Survivors, Episode One - BBC1

Wow! The BBC had promised us a "re-imagining" of Terry Nation's original story from the 1970s first series of Survivors, and the result was certainly imaginative, and by turns grim, poetic, moving and engaging.

We were introduced to the main characters who included "re-imagined" up to date versions of those in the original story, plus new characters to give a more contemporary feel. The events of the virus period were told very quickly, as in the original - giving the viewer a feeling of the terrible speed at which the illness spreads and brings civilisation crashing to its knees within a couple of weeks.

I thought the performances of Julie Graham as the central character Abby Grant and Philip Rhys as Al Sadiq were particularly good. Max Beesley was on good, menacing form again. The worries about the treatment of the story brought on by awareness of some of the recent lightweight previous projects of some of those involved were quickly dispelled - at least in the first episode we were looking at serious, quality TV.

The horror of Julie Graham's character, waking up after "missing time" in a fever and finding all those around her dead was faithfully depicted from some of the most memorable scenes of the original, whilst the new stories of "Playboy" Al Sadiq and Najid, an 11 year old Muslim Mancunian, were seemlessly sewn into the plot. In the original Tom Price was a wisecracking Welsh homeless man of dubious morality, (played by Talfryn Thomas) in the 2008 version Max Beesley's Tom was a violent prisoner who escapes from his prison full of dead by killing the only other survivor there, a Prison Officer. This adds an extra element of danger and drama to the plot - without totally demonising the Price character (his murder of the prison officer was in response to his plan to lock him up in a food store that would have resulted in Price's almost certain death.) Max Beesley must feel he is getting typecast in plague scenarios - his last major BBC role was in another excellent drama on BBC1 - The Last Enemy - also set in a nightmare future.

The important dialogue that Abby has with the outdoor pursuits worker she meets when searching for her son, (a dialogue that points out the nature of the situation they are in and implies a criticism of the distance most people in advanced economies now have from an understanding of nature or basic practical and technical skills needed to survive without ready long-term sources of oil or electricity, food or tools) was also kept in from Nation's 1970s original and seemed if anything even more relevant today given talk about Peak Oil and the increased dependency of most of us on electrical and electronic gadgetry in our everyday lives. Someone involved in the new series said that in the original there was no dependency on mobile 'phones, cars were much easier to break into and start and fuel was much more easily accessed through siphoning or manual emergency pumps - modern security and pumps would make getting fuel a much more dangerous affair, as demonstrated explosively in the first episode of the new version of Survivors.

Hopefully the series might make some of us think a bit more carefully about our resilience in a potential crisis situation - lack of resilience in the UK being illustrated by the rapid effect of the year 2000 fuel blockades.

New elements in the 2008 Survivors are the inclusion of a junior Government Minister and a scene at the end which adds a novel element in keeping with the paranoia of our times!

I await further episodes with interest.

The LHC - Progress, Responsibility and Risk

"The End Of The World - Coming Next Week! (Possibly)" Has been the sort of sensationalist line of the UK media this week when commenting on next week's scheduled switch on of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), the world's largest particle accelerator complex, buried deep beneath the French-Swiss border.

Beyond the hysteria, the operational stage of the LHC experiment raises serious questions about progress, responsibility and risk. The questions can also be related to the effect of the media frenzy over MMR and the current rise in Measles cases in the UK, and to the treatment of the science of climate change in the UK tabloid and reactionary press.

In the case of the LHC we have a massively expensive and technically difficult engineering project to facilitate an experiment that might seem esoteric and lacking in practical application to the general public. The experiments and observations scheduled at the LHC are designed to look at the building blocks of the universe by recreating on a tiny scale some of the conditions that may have existed at the theorised origins of the universe. Questions around particle physics and such subjects as Higgs boson and dark matter may be illuminated or resolved.

The fears that have been raised by some unconnected with the project and exploited by the media are to do with the creation of micro black holes or alternatively, "strangelets".

