- It’s not just the imagery that’s stale. The framing and assumptions behind the whole enterprise are outdated, too. From the viewpoint of 2019, the simple optimism of 1975 seems quaint. O’Neill overlooked the complex tangles of unintended consequences that make ecosystem design far more intractable as a field than it seemed at first—problems pointed out a decade before him by the biologist, science writer, and cultural critic Rachel Carson. Bezos doesn’t grapple with those complexities and unknowns either. Even though political divisions are wider than they’ve been since the 1960s, and a climate crisis is upon us, we have so far not met these challenges with any meaningful concerted action.
I feel like there's a lot to be explored, philosophically and practically, about the idea of space colonies being able to save humanity. I often have doubtful questions such as "Wouldn't it be easier, cheaper, and more equitable to try and repair the damage we've done to The Earth than try to build habitats outside of it" and "The idea of space colonies often have a hint of the idea that continuous expansion is inherently positive, but is that really the case?" Don't get me wrong, I enjoy ideas like exploring space and expanding humanity into the stars and I understand both the potential value and the romanticism behind such ideas, but I don't think they're gonna be default solutions to the very real struggles we face as a collective whole.