My friend Nick writes for Universe Today. He wrote a recent article on Plans for a Doomsday Ark on the moon:
If a major catastrophic event like nuclear war or an asteroid strike wipes out most of the humans on the planet, it would be helpful for the survivors to have a record of all the accomplishments we’ve made in the past few thousands of years to help rebuild and repopulate the Earth.
The closest off-world place to store such a structure and ensure its safety would be the Moon. The construction of such a “doomsday ark” was presented last month by William Burrough and Jim Burke at a symposium on “Space Solutions to Earth’s Global Challenges” at the International Space University in Strasbourg, France.
Seems like a cool, yet incredibly silly idea. Several commenters noted how ridiculous the idea is because, well, a post catastrophic earth might have trouble getting at the information that’s on the moon. I added my own comment:
I think the point that has been raised (how would this information be retrieved?) is very valid. I think a point equally as important, yet not yet raised, is: What information will be valued and privileged to be included? If the goal is to “have a record of all the accomplishments we’ve made in the past few thousands of years to help rebuild and repopulate the Earth,” then what counts as an accomplishment and what does not? Information such as “smelting metal, planting crops and building houses” is important, but then, what type of houses? With what types of tools and what types of materials? I’m highly suspect of this endeavor, mostly because it involves a group of people with power and privilege determining what information is privileged enough for this “Ark.” Immediately, even, we see the privileging of Judeo-Christian history over others.
HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! I’m glad I clicked the link over to here… When I read your comment, I didn’t look at the name (I was just skimming through the comments) and I thought, really, “This sounds like the kind of crap Mike would spew…” But seriously, I think you raise a valid point. Not about the retrieval of the information, however. I write in the article, though maybe don’t highlight strongly enough, that there will be outposts on Earth to receive the signal from the Moon. The Telegraph article gives the number of 4,000 of them. That’s a lot. They would likely be spread all over the place, and in protected areas from disaster as well. So the chances of one of them surviving is likely. Remember that this ark is meant to help any survivors. If something so catastrophic happens that it wipes out everyone everywhere on the Earth with no chance of people surviving at all, then the ark doesn’t do much good save providing a record for possible alien civilizations that travel our way to have a good idea of what life was once here.
As for the choice of what to put in the ark, you raise a good point. Somebody else also raised the question of whether we would even *want* to provide a record of a civilization that, in the end, possibly destroyed itself (though if an asteroid hit, or some other such natural disaster occurred for which we were not responsible, this argument doesn’t hold weight). Also, should we include only information about, say, environmentally responsible ways to rebuild the Earth?
In addition, there is really no limit to what kind of data can be stored on the ark, given the advancements in technology that we have seen. A super-huge computer could theoretically hold pretty much hold data on almost everything we’ve learned over the thousands of years that we’ve had consciousness. Including even such things as writings on the ability to be critical of privilege :), philosophy, art, music, recipes for hummus, etc. It would serve as a sort of relic of our civilization. If we somehow destroy ourselves with a nuclear holocaust or global warming, I would hope that any of the survivors would take a lesson from that, and use the information contained within for good. Really, this shouldn’t be a limiting factor on what knowledge is contained within, for it’s difficult to justify “withholding information” from the future. If we ruin our planet somehow, that means it is possible, and given a will to do so future humans would do it again anyway, regardless of what kind of information we choose to delete from our history. I guess that last statement says a lot about humanity: if it has the power and will to destroy itself on a global scale repeatedly, what’s going to stop it? On the other hand, it would be nice to not have to go through things such as, I dunno, slavery, religious persecution, the holocaust, etc. because a record of such horrible things doesn’t exist anymore. We learn from our past, and despite how awful people can be to each other, the world we live in is, if not necessarily more just than in the past, at least more thoughtful about what justice means. End transmission.
I am certainly for recording history, and not sugar-coating it for leaving out the awful stuff. Part of my question circulates around if certain white, Western knowledge would be privileged over other knowledges. And if other knowledges are included, how will they be included? Through a Western lens? My guess would be yes.
I disagree with your claim that there isn’t a limit to the amount of information that can be included on the “ark.” I’ve heard similar arguments: that there isn’t a limit to the way information can be organized on the Internet or on networked information systems. What these claims do is obfuscate our humanity by claiming that technology is a solution: a utopian humanist perspective on technology. We have to remember how we use and engage with technology, and understand that our organization and recording of information is always already limited, by our own terministic screens. Even if a group of someones attempts to put every achievement of humanity, including achievements by every marginalized group, it’s impossible, because so much will fall outside of the scope of what these someones can even see in reality.
