Earth, our spaceship – utopia.blue

La Terre perdue dans l’infini de l’espace © Nasa

By Philippe RECLUS

We can consider the Earth as a huge spaceship.

This comparison is not new. It highlights several aspects:

Limited resources: Like a ship, the Earth has finite resources. Water, air, minerals… Everything we need is present in limited quantities, but nothing will prevent us from going to get supplies throughout our solar system.

Closed system: our planet is a relatively isolated system in the Universe. Exchanges with the outside are currently limited, which makes the management of our waste and resources even more crucial.

Fragile balance; Just like a spaceship, the Earth is a complex system where each element is linked to the others. An imbalance can have significant consequences on the whole.

How can this comparison be useful?

It invites us to adopt a different, even orbital, perspective on our planet. We are led to:

Become aware of our impact. Our actions have consequences on the entire system.

Develop a circular economy. Rather than waste, we must prioritize recycling and reuse, even if we will have to seek out matter and materials throughout the solar system in order to maintain and continue development.

Protect our environment. By preserving natural resources, we ensure the sustainability of our “ship”. It will be possible to save our planet by seeking additional resources in the rest of the solar system.

Wars. We will have to manage to eliminate this scourge often dictated by greed.

Solidarity. We will have to develop this notion, which is essential for the proper development of all.

Education. A sine qua non condition for the proper development of our earthly civilization.

Food. One day we will have to decide to feed everyone in an egalitarian and healthy way.

Exploration of resources. In order to ensure the sustainability of humanity, it will be necessary to create major space programs to stop plundering our planet and polluting our environment.

Time. Humanity will have to make plans for the long term and no longer for the short term. Let’s learn to bet on century-old development plans.

In conclusion, the Earth is indeed a spaceship lost in the void and cold of the Universe. It is our home, a complex and fragile system that we will have to preserve and develop for future generations.

Steering Spaceship Earth in the Next 100 Years

Roberta Calarese

Chief Legal and Purpose Officer I Board Advisor I Founder, GHAYA

3 juin 2025

“We are all astronauts aboard a little spaceship called Earth.” — Buckminster Fuller, 1969

In 1969, Buckminster Fuller published Operating Manual for Spaceship Earth—a radical call to reimagine how humanity designs and governs life on our fragile planet. Fuller didn’t see Earth as infinite or inexhaustible. He saw it as a finite, closed system—a spaceship with no instruction manual, a shared vessel requiring collective navigation.

More than fifty years later, the dashboard is blinking red. Climate thresholds breached. Inequality rising. Trust collapsing. Systems failing not by accident—but by design. Reading Fuller now felt like receiving a dispatch from a time traveler. It wasn’t a manual. It was an invitation:

« To see the whole, not the parts. To stop acting like passengers, and start designing like crew. »

One of Fuller’s most urgent insights was this: our over-specialization is blinding us. He warned that modern society trains people to be “experts” in narrow fields, while no one learns how the whole system functions. The result? A world full of highly trained professionals—and a civilization flying blind. “We are operating Spaceship Earth with a crew trained only in operating separate parts, and no comprehension of the whole” he wrote. To save our ship, we must reclaim the role of comprehensive designers—generalists who understand systems, who see interdependencies, and who act with purpose across disciplines.

When Is a New Manual Needed?

Fuller’s core concern wasn’t climate or pollution—it was misdesign: systems functioning perfectly in form but failing in purpose. A new manual is not needed when things are broken. It is needed when working systems produce destructive results.

Consider the Following:

System: Food Systems

Intended Outcome: Nourish populations through sustainable, equitable access.
Actual Outcome Today: Overproduction + malnutrition; 30% of food wasted; soil and biodiversity loss escalating

System: Capital Markets

Intended Outcome: Efficiently allocate resources to drive innovation and prosperity
Actual Outcome Today: Speculation over stewardship; greenwashing rampant; rising inequality.