The worries expressed in the media and in the law suits raised in the USA and Europe have been that a stable black hole would be produced which would migrate to the centre of the planet and then devour the earth and the solar system, or that strangelets would be produced that would convert all surrounding matter and also result in global destruction. These worries have been dismissed both by the project and those involved in safety enquiries into the projected experiments. The counter arguments are that any tiny black holes produced would be inherently unstable and short lived and that there is no chance of the Strangelet scenario.

It does seem unlikely that anyone involved in the project would continue if they thought that there was any chance at all of their work leading to the destruction of themselves, their families or their planet, let alone larger scale destruction. The doom mongers counter that the vast amounts of money involved, the vested interests, the professional careers and reputations at stake, and "intellectual arrogance" militate against serious questioning of the safety risks involved. This is not too convincing and sounds rather similar to the arguments put forward by climate change deniers as to why the world's scientific and political establishments would "lie" and collude on such a large scale as required by the broad IPCC consensus. It is also reminiscent of the arguments about the safety of the triple MMR vaccination programme, following the now discredited single piece of research that was used by the media and "natural health" campaigners to sow doubts about safety in the minds of parents. In that case the inevitable result is now seen in the steady increase in cases of measles in the UK, with potentially tragic results for some of the parents and children that avoided vaccination. The consequences of the political power of climate change denial could be even more serious given the predicted timescales and what we are told by the majority of experts about the necessary reductions in CO2 emissions.

I believe that there is a middle path to be taken between uncritical techno-utopianism and ill-informed technophobia.

A techno-progressive approach, with a democratic, ecosocialist and humanist grounding would suggest that all technical advances should be held up to scrutiny and debated as openly as possible - with their social and environmental consequences assessed as well as their economic and scientific ones. Whilst a certain suspicion of the distorting potential of the current economic and social systems is reasonable (we only have to look at the massive PR and spin currently around nuclear power and GM foods), reflex anti-scientism and cynicism are not helpful, particularly when they are coupled with a religiously based conservatism or rose-tinted glasses view of history and tradition, as is often the case. (As I have said before on here, these latter objections are my main criticisms of the work of writers such as Schumacher, regardless of their uncriticised popularity amongst some sections of the Green movement.)

All this said, the LHC experiment does raise ethical issues. Whilst defending the right and necessity of scientists exploring blue sky areas of research with no currently appreciable practical application one does feel a little uneasy about the colossal cost and concentration of research effort that has gone into this single project. Let us hope that the "technological/commercial spin offs" which some of those involved in the LHC have suggested give some extra credibility to the project are valuable enough in human terms to justify some of the expense and effort if, as sometimes postulated, the experiments do not yield significant results to add to, or alter, our understanding of the universe.

One of the most convincing criticisms of the whole thing comes from the former UK Government Chief Science Adviser Sir David King, who suggests that in the light of the pressing problems with energy and climate change then expenditure and research effort in the area of renewable energy would be a better use of £500 Million the UK have contributed and the money contributed by other governments. A Guardian article today contrasts the £83 million spent (on average per annum) since 2002 by the UK government on renewable energy sources with the £78 Million (on average per annum since 1995) contribution to CERN, the body responsible for the LHC. This criticism is not so much of the nature or supposed dangers of the project, so much as its' timing.

Whilst I would very much like to believe all the assurances of the LHC scientists and accept that they have to a large extent answered the worries raised in the lawsuits, let us hope that there really are no unforeseen consequences to their experiment. However, when it comes down to it, the odds for survival of intelligent lifeforms on this planet in the long term are very slim (as detailed in Martin Rees's work I have previously referenced) - and without intelligent lifeforms it would seem that the long term survival of any earth-based lifeforms is also limited by the cosmic constraints of the lifetime of our star, and more pressingly the incidence of meteor, asteroid and cometary collisions.

Correspondingly, the ability to leave the confines of this beautiful and delicate, (but ultimately imprisoning and limiting) planet and solar system will depend on continued expansion of knowledge and technical ability for humans and whatever lifeforms may evolve from, or after us. Thus experiments like that at the LHC may on the one hand raise the (allegedly so slim as to be not worth measuring) possibility of our destruction, but may also be one of the only ways in which we can gain the knowledge necessary to ensure survival/continued evolution of humanity and earth-evolved life forms in the long term. In short, we, and the life that has evolved here may perish either way. Life's choices are seldom easy and seldom without risk - those who would seek to minimise some risks may unwittingly (as in the case of MMR vaccination) expose us to other risks of variable magnitude.

