But one thing which you couldn't help but notice while watching the series, was Sagan's obvious love for the possibilities of space travel, of human beings 'reaching out to the cosmos' as he might say. I don't think it would be ridiculous to bet money on old Carl being a big fan of the various "Star Trek" manifestations. Carl Sagan, Gene Roddenberry, and Arthur C. Clarke; the similarity between these big thinkers is that they were all dreamers of a utopian, peaceful future (I'm sort of stretching here, because my main knowledge of Clarke comes from Wikipedia and watching Kubrick's "2001: A Space Odyssey", so forgive me if I'm wrong) where Earth could become some sort of benevolent, United Nations ruled democracy, with an agnostic or irrelegious tinge. And very importantly, WE HAVE SPACESHIPS!
Now I certainly don't want to paint these men in the same category as our esteemed President, who has expressed desire to send astronauts to Mars and have the United States military rule the realm of space. The aforementioned guys believed in a PEACEFUL, Environmentally sustainable future, where humans could depend on a stable biosphere and society back home while they traversed the universe. I have partially grown up watching the various "Star Trek" shows, and have found a lot to admire about them. My Unitarian minister, an exremely environmentally and socially conscientious guy, is a very big fan. A future where we could both not blow ourselves up (nuclear catastrophe) or destroy our home by our own means (global warming, climate change) and yet at the same time explore "new worlds and new civilizations" sounds pretty good to me. If I wake up and that's where we are, then Make It So, I say!
BUT, and here's what's been on my mind and troubling me for these past few weeks, since I finished Sagan's series- is a "Star Trek" future even possible? Can we both create incredibly advanced technology AND go into space with it without using that technology as weaponry AND become environmentally sustainable in the long term? I do wonder what Sagan, speaking in the midst of the Cold War in 1980, would say today if he were still alive. What would he think of Peak Oil, of the concept of Energy DESCENT? What would he say to people (such as Bill McKibben, another big thinker on the rise) who propose a much more down-sized, local scale future as our best hope? How would he respond to people who say that mankind will never again travel to the moon, that man will never go to Mars, never have manned spacecraft leave the solar system, never even create an economy large and globalized enough to support any kind of space program in the far future?
In short, is the idea of an ecologically sane and at the same time globalized and beyond future just a form of having our cake and eating it too?
In another movie that I highly reccomend, "Koyaanisqatsi" (1983) by Godfrey Reggio, there is a very haunting commentary about all of this, expressed simply through filmed images and Phillip Glass's out-of-this-world breathtaking music. At the very beginning of the film, we see a dark, mysterious series of slow-motion explosions and huge pieces of metal falling. As the images progress and the camera moves back a little, you begin to realize that this is a filming of a space shuttle launch. We see it fly up into the black sky magnificently, looking like the great achievement of human ingenunity and prowess that it is.
But then, at the very end of the film [SPOILER ALERT! WARNING, DO NOT READ FURTHER IF YOU WANT TO SEE THIS MOVIE WITHOUT KNOWING THE ENDING!!], we see a space shuttle, now in blue sky daylight, flying more horizontally now. It seems to be going steady, but suddenly the ship malfunctions and explodes, becoming a fiery mass in the sky. The same haunting, unearthly music that was playing at that beginning space shuttle sequence begins playing again. The camera follows one big fragment of the ship, now just a mass of wrecked metal, downwards and downwards as it descends back to earth. This sequence lasts like I swear five minutes, the fragment almost hypnotically twirling in mid-air over and over and over, ever descending. Then the credits roll, and the film is over.

This, to me, is one of the most powerful, prophetic, and in some ways ominous messages I've ever seen in filmmaking, and in all media I've ever been exposed to, really. Don't lose your humility, it seems to be saying to humanity, don't get too arrogant with all of your uses of energy (shots of oil derricks are a big part of the film too) and your advanced technology, because you, just like all other lifeforms, are mortal and finite, as are your creations. You are NOT invincible, and neither is your civilized sense of security. Its almost like a message coming directly from God, or from the Gods. Carl Sagan was alive to see this movie released; I wonder if he saw it, and I wonder what he thought of the first and last sequences if he did. Is space technology, and really most of our big-technological ideas, really ONLY possible because of cheap petroleum and coal, because of easily extracted resources that are now quickly dissapearing? Does Geology control our destiny? Because if it does, then Carl Sagan is an out and out liar. Gene Roddenberry and his beloved "Star Trek" is a lie. Arthur C. Clarke is a liar. Al Gore, to a certain extent, is a liar.
So what are we to do? Does the door to survival lead only to a vastly Relocalized future? (Note: to see an incredibly detailed vision of this, read the novel "Always Coming Home" by Ursula K. LeGuin) And all the paths of big scale, cosmic exploration, "boldly going where no man has gone before" lie behind the dark door of destruction and despair. Can there possibly be a compromise between these two dichtonmic views?
I think these are incredibly important questions that people in the Peak Oil/Relocalization community in particular, but everybody in general, should be thinking about. I myself do not yet have any definite answers to the questions I've posed here; I am still on the path to trying to at least attempt some answers. But regardless, there should be no hesitation or reticence into getting to the heart of some of the brooding thoughts that I know have been going through the minds of many in the Sustainability movement in recent years, about if all Globalized solutions are utter Bullshit, and Localized economies ar our only hope, or vice versa, or WHERE in between, if possible? We should not be scared to honestly and intelligently look at these issues, and be willing to go against some of the most ingrained 'common wisdom' our our culture, that is backed up by government, media, and religion, to mention a few. Because if Globalization is impossible, that pretty much garuntees that the existence of the United States for the long term future is impossible. If that's impossible, that means breakup of the union, that means succession, that means different regional nations within the U.S. That means Congress and Presidential elections and the Federal government is irrelevalent, and we should not waste our time trying to salvage a dying empire that will sink no matter what we do.
But perhaps not. We shall see. I am also aware enough of the "Star Trek" canon to know that things do not necessarily have to be so black-and-white. If you remember in "Star Trek: First Contact", how Captain Picard and his gang went back to late 21st century Earth (rural Montana, to be specific) after mankind had pretty much blown it as Carl Sagan and others feared- through nuclear war, social chaos, and environmental destruction. There is still a human society, but it is much smaller, humbler, and is starting again from scratch in many ways, humbled with the knowledge of the sins its committed. And yet, this one character, Zefram Cochrane (I can't believe I remember this stuff, I assure any readers, I am not nearly the Trekkie this post may make me appear me to be!) who still has dreams big enough to build a rocket ship big enough to reach a level of speed and power that gets the notice of the first alien species to encounter Earth- the Vulcans. This one encounter, AFTER human beings fucked up by using too many weapons, getting too greedy, forgetting about their natural environment, is what leads to the future "Star Trek" utopia, replete with interplanetary UN, peace on earth, and a bountiful, healthy biosphere as well.
So maybe, just MAYBE, things do move in cycles and after we metaphorically have our space shuttle fall from space, we'll finally learn our lesson of ecological and technological limits, and bring forth a better, sustainably built space shuttle, shooting off into the cosmos, wiser and humbler and more careful now. Maybe we have to fall and falter a little bit, before we've fully learned to walk, and get back up again, like a baby taking its first steps. Let's just hope there's a few helping hands (Relocalization advocates, sustainability folks, this is where you come in) ready to help the babe of the human race not hurt itself so badly that it can't get up again.