System: Energy Infrastructure

Intended Outcome: Power modern economies affordably and reliably
Actual Outcome: Fossil fuel lock-in; 1.5°C threshold breached; energy poverty persists

System: Education Systems

Intended Outcome: Equip future generations to thrive and contribute
Actual Outcome: Outdated curricula; teaches isolated subjects, not interconnected systems or holistic problem-solving; prioritizes standardized testing over critical thinking, creativity, and systems understanding

System: Private Sector & Business

Intended Outcome: Produce profitable solutions to societal and planetary challenges
Actual Outcome: Prioritizes short-term profits; drives exponential extraction of finite resources under the illusion of infinite growth; treats people and nature as inputs, not stakeholders

System: Information Systems & Media

Intended Outcome: Enable informed, engaged societies
Actual Outcome: Polarization; misinformation; truth devalued

System: Built Environment & Cities

Intended Outcome: Shelter, community, and mobility for all
Actual Outcome: Sprawl, congestion, emissions; public space undervalued; climate-vulnerable infrastructure

System: Legal & Judicial Systems

Intended Outcome: Protect rights, ensure accountability, enforce justice
Actual Outcome: Overburdened and often inequitable; slow to adapt to digital and planetary risks

An the list goes on and on……. It is the opposite of what we intend—because we are solving parts, not redesigning wholes.

Case in Point: Systems on the Edge

33% of global farmland degraded (FAO, 2022)
Plastic in oceans may outweigh fish by 2050 (Ellen MacArthur Foundation)
Only 42% of people trust their country is on the right path (Edelman Trust Barometer, 2024)
Climate-driven displacement could reach 1.2 billion people by 2050 (World Bank)

In Fuller’s terms: we have designed ourselves into a trap.

New Manuals Are Emerging

While legacy systems resist change, new operating principles are being quietly prototyped—in cities, classrooms, farms, and boardrooms.

Doughnut Economics: Amsterdam, Barcelona, and others are adopting this model to balance ecological ceilings with social foundations. In the UAE, city design is increasingly integrating well-being metrics, cultural thresholds, and planetary limits.

Regenerative Agriculture: 15+ million hectares globally under regenerative practice—restoring ecosystems while boosting food resilience. In the UAE, vertical farming and biosaline agriculture decouple food from resource depletion.

Education Reinvented: Bhutan, Finland, and emerging programs in KSA and the UAE are piloting curricula around empathy, systems thinking, and ethical innovation—building the mindsets needed for planetary stewardship.

What Might Spaceship Earth Look Like in 2125?

Let us imagine, 100 years from now, a world not where the manual was found—but written together.

Scenario: Crew Consciousness Realized

Governance aligns with planetary boundaries.
AI regenerates ecosystems—not optimize ads.
Cities are net-positive: producing more than they consume.
Capital serves life—not the reverse.
Leadership is built on wisdom—not just data.

New Metrics for a Thriving World

Planetary Net Positive Index
Intergenerational Health Ratio
Ecosystem Equity Score

Your Role in the Manual

Fuller called for us to “do more with less.” The future calls for more than efficiency—it calls for elegance. Harmony. Feedback-aware systems. Inner and outer development. I have come to believe, through this book and my work, that the real manual is written through practice—across fields, policies, families, and futures. Every decision we make—every system we touch—either tightens the trap or helps write the way out. We are the navigators now. There is no “they.” There is only we.

Vision as Infrastructure: Holding the Future Long Enough to Build It

Every great system begins as a vision held long enough to take form.

To shift the trajectory of Spaceship Earth, we need what Fuller called « comprehensive anticipatory design science.” That is: to imagine far enough ahead—and wide enough across disciplines—to build a world that works for all. In Abu Dhabi and in Rome. In Expo City and the Empty Quarter. In rewilded deserts and schools teaching empathy. The manual is being drafted—imperfectly, experimentally, but undeniably.

By Roberta Calarese – Founder and CEO GHAYA, Creator of World with Purpose

Guest of the Month for October 2025: Anthony Starr

The Futurist | Founder & CEO | AI + Quantum Strategy for Growth & Resilience | Author & Speaker | Plant-Based

Editor : Future Friday ( go to this link LinkedIn )

Future Friday is a weekly newsletter that highlights cutting-edge trends and innovations shaping our future.

