I
was going to start off this
review with a joke about how
astronomers make the most
authoritative Chicken Littles,
but after a while it didn't
seem so funny. Returning from
Central Asia last month with
our newly adopted daughter, my
wife and I had midnight
encounters with customs
officials armed with machine
guns and wearing surgical
masks to guard against SARS.
As this was being written, The
Washington Post
was running a series of
articles about germ and
chemical weapons for sale,
left over from a secret
program in South Africa.
Martin
Rees, Britain's Astronomer
Royal, a professor at
Cambridge University, one of
the world's most brilliant
cosmologists and a longtime
arms control advocate, gives
civilization as we know it
only a 50-50 chance of
surviving the 21st century.
The proposal for ''Our Final
Hour,'' a breezy but deadpan
recital of all the possible
ways that the sky could fall
on us, was so depressing, Rees
has said, that his agent had a
hard time selling it.
But
that was before 9/11.
The
choices we make in the next
few decades, Rees contends,
could decide the fate of life
not only on Earth but beyond,
either ensuring its survival
-- if we can diversify into
space -- or dooming it
forever. ''It may not be
absurd hyperbole -- indeed, it
may not even be an
overstatement -- to assert
that the most crucial location
in space and time (apart from
the Big Bang itself) could be
here and now,'' he writes.
Humanity
has progressed to the point
where we are now our own worst
enemies: adding to the
backdrop of natural calamities
that have always threatened
us, technology, Rees argues,
has now so highly leveraged
the power of the individual or
the small group that a
biological ''unabomber'' or a
mistake in a laboratory could
wreak havoc only dreamed of by
the Strangeloves of the last
century, who held the forces
of nuclear apocalypse at bay
by war-gaming scenarios of
mutual assured destruction. He
says, in fact, that he has bet
$1,000 that an instance of
bioterror or bioerror will
take a million lives before
the year 2020.
But
there are many things to worry
about, some of which will be
familiar to all: global
warming, asteroid impacts and
that old bugaboo nuclear war,
which has been transmogrified
by the end of the cold war;
the collapse of the Soviet
Union, Rees points out, has
left the world awash in the
raw materials, enriched
uranium and plutonium, for
some 70,000 bombs.
Others
are novel. Engineering
advances could lead to the
creation of intelligent
self-reproducing nanoparticles
that could eat us and every
other living thing on Earth,
reducing the biosphere to what
Eric Drexler, one of the
pioneers of nanotechnology,
calls ''gray goo'' -- the
subject of a recent thriller,
''Prey,'' by Michael Crichton.
Certain
physics experiments might be
even more catastrophic, Rees
reports. In principle they
could disturb space-time
itself, causing the laws of
physics to twitch into a new
form, like water suddenly
freezing to ice, destroying
our atoms and everything else.
Since we lack a
''battle-tested'' theory of
what happens at very, very
cold temperatures, he says, we
would have been right to be
worried when a metal bar --
part of an apparatus to detect
gravitational waves, ripples
of space-time predicted by
Einstein's general theory of
relativity -- was recently
cooled to near absolute zero,
making it what Peter Michelson
of Stanford University called
''the coldest large object in
the universe.''
In
a book whose influences range
from science fiction writers
like H. G. Wells, Kurt
Vonnegut and even Tom Clancy
to modern scientists, Rees
throws every possible calamity
into the pot -- some credible,
some not. The point is not
that any of these particular
disasters will befall us, but
that something might. And
scientists, he suggests, have
sometimes been more interested
in public relations than in
really leveling with the rest
of us about the odds we face.
Take
the cold war, for example.
Rees does not think the arms
race between the United States
and the Soviet Union -- a
contest that he says was
pushed along largely by
scientists doing their jobs to
improve weapons and thus get
an edge on the other side --
was worth the risk. He quotes
President Kennedy as saying
that the odds of nuclear war
during the Cuban missile
crisis were between one in
three and even. And Rees says
Robert McNamara, Kennedy's
secretary of defense, rated
the risk at ''substantially
higher than one in six''
during the cold war. In other
words, worse than a game of
Russian roulette. Had the
public known those odds, would
we have played along? ''I
personally would not have
chosen to risk a one-in-six
chance of a disaster that
would have killed hundreds of
millions and shattered the
physical fabric of all our
cities, even if the
alternative was a certainty of
a Soviet takeover of Western
Europe,'' Rees adds.
Before
the first atomic bomb test,
scientists took the time to
calculate whether the blast
would ignite the nitrogen in
Earth's atmosphere and
incinerate us all. The risk
was low and the test went off,
but Rees wonders what the odds
would have had to be to
discourage the bomb makers.
MORE
recently, physicists at
Brookhaven National Laboratory
calculated the odds that a
planned experiment, in which
atomic nuclei would be
accelerated to collide at high
speeds, might cause all the
matter in the earth to
collapse into exotic dense
particles called ''strangelets,''
extinguishing life, among
other things. The risk came
out to about one in 50
million. That sounds good, and
the experiments commenced
without tragedy, but Rees
takes no comfort in that,
pointing out that the results
of the calculation can also be
expressed as saying that 120
people might be expected to
die from the experiments. Not
even the most ambitious
physicist would advocate
accepting such a price for
scientific knowledge.