Those of us who are able must strive for the utmost transparency and accountability so that risks that we must take are properly assessed and understood. In the end this can only be fully achieved in a society with far more economic and social democracy than we currently experience even in the allegedly most "advanced" parts of the world.

Transition Town Meeting In Nottingham

If people in the East Midlands are interested in Transition Towns there is a talk on Tuesday 27th May at the Nottingham Mechanics , South Sherwood St at 7.30 by Rob Hopkins, the architect of the Transition Town movement in the UK. The talk is entitled 'From oil dependancy to local resilience'.
Penney Poyzer, Nottinghams very own "Queen of Green" will also be speaking there.

From the Wikipedia article linked above:

The Transition concept emerged from work permaculture designer Rob Hopkins had done with the students of Kinsale Further Education College in writing an ‘Energy Descent Action Plan’. This looked at across-the-board creative adaptations in the realms of energy production, health, education, economy and agriculture as a ‘road map’ to a sustainable future for the town, and was unanimously adopted by Kinsale Council.

The idea was adapted and expanded in September 2006 to Hopkins' hometown of Totnes where he is now based. The initiative spread quickly, and as of 25 April 2008, there are over fifty communities recognised as official Transition Towns[2] in the UK, Ireland, Australia, and New Zealand. While referred to as Towns, the communities involved range from villages (Kinsale), through council districts (Penwith) to cities and city boroughs (Brixton).

"Emissions Targets Not Good Enough" - Top NASA Scientist

A top climate scientist from NASA has said that the targets set by the European Union (amongst the more ambitious ones currently being aimed for) are insufficient to forestall catastrophic climate change. Dr James Hansen, head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York called for far more stringent targets:

Hansen says the EU target of 550 parts per million of C02 - the most stringent in the world - should be slashed to 350ppm. He argues the cut is needed if "humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilisation developed". A final version of the paper Hansen co-authored with eight other climate scientists, is posted today on the Archive website. Instead of using theoretical models to estimate the sensitivity of the climate, his team turned to evidence from the Earth's history, which they say gives a much more accurate picture.

Debate has ensued upon this, with Leo Hickman at the Guardian somewhat unfairly linking it to James Lovelock's recent "we're all stuffed so we might as well eat, drink and be merry" type arguments. Hansen and the other scientists are hardly arguing from that viewpoint, after all, but merely presenting the science and suggesting the scale of the challenge and the appropriate targets.

Survivors to return to TV

I have in the past referred to Terry Nation's memorable 1970s apocalyptic drama series Survivors as raising interesting questions and even playing a role in the growth of the green movement in Britain.

After much talk since the success of the new version of Doctor Who back in 2006, it seems that a new version of the drama is set to arrive on our screens. The new version is to be written by Adrian Hodges, responsible for bringing two of Philip Pullman's gothic dramas to life and the promising, but perhaps ultimately disappointing Primeval on ITV.

This follows the success of the CBS post-apocalyptic drama Jericho, set in small town America in the aftermath of a series of nuclear explosions in the USA. (N.B. - I have just had news that CBS have today again cancelled further episodes of Jericho)

The new Survivors has been discussed on a variety of blogs, forums and sites over the last 6 months or so. It is actually going to be a dramatisation of Terry Nation's novel rather than a remake of the three original series.

Here and here are fan sites of the original Survivors with some nice pics and links. Here is the TV Gold discussion forum for Survivors.

Finally, there is a blog on the progress of the new Survivors, which linked my own humble ruminations of last year.

Whilst we are on the subject of survival and resilience, perhaps it is not too much of a leap to link to the increasingly popular ideas of Transition Towns.

A Transition Initiative is a community that is unleashing its own latent collective genius to look Peak Oil and Climate Change squarely in the eye and to discover and implement ways to address this BIG question:

"for all those aspects of life that this community needs in order to sustain
itself and thrive, how do we significantly increase resilience (to mitigate
the effects of Peak Oil) and drastically reduce carbon emissions (to
mitigate the effects of Climate Change)?"