Don’t Let Earth Become a Sunken Ship

Spaceship Earth by Buckminster Fuller

We marveled at the audacity of space travel, of launching vessels beyond Earth. Yet today, the grandest spaceship of all is under our feet: Earth itself. If we don’t treat it like the tightly constrained, life-supporting vessel it is, we risk turning it into a sunken ship drifting through space.

As futurists, our job is to anticipate what lies ahead — to see where trajectories lead. And the trajectory of environmental neglect, resource overshoot, and fragmented governance points to catastrophe if uncorrected. So today, let’s lean on the metaphor of Spaceship Earth as both warning and inspiration.

The Metaphor: Earth = Spaceship

In the 1960s and ’70s, thinkers like Buckminster Fuller popularized “Spaceship Earth” to stress that we live in a closed-system vessel, with finite resources and no external resupply.
On a spaceship, waste must be recycled, energy must be balanced, and life support systems must be maintained.
If we regarded Earth with that mental model — as a crewed vessel in deep space — many of our current habits (waste, inequity, overconsumption) become obviously self-destructive.
The key insight: We are crew, not passengers. Passengers may complain or make demands; crew maintain systems, make repairs, monitor metrics, plan ahead.

Why We Need This Lens Now

Planetary Boundaries Are Being Breached The science (e.g. from the Stockholm Resilience Centre) warns that we are crossing tipping points in climate, biodiversity loss, nitrogen cycles, fresh water, etc. These are analogous to life-support alarms going off on a spaceship.
Delayed Feedbacks & Systemic Lag On Earth, many processes (ice melt, ecosystem collapse, feedback loops) operate on timescales that lag decades. Without continuous monitoring and proactive intervention, by the time alarms are blaring, damage is irreversible.
Global Interdependence No region is isolated. Pollutants, climate, migration, food systems—all cross borders. The spaceship has a shared hull; damage in one pane affects the others.
Technological Leverage But Ethical Risk We now have powerful tools — AI, genetic engineering, climate engineering — that could help repair or destabilize the system. But applying them without the right mental model invites catastrophe.

What Futurists Should Do (Crew Protocols)

1) Systems Observer & Modeler

Do: Build dynamic models (digital twins/Earth sims), run stress tests, watch for early-warning signals.
Track: Planetary-boundary status, leading indicators, cascade/tipping probabilities.

2) Repair Architect

Do: Prototype regenerative solutions—circular economy loops, carbon removal, soil/ocean restoration.
Track: Net resource regeneration, verified carbon drawdown, biodiversity and soil-health indices.

3) Policy Navigator / Coordinator

Do: Design commons governance, align incentives, broker compacts across sectors and borders.
Track: Adoption/compliance rates, coordination indices, policy-to-outcome lag times.

4) Culture & Narrative Shaper

Do: Reframe identity from “consumer” to “crew,” craft symbols, rituals, and stories that normalize stewardship.
Track: Message reach and resonance, behavior-shift metrics, participation in stewardship actions.

5) Risk & Red-Team Specialist

Do: Pressure-test critical systems against shocks (supply, climate, cyber), map single points of failure.
Track: Scenario loss severity, time-to-recover, fragility → resilience deltas.

Provocations & Questions to Ponder

If Earth is a spaceship, what are the “critical systems” (atmosphere, oceans, forests, soils, water cycles)? Which are we neglecting?
What “waste loops” are going unchecked (e.g. plastic, CO₂, chemical runoff)?
How do we redesign economic incentives so that “repair work” is rewarded rather than extraction?
If we had a unified “ship’s log” (global dashboard), what metrics would we require to show on the main panel?
What governance architectures (global, regional, local) would mimic a spaceship’s command structure — yet maintain adaptability, democracy, resilience?

Forward Phase of Action

Pick one subsystem of Earth (soil, forests, ocean currents, freshwater) and research its health metrics.
Map a feedback loop relevant to that subsystem (positive and negative loops).
Propose one regeneration intervention (small or bold) that could strengthen that loop (e.g. rewilding, circular agriculture, local water capture).
Share the metaphor — talk to someone about how Earth is a spaceship and what maintenance it needs. Seed new perspective.

