US press: pick of the papers

The ten must-read opinion pieces from today's US papers.

1. How Mitt Romney can make the most of his weakness (Washington Post)

Incapable of changing his economic tribe, Romney will need to make the best of his background, says Michael Gerson.

2. The possum Republicans (New York Times)

The grass-roots protesters in the Tea Party and elsewhere have certain policy ideas, but they are not that different from the Republicans in the "establishment," writes David Brooks.

3. Does Obama deserve raves, rants on stimulus? (USA Today)

Most Americans might prefer their president err on the side of boldness the next time the economy needs fixing, says Noam Scheiber.

4. It's a college, not a cloister (New York Times)

Is it really good policy for Santorum to fill young adults with suspicions about higher learning? Frank Bruni asks.

5. White-collar criminals' code: 'It's not my fault' (LA Times)

An armed robber takes his punishment. But the white-collar guys whine, says Barry Goldman.

6. Enough of Rick Santorum's sermons (Washington Post)

Santorum's views on contraception, the role of women, the proper place for religion and what he thinks about education, make him sound like he is running for president in the wrong country, says Richard Cohen.

7. A US-Led Exit Strategy for Assad (Wall Street Journal)

An offer of immunity from prosecution for crimes against humanity if he left Syria would save many lives and deal a blow to Iran, argues Jane Harman.

8. Needs of economy should drive US visa policy (Boston Globe) (£)

US immigration policy should be shaped by a broad vision of what is good for America, and that means bringing policies in line with economic needs, this editorial argues.

9. Talking about Jeremy Lin, without stereotypes (Philadelphia Inquirer)

As diverse a nation as we are, we're still fascinated by examples of racial exceptionalism, writes Annette John-Hall.

10. Welfare reform worked (LA Times)

The success story among poor mothers shows how public policy can reduce poverty by encouraging individuals to work, says Peter H. Schuck.

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