The resulting coordinated range of projects across all these areas of life leads to a collectively designed energy descent pathway.

The community also recognises two crucial points:

* that we used immense amounts of creativity, ingenuity and adaptability on the way up the energy upslope, and that there's no reason for us not to do the same on the downslope
* if we collectively plan and act early enough there's every likelihood that we can create a way of living that's significantly more connected, more vibrant and more in touch with our environment than the oil-addicted treadmill that we find ourselves on today.

Food for thought....

UK Coastal Report Shows Major Flaw In Nuclear Plan

A report on the changes happening on Britain's coast and the likely effects of climate change has once again illuminated one of the flaws in the government's nuclear energy plans. The government approval for a new generation of reactors was officially announced last week - but the government have for a long time made it clear that they want the next wave of reactors to be sited at existing nuclear generating plants. Aside from fairly minor logistical concerns this appears to be largely for political reasons. (They gamble that resistance and unpopularity will be much less at existing facilities) In the UK this means largely coastal sites - some of them, like Dungeness, already requiring constant attention to ward off the encroaching seas.

The government sponsored Marine Climate Change Impacts Partnership report, as reported by the BBC says "seas are becoming more violent, causing coastal erosion and a higher risk of flooding". Furthermore, "The increasing choppiness of coastal waters means that 17% of Britain's coastline is being eroded. England is feeling the impact most, with 30% of its coast affected, compared to 23% for Wales and 12% in Scotland."

"An increasing trend in extreme water levels has been observed," the report concludes, which is most likely to be caused by the rise in average sea level, and which brings an increased risk of flooding.

MCCIP expects rising sea levels and an increase in storm intensity to spread the extent of erosion in future.

Even in the short term this is likely to mean expensive and CO2 emitting activity is required to defend the power stations against the seas. As the sea levels rise (with the now wideley predicted melting, for example, of the Greenland and West Antarctic Ice Sheets) the situation may become untenable - and remember the decommissioning and making safe of nuclear sites can take up to a century to achieve at the moment. The potential for extreme weather events and tidal surges presents an even more alarming scenario.

As I have said before, we have now gone beyond "business as usual" and even beyond the point of desperate measures (which is what the nuclear option is - as well as ineffective, expensive and dangerous). We must think of survival and giving those of our species who do survive te coming events a fighting chance. The nuclear option looks more and more like it will severely degrade those survival chances.

Rightists And Corporate Puppets Prepare Assault On Climate Change Education In Britain

Flushed by their "success" in the Dimmock vs Gore/HM Govt court case (strange "success" when the Judge grants that there are some minor "errors" in the thing they are attempting to discredit, but says that its' core arguments are basically sound - but then the fickle media ran big on the "errors" and not on the Judge dismissing the bulk of the contrarian argument, and maybe this was the intention of the well-funded court case in the first place.) Now Lord Monckton, who is related to that well-heeled gang of rightist contrarians the Lawsons, has decided to try and get his own contrarian propaganda into schools - funded by American corporate attack money. Article in the Independent here.
Johann Hari is not one of my favourite columnists - on some issues he has been downright objectionable, but on this issue he has got the contrarians bang to rights.
The contrarians are following a typically dishonest strategy - it does not matter to them that their arguments are weak - what they are interested in is giving the impression that there is debate and widespread scientific uncertainty on the Climate issue. Ironically, the contrarians who regularly accuse those seeking action on climate change of political motivation are pursuing a political strategy against the weight of scientific evidence and opinion - their gamble is that if they can confuse the voting public enough, politicians will not feel confident enough of public support to take the radical measures required to address the climate crisis. The longer this goes on, the longer the paymasters of the contrarian movement continue to rake in profits from activities that increase the likelihood of disastrous runaway climate change. Unfortunately for us all though, unless defeated they may be successful for long enough to make catastrophic warming unavoidable.