One World One Ship

Spaceship Earth is not a passive vehicle; it demands a vigilant crew. As forward-thinking futurists, we must step into that crew role — not as distant observers, but as intentional maintainers and repairers. If we fail, the outcome is not merely deterioration — it’s dereliction. Let’s choose to be the crew that keeps this ship aloft, not passengers who watch it sink.

Guest of the Month for july 2025: Roberta CALARESE

She is I Founder, GHAYA

Its website : Creating Systemic Change for People and Planet | GHAYA

About Roberta is the founder and Chief Executive Officer of GHAYA, a management consultancy firm with a quest to inspire and transform leaders, governments, and organisations to make positive enduring change in the world through leading with purpose. A strategic advisor with 25 years of experience in the fields of leadership, financial services, investment banking, policy making, international relations, corporate and board governance, data protection, regulatory matters, real estate and family office. Today Roberta operates at the intersection of leadership with purpose, sustainability, women and youth empowerment, culture transformation to enable a thriving planet for all.

When Machines Run the Economy: Reflections on Nathan Never and the Future We Are Entering

I had just turned 20 when Nathan Never, one of Italy’s most iconic sci-fi comic series, created in 1991 by Michele Medda, Antonio Serra, and Bepi Vigna for Sergio Bonelli Editore, arrived in Italian newsstands. Nathan Never was former police officer turned special agent for the private security agency Agenzia Alfa, who operated in a bleak, hyper-technological future marked by towering megacities, ecological collapse, AI dominance, and deep social inequality. Haunted by personal tragedy—the violent death of his wife and the institutionalization of his daughter—Nathan was part detective, part philosopher, navigating a world where machines govern, justice is privatized, and the line between human and synthetic is increasingly blurred. I had no idea back then that this gritty, beautifully drawn comic series did not just tell stories. It was actually a blueprint to the future unfolding in front of my eyes as the years went by.

A Future That Felt Far Away—Until It Arrived

Back in 1991, the world of Nathan Never felt distant and stylized. Towering cities. Artificial intelligence running entire sectors. Corporations issuing their own currencies. People commuting to orbit. Robots replacing workers. Books forgotten. Justice outsourced to algorithms. Nature, a distant memory. It was all exhilarating—and horrifying. Surely it was just fiction. Surely it was centuries away.

And yet today, just three decades later, we are living many of its warnings:

AI is no longer science fiction. It is in our homes, hospitals, courts, and weapons systems.
Digital currency is real, and billions move every day through decentralized networks without banks.
Inequality is widening—not narrowing—with the most vulnerable increasingly pushed to the margins.
Climate collapse is accelerating, turning fiction into headlines.
The human touch is being replaced by code, in everything from hiring decisions to medical diagnostics.

The world Nathan Never imagined for the 2300s has been arriving since the 2020s.

When Machines Don’t Just Think—They Transact

One of the most visionary elements of the series was its portrayal of machine-driven economies. In Nathan’s world, AI doesn’t just support the economy—it is the economy. Robots and intelligent agents manage entire logistics chains, energy systems, and even financial markets. They generate value, trade autonomously, pay each other for services. There are no banks. No accountants. No salaries. There are only systems—self-optimizing, cold, and efficient. Today, we see the early versions of this in:

Smart contracts that execute without human review.
DAOs that make decisions without CEOs.
AI agents plugged into crypto wallets.
Machine-to-machine payments happening at scale.

What Nathan Never foresaw is happening. The economy is detaching from the human hand.

What Happens When Justice Is Automated?

In Nathan Never, the legal system is predictive, digitized, and dangerous. Surveillance is constant. Private security firms enforce the law for profit. Judgment is rendered by machines. Nathan fights to preserve dignity in a system where no one is truly innocent—only poorly optimized. And now?

AI is being used in courtrooms to recommend sentences.
Predictive policing systems flag “likely offenders” before crimes are committed.
Facial recognition watches us in airports, shopping malls, and city squares.
And increasingly, we trust machines to judge what it means to be human.

The risk isn’t that machines will turn against us. The risk is that we will hand them our authority—and forget how to take it back.

