Morning Call: pick of the papers

The ten must-read comment pieces from this morning's papers.

1. The Tories keep swiping, but Ed Miliband is an elusive target (Daily Telegraph)

In the political hall of mirrors, Labour’s policies are becoming ever harder to attack, says Mary Riddell.

2. Austerity will give Tories an electoral edge (Financial Times)

Conservative spending cuts are decreasing the opposition’s client base, says Janan Ganesh.

3. The elastic middle has to be defined, once and for all (Guardian)

Politicians should be clear about who is really struggling, says Gaby Hinsliff. It's not those who have been forced to kick their Waitrose habits.

4. Obama is not to blame for Middle East anger (Financial Times)

The policies pursued by Obama mean that the US is much better positioned to deal with anti-American violence, writes Gideon Rachman.

5. Is this Britain's last coalition government? (Independent)

Coalition often works well at local level, writes Steve Richards. But several factors, including the electoral system, may limit how many national ones we get.

6. Parties must stop playing unhappy families (Times) (£)

A toxic combination of troubled history and flawed political genes is afflicting all sides at Westminster, writes Rachel Sylvester.

7. Overhauling exams: lessons in nostalgia (Guardian)

A lurch back to a world where a three-hour written paper is the be-all and end-all risks jettisoning advances in education, says a Guardian editorial.

8. China is flexing its muscles: time to worry (Independent)

It would be crazy if a bunch of five uninhabited rocks precipitated a military conflict between two of the world powers, says Dominic Lawson. That doesn't mean it won't happen.

9. The welfare state is broken – so what’s next? (Daily Telegraph)

To promote prudence and responsibility, we should return to mutual aid societies, argues Philip Johnston.

10. Liberal Democrats should beware a pact with Labour (Guardian)

Working for a future coalition with Labour is deeply dangerous for our identity as a Liberal party, writes Malcolm Bruce.

GETTY
Show Hide image

Stephen Hawking's enthusiasm for colonising space makes him almost as bad as Trump

The physicist's inistence on mankind's expansion risks making him a handmaiden of inequality.

“Spreading out may be the only thing that saves us from ourselves,” Stephen Hawking has warned. And he’s not just talking about surviving the UK's recent run of record breaking heat. If humanity doesn’t start sending people to Mars soon, then in a few hundred years he says we can all expect to be kaput; there just isn’t enough space for us all.

The theoretical physicist gave his address to the glittering Starmus Festival of science and arts in Norway. According to the BBC, he argued that climate change and the depletion of natural resources help make space travel essential. With this in mind, he would like to see a mission to Mars by 2025 and a new lunar base within 30 years.

He even took a swipe at Donald Trump: “I am not denying the importance of fighting climate change and global warming, unlike Donald Trump, who may just have taken the most serious, and wrong, decision on climate change this world has seen.”

Yet there are striking similarities between Hawking's statement and the President's bombast. For one thing there was the context in which it was made - an address to a festival dripping with conspicuous consumption, where 18 carat gold OMEGA watches were dished out as prizes.

More importantly there's the inescapable reality that space colonisation is an inherently elitist affair: under Trump you may be able to pay your way out of earthly catastrophe, while for Elon Musk, brawn could be a deciding advantage, given he wants his early settlers on Mars to be able to dredge up buried ice.

Whichever way you divide it up, it is unlikely that everyone will be able to RightMove their way to a less crowded galaxy. Hell, most people can’t even make it to Starmus itself (€800  for a full price ticket), where the line-up of speakers is overwhelmingly white and male.

So while this obsession with space travel has a certain nobility, it also risks elevating earthly inequalities to an interplanetary scale.

And although Hawking is right to call out Trump on climate change, the concern that space travel diverts money from saving earth's ecosystems still stands. 

In a context where the American government is upping NASA’s budget for manned space flights at the same time as it cuts funds for critical work observing the changes on earth, it is imperative that the wider science community stands up against this worrying trend.

Hawking's enthusiasm for colonising the solar system risks playing into the hands of the those who share the President destructive views on the climate, at the expense of the planet underneath us.

India Bourke is an environment writer and editorial assistant at the New Statesman.

0800 7318496