Nuclear Panglossian Hubris and Survival

I have recently been watching DVDs of Terry Nation's seminal 1975-77 British TV series, Survivors. The basic plot is that a small number of people survive the accidental release of a very high fatality/very highly infectious flu-like virus. As the series developed it explored various political and philosophical themes around self-sufficiency, law and justice, technology, democracy and education. Despite a very English middle class bias, typical of the period, the series retains the power to shock and impress which I remember from watching it as a child. The series has topical relevance at the moment with the Avian Flu virus stories, although even in the worst case scenarios with the current viruses and their likely mutations we are not looking at quite such an apocalyptic outlook.

A green trivia point is that John Abineri who played Hubert Goss in Survivors was an environmentalist who played some role in the development of the Green Party in England and Wales (at the time of the series , the Ecology Party.) It was Abineri , who with Chris Rose, proposed the change of name from Ecology Paty to Green Party at the Party conference in 1985.

In the summer of last year it was said that the BBC were looking to revive the series following the success of the revival of Dr Who.

One question mark that raises its head about the artistic license in the scenario of people rebuilding some kind of civilisation after the disastrous pandemic is the question of nuclear power. Considering this issue raises some important points about the nature of nuclear technology and the worldview of those who present it as some sort of solution to global energy and climate change problems. In the series the breakdown is very rapid, we are shown things getting progressively worse over a few days, and then one of the characters goes through the illness to emerge 4-5 days later and find her husband, and the bulk of the rest of the population dead. I have not re-watched all three series yet, but I cannot recall any significant storylines dealing with the results of abandoned reactors, reprocessing and waste facilities.

Now it might be argued that a die off like this is not likely, and even if rapid extensive mortality did occur in advanced economies reliant on nuclear energy, there would be ample time for safe, effective shutdown of reactors, which would then be safely contained within their containment vessels for long enough for society to get back on its feet again and sort out the long term danger of multiple Chernobyl-style releases of radioactive materials. Likewise it might be said that current waste storage in the UK at least would survive intact for many years without the necessity for monitoring. You could believe that, if you wanted to. Whether you would be being hopelessly optimistic is another matter.

Of course, you could say , that if we are talking about a global catastrophe of the type fictionalised in Survivors, then the safety of reactors and waste would be the least of our worries. On the other hand, we are talking about the resilience and survival of the human race here - and whilst the chance of a global catastrophe exactly like that in Survivors is hopefully very low, one cannot be smug about our chances of avoiding all possible near-extinction level events in the light of the work of the respected British Scientist Sir Martin Rees. If humanity is reduced to struggling to re-establish itself from a much reduced base, then heavy radioactive contamination of the necessary agricultural basis of life would perhaps significantly shift the odds against our survival.

Rees discusses a range of existential risks confronting humanity, and controversially estimates that the probability of extinction before 2100 AD is around 50 per cent, based on the possibility of malign or accidental release of destructive technology.

Am I alone in thinking that increasing the number of potential disaster sites from this incredible total is not perhaps a good idea if Rees is right? That is before we talk about the risks run by this ever growing army of nuclear reactors in terms of nuclear weapons proliferation, terrorism, war zones, natural disasters etc.

The fact that safe decommissioning and clean up, as at Chapelcross, one of the oldest sites here is reckoned in terms of 100 years does not fill one with confidence, neither does the large number of reactors in Britain and elsewhere that are situated on shorelines at sea level in this age of predicted rapid rises in sea levels.

Now it might be said that all this doomsday stuff is gloomy and morbid and not to be taken seriously - however, this is not the view of the Norwegian government, who are building a doomsday seed depository on the side of a mountain on an island (Svalbard) in the Arctic Circle. That is before we investigate all the deep earthworks and worst case scenario provisions of the US government.

My mind is open on the question of radioactive waste disposal - I am not convinced that a strategy of denial of a solution is a convincing one for greens, even if it is understandable to be opposed to solutions that are dangerous or proposed to make continued nuclear expansion appear more attractive and less problematic. What the above indicates is that leaving the stuff lying around on the earth's surface, even with highest security, is not the best solution given the prognosis for humanity in the coming time period. Yes, monitoring and access must be possible, and yes there must be no argument that "we've 'solved' the waste issue, so we can expand nuclear energy now" but we should also seek the situation whereby the legacy of the nuclear industry (and other industries with potential for wide distribution of toxicity for that matter) is not disastrous for the survivors if current levels of human monitoring and maintenance are curtailed by a catastrophe or global disaster.