A World Without Books, Without Roots

One of the most heartbreaking aspects of Nathan Never is cultural loss. Books are relics. Nature is extinct. Memory lives in data centers, not minds. People don’t gather—they scroll. They don’t remember—they search. The world hasn’t ended. It has just forgotten itself.

We are not far off. We are raising generations in the glow of a screen. We are demoting curiosity to clickbait. We are erasing slowness, solitude, silence. The human spirit needs more than bandwidth. It needs roots.

What Nathan Never Warned Us About

The brilliance of the series wasn’t its gadgets or its science. It was the way it held up a mirror and whispered: « This is what happens if you stop paying attention. »

And so here we are living in a world increasingly governed by:

Systems we don’t understand
Economies we can’t enter
Decisions we can’t challenge
Values we didn’t choose

The dangers are no longer theoretical:

Loss of human agency
Digital inequality
Climate-driven collapse
Ethical voids in code
The disappearance of culture

But Nathan Never didn’t just offer a warning. It gave us questions. And those questions are still ours to answer.

What Must We Be Mindful Of?

That technology must be designed with conscience—not just speed. Efficiency without ethics is the beginning of tyranny.
That AI is a tool—not a sovereign. No machine should outrank a human’s dignity, story, or suffering.
That economies must serve life—not displace it. We cannot build a future where the only ones thriving are algorithms.
That remembering who we are matters more than what we build. If we lose our stories, our books, our sense of awe—we lose ourselves.

A Final Reflection

When I first read Nathan Never, I thought I was entering a fantasy world. More than thirty years later, I realize it was a preview, an uncomfortable one, if I may say. We need to remember that the future is not a destination. It is a decision we make every day.

Guest of the Month for june 2025: Brice HAZIZA

Il est médiateur scientifique spécialisé en astronomie et esprit critique, planétariste et rédacteur scientifique (ses articles ici).

Après avoir animé pendant six ans un planétarium, organisé des événements publics et reçu des centaines de classes, il s’est aperçu combien l’astronomie était un magnifique vecteur de connaissances et de curiosité chez le public et les scolaires.

C’est en partant de ce constat qu’il a décidé de créer “Notre Étoile” en se spécialisant dans les interventions scolaires et les interventions dans les collectivités. ( https://notreetoile.fr/)

Il est également membre du Café des Sciences d’Avignon, partenaire réguliers des manifestations de diffusion de la culture scientifique, tels que les Fêtes de la Science, ainsi que rédacteur chez “Les Numériques”.

Ascension de l’esprit :
“Overview effeect”
Nous avons découvert la Terre en 1968. Avant cettee date, aucun des grands
conquérants de l’Histoire n’eut jamais les moyens de se faire une idée précise du monde
qu’il voulait soumettre et posséder.
Six mois avant que Neil Armstrong n’enfonçât le pied dans la poussière de la
Lune, l’Humanité contemplait, sidérée, sa planète bleue sertie dans la membrane noire
de l’espace.
Le “Lever de Terre” frappa les consciences. C’était donc ça, cette petite boule
qu’on appelle le monde comme s’il n’existait rien d’autre ? Sa solitude, son abandon
total dans la désolante noirceur de l’Univers s’imposèrent à nos yeux.
Ce cliché légendaire est fascinant. Pourtant, cette photo ne montre que trois
éléments : la Terre, la Lune et l’espace. Mais quelques secondes d’observation suffisent à
notre esprit pour comprendre. Voici l’Humanité dans son berceau volant. Voici que cette
humanité a été capable de se propulser ici, à trois cent mille kilomètres – quel chemin
parcouru depuis la maîtrise du feu ! “Nous étions partis découvrir la Lune et nous avons
en fait découvert la Terre”, s’enthousiasma Eugène Cernan, le dernier des missions
Apollo à fouler le sol lunaire.
Pour vous et pour moi, terriens lambda qui n’irons jamais dans l’espace, les
photos resteront le seul moyen d’envisager l’émotion ultime qui saisit les astronautes
confrontés à la majesté fragile de notre planète en chute libre dans le ventre sans fond
de l’Univers.