The
calculations and decisions
relating to a possible
extinction event get more
complicated if the lives of
the unborn are included as
well.
In
such cases, science is too
important to be left to the
experts who want to do the
experiment, Rees says: ''It
isn't good enough to make a
slapdash estimate of even the
tiniest risk of destroying the
world.'' He endorses a
suggestion made by the
physicist Francesco Calogero
of the University of Rome that
''red'' and ''blue'' teams of
outside experts should debate
experimental risks in public.
For Rees the shining moment in
this respect was the 1975
conference in Asilomar, Calif.,
where geneticists agreed to
hold off on certain
recombinant DNA experiments
until it could be ascertained
that deadly organisms would
not result.
Of
course, scientists now do not
have the last word on what
work or experiments they will
do; their paymasters in
government or industry do.
Rees's call for more public
accountability is likely to
raise hackles with some of his
colleagues who worry about
political interference with
research. Erica Goode recently
reported in this newspaper
that AIDS researchers had been
advised that certain terms,
like ''sex worker'' or
''gay,'' should be avoided in
grant proposals lest they draw
unwanted attention from
ideologues in the Bush
administration or Congress.
Fortunately
-- or unfortunately for his
career as a polemicist -- Rees
is too good a scientist to be
content with telling only one
side of the story. He insists
on detailing objections to his
own arguments. As a result, we
don't always know where he
finally comes down on some
issues. For example, he begins
a discussion of global
population growth with the
news that it will take the
resources of three Earths to
support the eight billion
people who are expected to
inhabit the planet by 2050.
But then he reports that the
population is expected to fall
after that, so that a century
from now Earth's population
could be less than it is
today. So is overpopulation a
long-term problem or not? I
don't know.
Rees's
book comes alive in the last
few chapters when he
reconnects with cosmology, his
own specialty, and confronts
the issue of what the
extinction of humanity would
mean for the universe.
Cosmology used to be the most
heartless of sciences.
Whatever grandeur could be
found in the immense wheeling
of galaxies, whatever elegance
there might be in the
Einsteinian warping of the
inky loneliness in which they
swim, it's a pretty cold
grandeur, an acquired and
comfortless elegance at best,
for most of us. Lately,
however, cosmologists have
concluded that the universe
and the life that lives in it
are all of a piece. Life as We
Know It seems to depend on a
miraculous and improbable
juggling of the numerical
values of a few atomic
constants.
Cosmologists
admit they don't know what to
make of this. Is life a lucky
fluke? Are there zillions of
different universes to choose
from? What is life, anyway?
There are imaginative and
impressive arguments that
humans are alone in the
universe and equally
impressive counterarguments
that life is ubiquitous. So
much for arguments.
Humans
are a recent addition to the
cosmos. If the whole
10-billion-year projected
lifetime of the Sun were
compressed into one year, Rees
writes, all of recorded
history would take up less
than a minute, and the 20th
century would amount to less
than a third of a second. The
unspoken assumption behind
such expositions, of course,
is that we are just getting
started; bigger, mightier
things lie ahead. But it might
be, Rees suggests, that the
future of humanity is as
slender a thread as its past.
If we are alone in the
universe, whether we survive
or not will determine whether
there is a point to the rest
of cosmic history.
DOING
nothing, Rees points out, is
not an option. In two billion
years or so, the warming Sun
and the greenhouse effect will
make Earth too hot for
anything but microbes; in a
few billion years more, the
planet will be toasted to a
cinder in the Sun's death
throes. The answer lies in
space. Once humans have
established homes or colonies
on separate planets, there
will be less chance that a
single catastrophe -- be it a
plague or an asteroid -- can
get us all (although there is
a greater chance that the
species will diversify
genetically).
But
NASA is doing it all wrong,
Rees says (he wrote the book
before the crash of the space
shuttle Columbia in February).
The space program needs new
technology and a new
''style.'' Rather than being a
quasi-military government
program, he believes, it
should become the province of
wealthy adventurers who are
ready to accept high risks in
the pursuit of frontiers and
of thrills beyond those
provided by yacht racing or
ballooning. A Moon colony or a
Mars trip would be suitable
endeavors for people like Bill
Gates or Larry Ellison, he
surmises.
Nothing
is forever, perhaps not even
the universe, but such actions
could give us a chance. ''Long
before the Sun finally licks
Earth's face clean, a teeming
variety of life or its
artifacts could have spread
far beyond its original
planet; provided that we avoid
irreversible catastrophe
before this process can even
commence,'' Rees concludes.
After taking this stroll with
him through the shadow of
death, I would be grateful for
any good news.
Dennis
Overbye is a science
correspondent for The Times.
His most recent book is
''Einstein in Love: A
Scientific Romance.''