The defenders of the nuclear industry, and those urging its expansion to "counter global warming" revel in a state of hubris, where those who disagree 'Just don't get it'. Some of these defenders and proponents, as in this debate on the Plastic discussion boards have an outlook worthy of Voltaire's Pangloss. The gamble is that, not only will our civilization avoid any of the brushes with disaster Rees sees as possible in the next century or so, but that in our current state of development we will now avoid any of the breaks and discontinuities in progress that are evidently common in any sufficiently long term view of history. They seek to avoid any conclusions harmful to their argument from Chernobyl, Three Mile Island or the alarming number of weapons and reactors now rusting on the seabed, as reported in a 1989 Time magazine article by Daniel Benjamin -

“NATO intelligence has confirmed that nine reactors and 50 nuclear weapons of various sizes are resting on ocean floors. Said one Danish official: "Nuclear things don't just go off, but the idea of these weapons and reactors rusting away on the seabed does not seem to be a safe thought”

An interesting writer on technological vulnerability and nuclear and peace issues is Brian Martin.

So what do I propose? Well, firstly the nuclear power programme should be replaced as quickly as possible by a blend of renewables. Even temporary use of carbon capture and deep storage (if proved viable) from carbon based fuels is preferable to expansion of the nuclear programme. A "hardening of energy supplies" would be the best option, by this I mean the possibility of as much local power generation as possible, so that if we face rocky times ahead the loss of cerain strategic areas does not bring down power supplies or availability everywhere. This is in line with the England and Wales Green Party policy.

Secondly all the safest methods of protected storage of current radioactive wastes should be considered, including the "Finnish model" and the current plans that are on the table in Britain and the most favourable implemented rapidly. Continuous monitoring should be facilitated - there should be no dump and run - but the disruption of this, in light of the "catastrophe scenarios" should not compromise the security and safety of the deposit.

Whether climate change is severe or not, we face troubled times ahead. We cannot duck the issue and join the Panglossian optimists - real, worthwhile optimism is about preparing to survive, or help others to survive even the worst that we might encounter, at the same time as pursuing social, scientific and technological progress.

Moonbase Alpha? Space and Survival.

The news that NASA are planning to visit the Moon again with a manned mission in 2020 - looking to begin the establishment of a permanent moonbase - is causing some excitement. For those of us who were impressionable kids in the 1970s there are faint echoes of 'Moonbase Alpha', and the Moon inhabitants of the visually exciting, but factually implausable TV series Space 1999.
I even remember my brother having a model of the "Eagle" shuttle which bore some similarity to the real Space Shuttle.

Anyhow NASA are a little vague about the project, but do set out some of the reasoning and rationale on their website. This comes after the recent hoo-ha over Richard Branson's low-orbit 'space tourism' for the super-rich. We can only hope that that project has some useful technological spin offs to partially justify it.

Now Greens tend to be somewhat sniffy about space and space exploration. The classic response from greens and most leftists is to look at the poverty, environmental problems and political injustices in the world and grumble about the "wrong priorities". This has always seemed to me, though understandable, to be a little short-sighted and to appear to confirm some of the prejudices of the libertarian right (generally gung-ho pro-spacers) that greens and the left are anti-technology or regressive. The reason I think it is short-sighted is that a prime motivator for many greens is the desire to preserve life and ecosystems. Just a little thought (and a look at the fossil and geological records) will tell us that even in a politically perfect world, restricting ourselves (and the vast range of organisms and systems we are willing or unwilling stewards of) to Earth alone is condemning our species (and probably all other life forms on this planet) to extinction. This is the view of Martin Rees, author of the sobering book Our Final Century (published as Our Final Hour outside the UK)
Rees outlines the multiple threats - asteroid or cometary impacts, run-away climate change, global epidemics, technological disasters, war - that threaten the continued existence of human civilisation or even life on earth. He concludes that we have a 50-50 chance of surviving the next 100 years and that humanity will either choose to spread out beyond the planet (something that will take unprecedented human unity of purpose) or choose extinction.