I am also reminded of the movie The Fifth Element right now, and how the Fifth Element learns all about human history and is appalled and doesn’t believe that humanity deserves to survive because of all the awful inhumanity they’ve (we’ve) dealt out to each other. Of course, I agree with her ultimate decision, that we do deserve to survive, and I disagree with hiding our atrocious past and present, but this connection did come to mind.
I don’t think that putting all the achievements of humanity on a computer disk will somehow capture the essence of what it means to be human. In this I agree with you. However, just because we can’t capture *everything* doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t try to capture everything possible as a relic of humanity. When I said that there was no limit to the storage capacity, I meant that such a project isn’t necessarily limited in scope by technology, not that technology is necessarily a solution to everything (it isn’t). There is room for different languages and the customs of different cultures, etc. The ark is no substitute for survival, or like you said, how we engage and interact with technology. It’s simply meant to record as much as possible of our current progress as “symbol using animals”, to quote the Burke you reference. I think you’re putting too much stock in the ark if you expect it to somehow retain the essence of what it means to be human. It’s merely meant to serve as some sort of record and reference of what we have done so far.
The information on other cultures would probably be recorded through a Western lens, yes, mostly because the people in charge of this project would be from the Western, industrialized, space-faring world. What do you propose as a way of including information on other cultures from a non-Western lens?
Just an analogy that came to my mind: think of the library of Alexandria, and how much more advanced and different civilization would be if all the writings contained within would have had a copy somewhere else. This would be like making a copy of that library, so when it burns down we’ll have a nice record of what civilization was up to until that point, without having to piece it together.
No, I am not expecting the ark to preserve the essence of what it means to be human. Is there an essence of what it means to be human? The closest I might come to that is to say that we are all vulnerable, but I don’t think that can necessarily be captured. But that’s outside (way outside) the scope of this discussion.
I agree that the point of the ark is to record. But the question is, how can we get it to include a variety of voices rather than the colonial voice? In regards to the information that might be stored, what values and accomplishments are going to be privileged? I know I’m repeating my question here, but it’s important, and I wonder how in-depth the creators/imaginers of this ark are asking this question.
My proposed solution? Forget an ark for solely accomplishments. Let people tell their stories. Perhaps I am too rooted in the untold stories, the stories of people whose voices aren’t heard, and too anti the grand narrative of what a wonderfully technological society we are. Let the Iraqi women whose children have been killed in this war tell their stories. Let the homeless who wander Corvallis tell their stories. Let women dying of AIDS in Africa tell their stories.
I think an Ark with people’s stories would be a lot more useful to a future civilization than an Ark full of “accomplishments.” Perhaps I am contradicting myself: perhaps this Ark should be trying to capture some “essence” of lives. (I loathe that word, “essence.”)
In regards to your analogy: excellent one. I think that things like philosophies and lived experiences would be more useful than “accomplishments” (a word I read as largely technological and political), and I bet the Library of Alexandria had more philosophical and historical texts than texts recording accomplishments. I’m not sure if there is a distinction between these two types of texts — just thinking here.
Now if we could just stop using that blasted word “Ark.”
I think stories are important, but also there needs to be a practical side to the ark. The technical and scientific accomplishments of our society are important to record, as are the stories of Iraqi women who have lost their children in war. This is what the Pioneer mission did when it recorded songs in Chinese and recordings of different languages, as well as whales singing.
“Accomplishments” like the theory of gravity and relativity are very important to preserve as well. To have to reformulate these things would put back our civilization centuries. Technology such as medicine and environmentally friendly farming techniques are good to save as well, and we could include caveats like, “Don’t make cars that burn a bunch of hydrocarbons because they will royally screw up your planet.”
It’s hard to decide what to put on the ark, isn’t it? I love this conversation, and would love even more to be on the committee that decides what goes up and what doesn’t.
And on the word ark: I chose to use it mainly because my source used it. It’s a valid cultural reference, albeit for a Judeo-Christian culture, and I had to use it to bring in traffic to the article. Am I in love with it? No. But my choice in using it in the title and article was mostly out of convenience. Look up ark in an online thesaurus, and give me a good alternative that has as much economy. “Databank” kinda works, but using ark drives home the principle to an English-speaking audience very effectively, despite its biblical connotations, and leaves me to explain other things about the subject in more detail in the short space I am allotted.
Crap, I meant the Voyager mission, not Pioneer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voyager_Golden_Record