Astrophysicist and NPR blogger Adam Frank writes about the “sustainability bottleneck” as the state faced by technological civilizations like ours, which have learned how to “intensively harvest” energy, but not how to sustain themselves through the crisis this harvesting sets off.
It turns out there may be millions of planets that give rise to life in our galaxy alone. Frank asks, “So where is everybody?” and then answers that “Maybe not everyone — maybe no one — makes it to the other side” — which seems to me like the collectivist version of Jim Morrison’s famous quip that “no one here gets out alive.”
Frank and fellow astrobiologist Woodruff Sullivan develop this idea in a fascinating article published in the journal Anthropocene, where they coin the term SWEIT for “Species with Energy-Intensive Technology.” That’s a term I would question, since it’s not so much the species that is the issue here as it’s the techno-ecological system — a mode of production in Marxist parlance, that includes members of one or more species (humanity, in our case), but also various crucial relations with other species, tools, entities, and processes. It’s worth debating alternative terms for this beyond the speciecentric “SWEIT,” just as it’s worth debating the virtues and limitations of the term “Anthropocene.”
But the problem Frank and Sullivan address — how to get through the sustainability bottleneck — is perhaps the koan of our time, and I find their sober and scientific approach to it refreshing. The article uses nonlinear dynamical systems theory to explore cosmic evolution, planetary habitability, mass extinctions, and other matters relevant to understanding the possibilities of getting through the sustainability bottleneck. (For an open-access, pre-publication version of the Frank and Sullivan article, entitled “Sustainability and the astrobiological perspective,” see here.)
Their work makes me think that if humanity’s Plan A should be to do our best to get through that bottleneck, perhaps Plan B might be to leave behind, and maybe broadcast, some useful lessons for why we failed. In other words, to leave behind some extraterrestrial literature for those who come after us. (Space graffiti, anyone? I know the idea that we should leave anything behind will sound presumptuous to my anti-anthropocentrist friends, but so be it.)
Buddhists speak of the value of acknowledging the good fortune of being born human — at least of being born human in circumstances where we can hear about, and perhaps act on, the possibility of liberation.
The astrobiologists’ research suggests going back a few steps — and also thinking forward one or two. Going back means being grateful to have arisen in the kind of universe that produces planets, life, and civilizations, even if the chances of “our own civilization” getting through its bottleneck are humbling. (God may indeed play dice with the universe — which can be a fine thing if one of the throws of the dice will be a winner. Some of the other bottles might produce some fine wine while they last.)
And, looking forward, we can anticipate that one day a civilization might arise that will solve the kinds of issues ours faces — issues of short-sightedness, egocentrism, illusion about the nature of reality, and so on — to get through that bottleneck.
Next (scary) question: what, then?
Ah synchronicity. Thanks for this Adrian, the final chapter of my current book project is on the the sustainability and adaptationist solutions to the Fermi Paradox, and I wasn’t aware of Frank and Sullivan’s piece. You might want to look at the following if you’re interested.
Baum, Seth D. and Jacob D. Haqq-Misra, ‘The Sustainability Solution to the Fermi Paradox.’ Journal of the British Interplanetary Society, 62, 2009, pp. 47-51.
Baum, Seth D. ‘Is Humanity Doomed? Insights from Astrobiology.’ Sustainability, 2, 2010, pp. 591-603.
Baum, Seth D. ‘Teaching Astrobiology in a Sustainability Course.’ Journal of Sustainability Education, Vol. 4, January 2013,
You might also want to look at Fowler’s work on human sustainability, which has the figures for a sustainable human population (by various measures) down at somewhere between 35 and 10 million.
Fowler, Charles W. and Larry Hobbs. ‘Is Humanity Sustainable?’ Proceedings of the Royal Society, 270 (1533). 2003, pp. 2579-2583.
Fowler, Charles W. ‘Maximising Biodiversity, Information and Sustainability.’ Biodiversity and Conservation, 17 (4), 2008, pp. 841-855.
Sustainability bottleneck indeed!
Thanks for those references, Paul. The connection between astrobiology and sustainability never really occurred to me (or stuck with me) until I read the piece by Frank, so it’s nice to see that it’s a vigorously growing field. I’m curious about your book project… When will we be able to hear more about it?
Hi Adrian. The book is kind of in production hell at the moment, or rather writing hell, progressing only in fits and starts due to a v.heavy teaching workload. The current working title is The Future is Pagan: Collapse and the New Indigeneity. It’s most basically another attack on the myth of progress, a diagnostic of the anthropocene and the unfolding ecological crises and some speculative history about likely future scenarios. Collapse theory spliced with some radical ecology and speculative realism might be another way of selling it. It should have a market amongst those interested in collapse studies, radical environmentalism and some pagans too. But it’s also one of those books one ends up writing for oneself and one’s kids – kind of a personal exorcism.
it (we) does seem to be a species that can’t come up with and employ any real viable alternatives so isn’t that roughly the same thing?
dmf – Isn’t it too early to say whether we can come up with viable alternatives? (I’m assuming you mean alternatives to the energy-intensive technologies we’ve developed so far, yes?)
I’m thinking more of political co-operations to change course in time and don’t see any evidence of new ways of organizing such massive shifts even if we can engineer some possible solutions.
As Earth goes down the tubes, the 1% of the 1% (who are smart enough to keep their mega mansions from burning down) are going to finance clones of Elon Musk to test cryonic space flight to infinity & beyond.
Bruce Sterling’s 1984 “Sunken Gardens” is the classic predecessor for extra-terrestial HUNGER GAMES: “The history of mankind in space had been a long epic of ambitions and rivalries… The independent life-support systems had given them the mentality of city-states… Pioneer elites burst forth, defying anyone to stop their pursuit of aberrant technologies… The shattered cultures coalesced into factions, so thoroughly alienated from one another that they were called humanity only for lack of a better term. The Shapers, for instance, had seized control of their own genetics, abandoning mankind in a burst of artificial evolution. Their rivals, the Mechanists, had replaced flesh with advanced prosthetics. Mirasol’s own group, the Patternists … specialized in cerebral asymmetry … autism, fugue states, and paranoia… The Regals were suave and proud of their ability to assimulate refugees [though] they had started as dissidents and defectors” (Bruce Sterling, SCHISMATRIX PLUS, 303-304).
Fit us to the test!
Feel free to visit my web site: issuu.com
(Matt)
“Their work makes me think that if humanity’s Plan A should be to do our best to get through that bottleneck, perhaps Plan B might be to leave behind, and maybe broadcast, some useful lessons for why we failed. In other words, to leave behind some extraterrestrial literature for those who come after us. (Space graffiti, anyone? I know the idea that we should leave anything behind will sound presumptuous to my anti-anthropocentrist friends, but so be it.)
Buddhists speak of the value of acknowledging the good fortune of being born human — at least of being born human in circumstances where we can hear about, and perhaps act on, the possibility of liberation.” – Sounds Good!
thanks for updating. It is a very important topic for more visit https://Geeksquads.xyz