The asteroid or near-space object threat is something that Rees has worked to make people take seriously, along with the 'maverick' Liberal Democrat MP Lembit Opik, whose father was a distinguished Estonian astronomer. The Spaceguard project exists to work on this issue.

The modern Green movement grew in the 1960s and 70s inspired by a new global awareness, an awareness in part stimulated by those beautiful early pictures of our blue-green planet from space, and the movement of various oppressed groups to break free from the physical and mental restrictions of rigidly traditionalist religious and political systems. It has always been a struggle between reactionary romantic elements dreaming of their rural idylls and those on the more progressive green wing keen to embrace new technologies that minimise human impact on ecosystems and social systems that increase human freedom rather than retreat into insularity and xenophobia. This is typified by the contrast between deep ecologists and "bright greens" and in the opposition between conservative greens and social ecologists or ecosocialists. These lines are not always clear, and some individuals and groups hold combinations of ideas from different currents, but this dynamic is internal - the green movement is not either some monolithic reactionary force or red conspiracy as various elements of the dogmatic left or conspiracist right are apt to suggest.

Fellow Green blogger Daniel Ketelby on his blog Metaphysics as a guide to lunch has written of his liking for the work of political science fiction writer Ken MacLeod, which I share. But I agree that MacLeod offers a challenge to Greens that should be heard - can we create a movement that is progressive and open minded, that actually helps preserve life on this planet for future generations long enough to give those future generations a fighting chance of existing through the necessary "spreading out" that Rees suggests?
MacLeod has a Marxist background and his characters often have either a Marxist/Trotskyist or right libertarian/libertarian capitalist viewpoint. His greens of the future have degenerated from Arne Naess-worship into eco-fascism and primitivism. In the Star Fraction his main character Moh Kohn is scathing about the rural idyll of the primitivist greens -

“Protection. Conservation. Restriction. Deep ecology. Give me deep technology any day. They don't scare me. I'm damned if I'll crawl, my children's children crawl on the earth in some kind a fuckin' harmony with the environment. Yeah, till the next ice age or the next asteroid impact.”

I recommend MacLeods books as a useful mental exercise for more unreflective greens.

We should not be starry-eyed about space programmes - at the moment they are heavily influenced by the military-industrial complex and competing national capitals, with the free-market 'space tourists' coming up on the wings. But if progressives continue to ignore the current situation - which looks to me like a possibly quite tight window of historical opportunity, then not only will the above remain true, but the necessary urgent push for space colonisation will be muted, and largely dominated by the libertarian right. IF as a global movement we feel we can turn the tide and save the planet from ecocide, then surely we have the potential strength to affect the direction and priorities of space programmes - now not restricted to the USA and former USSR but increasingly encompassing China, Japan and Europe. Because in the longer term, saving the planet is a little self defeating if we then sit on it like sitting ducks waiting for the next extinction level event....

Various information is out there - there are even organisations like the long standing British Interplanetary Society (associated with the Science Fiction writer and visionary Arthur C. Clarke)and the grandly named "Alliance to Rescue Civilisation" - about which I know little, but appears to mirror the aims of some of the groups and individuals in MacLeod's Fall Revolution novels.

I may, at the moment, plough a lonely furrow as a red-green spacer, but I will continue to argue that the green movement will only succeed if it wears its' humanist and progressive colours on its sleeve. A rural idyll or aiming for "self realisation" or "oneness with nature" is not enough to motivate sufficient numbers of people to make the kinds of efforts that are now required for our, and all other, planetary species. Frightening people about disasters is always a problematic strategy too. What is needed is to marry together the positive, forward-looking aspirations for progress (with the motivating dream of space exploration) with those desires to protect the earth (and our own DNA) that are so deeply ingrained as to be recorded as the ancient prime directive to "Go forth and multiply" and the latest understanding of evolutionary genetics.

If there is to be faith, let it not be in a deified nature or the wisdom of the holy market, but in the capacity of human beings to co-operate - to preserve and extend life to the stars......