If you’ve been following real-world space exploration for a few decades, you might know of Robert Zubrin, who established The Mars Society back in 1998 after the success of his book, The Case for Mars.
Well, when I saw Zubrin was offering signed advanced reader copies of his upcoming book, The Case for Nukes, I was intrigued. First, before I go any further, know that the “nukes” Zubrin is making a case for is not weapons, but power. The subtitle says it all: “How We Can Beat Global Warming and Create a Free, Open, and Magnificent Future.”
“Free, Open, and Magnificent Future.” Sound familiar? Any of my fellow Trekkies get a chill up their spine?
Of course, I grabbed a copy of the book. Now, you should know that I am and have always been for the concept of nuclear energy as a power source. This is my dad’s fault. He supported the concept of nuclear energy and, as a metallurgist/structural engineer, explained to me at a young age all about how and why the safety of nuclear power plants was possible, but people were simply fearful. This was, after all, the 1980s and I was living with my family on Long Island. Home to the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant which was the source of a lot of “current events” reports I wrote when I was in middle school. (Like, remember when we had a current events assignment, and we had to cut out an article from a real, print newspaper, and then write about it?)
Construction began on the Shoreham plant in 1972, but faced a lot of issues beginning in 1979 after the Three Mile Island Accident. An accident that resulted in no injuries and no loss of life. Was radiation released? Yep. How much? Best estimates seem to be that individuals nearby were exposed to less than half a dose of a standard medical x-ray.
Zubrin talks about this and the other few disasters (that occurred outside the U.S.), and the damage comparison between these and fossil-fuel burning power plants. While fossil-fuel plants have gotten better over the years — they certainly release less stuff into the air and water than they once did, If it were up to me, as a “practical environmentalist” I’d convert everything to nuclear in a second (again, I was already pre-disposed to this point of view).
Let’s move on to Trek. Back in 1986, in Star Trek IV:The One With the Whales, uh, I mean, Star Trek IV:The Voyage Home (my favorite Trek movie of all of them), Kirk claimed they don’t use money in the future.
Since that one little comment, the franchise has done everything to back-up that statement, to include stating that certain phrases regarding money (“I sold my first book today!” and “It’s above my pay-grade” and “You just earned your pay for the week“) were “just a figure of speech.” Although, there are “Federation credits” (TNG, “The Price”), and Starfleet officers go shopping (TNG, “Encounter at Farpoint”), and Starfleet officers even have value (“Do you know how much Starfleet has invested in you?” Kirk said to Spock in the TOS episode, “The Apple”).
Us in fandom have been left to make sense of it all. And try to make sense of it folks did. There are at least two books out there on the topic. One, “Trekonomics” by Manu Saadia and the other “The Economics of Star Trek” by Rick Webb. If you’re short on time, I recommend reading the latter. It’s more concise, having sprung from a Medium article several years ago.
Whether or not you believe that a future can exist without money is one thing. (FWIW, I don’t and I like Webb’s idea that it’s not that there is no money necessarily, but it’s more like an evolution of digital crypto and people don’t have to think about it like do because of the second thing… “post-scarcity.”) The Federation (at least the primary worlds like Earth, Vulcan, etc) is certainly and evidently a “post-scarcity” economy.
What is a “post-scarcity” economy? (Or “proto-post-scarcity” as Webb puts it — which I like better) It’s an economic solution, right now a theoretical one, where “most goods can be produced in great abundance with minimal human labor needed, so that they become available to all very cheaply or even freely.” We’re talking about food, clothing, stuff to house people… you know, things that can help eliminate poverty, homelessness, etc.
Sound a little like a Trek future?
Sound like the future we want when we in fandom talk about striving towards a Trek future? (Other than people simply accepting each other for who they are and stuff.)
Well, all the automation and “minimal human labor” is lovely, but there’s still one piece of the puzzle we’d be missing. Energy. Energy is needed to produce anything and everything. And that energy needs to be inexpensive and available to all. Expensive, dirty energy is not going to make that happen. But what about wind and solar? you ask. They’re lovely, but expensive and unreliable. Hence, they might exist in a Trek future, but there is no way they can be the primary power source. Not while meeting our increasing energy needs.
So let’s circle back to Zubrin and his book. He’s telling us exactly where we can get that energy. He even has a whole chapter dedicated to explaining how cheap and abundant energy lifts everyone up. “If you have access to energy, and the things made by energy, you are rich. If not, you are poor,” says Zubrin on page 6.
In fact, Chapters 2 and 3 make the case for Nukes. Most of the rest of the book is more of the technical and scientific information. It’s all the physics and engineering that has the potential to bore anyone not deeply interested in science. So, if you’re not all that interested in taking a physics class, you can then skip to the later chapters where Zubrin circles back to what it all means and what we can do.
That would be the last three chapters (14 thru 16) where he’s writing the most hopeful and optimistic stuff, but with some of the most depressing stuff to make his case. To include reviewing the misguided ideology that fueled some of the worst genocide in history: “There’s not enough to go around! We must get more and get rid of all the people we don’t like who aren’t like us, so we have enough!”
Zubrin’s counter to all the pessimism, which I think is just lovely, is on page 238:
“True environmentalism takes a humanist point of view, seeking practical solutions for real problems in order to enhance the environment for the benefit of human life in its broadest terms. It therefore welcomes technological progress.”
And technological progress is something else integral to a Star Trek future. Starships, space stations, transporters, replicators, Data-like androids, shuttlecraft, medical devices and advancements, and more!
It’s just going to take a lot of energy. Clean, efficient energy.