If you’ve read Octavia Butler’s books the Parable of the Sower and the Parable of the Talents then you know what Earthseed is, and what the “Destiny” idea is. The protagonist lays it out: the “Destiny of Earthseed is [for humans] to take root among the stars.” I will not explain it here, but go read her work now. I love Butler’s work because she uses speculative fiction to explore the prospects of the future of humanity on our limited world with a brutal honesty and a ferocious hope.

There is a critique of Butler’s Earthseed Destiny idea, written by John Halstead in 2022, here. I think this critique relies on a common logical mistake. Many people see two routes for the future of humanity as being mutually exclusive: on the one hand, we can preserve the Earth as a home, on the other hand, we can take to the stars. It is easy to tell a story which suggests that these are two alternatives. Our minds are beguiled by such symmetrical thinking. But on closer inspection, this arguments ring false.

The expansionist tendency of humans which Butler draws on has resulted in the colonization of multiple continents. Our expansion has caused global environmental destruction. This is unfortunate, but it is neither evil, nor unique to our species. All species have exhibited this pattern: expanding for as long as possible. The desire for growth, the growth patterns of living things, development and changes that happen in life are beautiful. They often come at the expense of other life. And they result from the evolved tendency to continue to reproduce and to grow. So this impetus is not such a wretched thing. It is natural and beautiful. To me, this is what Octavia Butler’s Destiny idea is an expression of. And I find her version compelling.

There’s also another way to approach this question of whether the Destiny is useful or true, or meaningful, or self contradictory, or immoral. A much more proximate, and empirical approach. We should ask two of questions: Are humans capable of maintaining a sustainable planet in the first place? And is there any true relationship between stellar exploration and planetary survival? These are the kinds of questions we should try to answer rigorously. Serious research is required.

I study human evolution and sustainability, and I’ve learned that the entire sweep of human evolution has been largely characterized by two major patterns. First, the growth of our ability to create complex cultural systems and technology. Second, the growth in the size and complexity of the groups into which we organize. So, when we ask the question, what would it take to sustain a working biosphere, or what legal and social systems and technology are needed to do so, we must also ask the question of how those legal, social, and technical systems might evolve. I use the science of cultural evolution to study human environmental behavior. Most of my research is not at the planetary scale. But recently, I have begun to address the question of global sustainability using what we know of long-term human evolution, especially human cultural evolution. I’m here to tell you that these questions can be answered, and must be addressed with all scientific rigor.

As you already understand, dear reader, there are very good reasons to believe that we, as a species, are between a rock and a hard place. Deep forces that guide human evolution may well be in conflict with the sustainable use of a single planet. Our expansion has caught up with us, and we’ve entered an era in which our own impact on the environment will shape our futures directly. And, right now, in 2024, sending rockets to space doesn’t help address climate change. Of course it doesn’t. But that’s not the right time scale. Preserving the Earth is the greatest challenge we have ever faced. But so to would be training ourselves to survive without it. And so it may be that we can learn to preserve the Earth by trying to live without it.

I suspect it is more likely that we develop the ability to preserve Earth if we also go about the effort of colonizing other planets. But why would that be? It is not because we could remove pressure from earths systems and our consumption of the biosphere in that way. But rather, it is one of the most important ways in which human progress really gets made: between-group learning.

By being able to compare strategies and systems and outcomes between groups, humans are able to focus on collective goals like environmental management, and find the will to cooperate with each other. That comparison makes all the difference in the development of sustainable systems. This dynamic of between-group learning applies not just to neighborhoods and cities and nations, but also to planets. I suspect that in order to evolve the social, technical and legal systems necessary to sustain life on earth, we need to have a perspective from outside of Earth. We should be learning from the effort of putting colonies on other planets, the moon, Mars.

Now, I mean this literally, and quite seriously: there is good reason to believe that we are not capable of doing the right kind of between-group learning of environmental management otherwise. I recently published a paper on this topic in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, B, along with two excellent collaborators. The paper is here:

Characteristic processes of human evolution caused the Anthropocene and may obstruct its global solutions. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 378: 20220259. Available for free: https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2022.0259

I you haven’t read Octavia Butler (especially Sower and Talents), do it. If you’ve have, then you understand the hope and hopelessness of her Earthseed Destiny, and why it is important. You might want to read Halstead’s critique as well, because it’s a common thought pattern. And if you’ve also read this, then you can see why we need to get to the bottom of this, and I think you should read this paper as well, and come to your own conclusion. Octavia Butler was uniquely insightful, and she saw some of the same processes that we must now study in earnest. Colonizing space and taking care of our home, the Earth, are not contradictory goals. In fact, for a rather complicated set of reasons, which I’ve only begun to explain above, they are probably mutually dependent.

– Tim Waring, March 3rd, 2024