Notre corps, notre cerveau et notre culture sont des fruits de la planète Terre. En
tant que primates et mammifères, nous sommes issus d’une immense lignée d’êtres
vivants ayant connu les soleils levants, l’éclat ravageur de l’éclair, la peur des bêtes
sauvages et le danger du feu. En nous sont enfouies ces informations. Mais il existe des
émotions inconnues et inédites, auxquelles l’être humain ne peut pas être préparé.
Les yeux de Youri Gagarine furent transpercés par un spectacle effarant. À trois
cent-vingt-sept kilomètres d’altitude, après avoir survécu à un décollage très incertain,
après s’être élevé par-delà un océan de nuages opalescents, Youri devint l’Homme qui
avait vu la Terre. Elle était ronde. Elle était vêtue d’une étoffe fine et fragile, un voile,
une gaze qu’on nommait atmosphère et qui nous était chère.
Durant son vol de quatre-vingt-dix minutes, Gagarine s’invita dans le secret de la
nuit. Il avait fait irruption dans les mécanismes naturels qui président à la succession
des jours. Il franchissait à ce moment-là l’océan pacifique, et s’émerveilla de
l’interminable nuit étoilée. L’homme qui revint après cela sur la Terre n’était plus le
même. Il avait vu ce que personne n’avait vu.
qu’il peut imaginer ce qu’on éprouve face à la mère de toute vie connue ? De
nombreux mythes traitent des conséquences de la révélation des grands mystères : la
pomme de connaissance, les mystères d’Éléusis, ou Sémélé qui brûle en contemplant le
véritable visage de Zeus…
Aujourd’hui, environ cinq-cents astronautes ont eu le privilège de cette vision et
du choc qu’elle procure. Cinq-cents petits êtres humains comme vous et moi faisant face
au visage de l’Humanité piégée dans son havre de vie, un vaisseau naturel né des lois
physiques de l’Univers. Ce choc émotionnel d’une puissance inégalée a été nommé
“overview effeect”, que l’on traduit par “effet de surplomb”. Mais aucun groupe de mots
de nos langues terrestres ne peut rendre compte à la fois du vertige que ces femmes et
ces hommes ont vécu dans leur chair et du sentiment d’amour viscéral qui les a saisi là
haut devant la planète bleue

Guest of the Month for APRIL 2025:

Vincent Capdepuy (né en 1977) est un enseignant du secondaire, géohistorien et cartographe français.

À partir de 2002, il enseigne dans le secondaire à La Réunion, et à partir de 2008, il devient formateur académique en cartographie^.

À partir de 2010, il participe au programme ANR PaléoSyr du CNRS.

Il est membre associé du « Groupe de recherches et d’études sur la Méditerranée et le Moyen-Orient » à la Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée (MOM), enseignant dans le secondaire à Saint-Pierre de la Réunion et auteur de livres scolaires, principalement autour de la géographie. Il collabore avec Christian Grataloup dans certaines publications.

Il participe à la revue M@ppemonde, revue de l’Institut des sciences humaines et sociales (INSHS) du CNRS , ainsi qu’à la revue numérique de cartographie européenne Cybergeo.

Il est associé à Géographie-Cités UMR 8504 et participe au programme ANR PaléoSyr du Centre national de la recherche scientifique (CNRS).

1965 – Le vaisseau-Terre

28/05/2022 Vincent Capdepuy

EN 1972, UN GROUPE DE RÉFLEXION, réuni pour la première fois à Rome en 1968 – d’où son nom, le Club de Rome – publia un rapport rédigé par une équipe d’experts au sein du Massachusetts Institute of Technology sous la direction de Dennis L. Meadows, et grâce au financement de la Volkswagen Foundation. Son titre, The Limits to Growth, traduit en français par « Halte à la croissance ? », interrogeait le modèle économique dominant, sur le constat qu’il existait un complexe de problèmes perturbant tous les pays : la pauvreté dans l’abondance, la dégradation de l’environnement, la perte de confiance envers les institutions, l’étalement incontrôlé des villes, l’insécurité de l’emploi, l’aliénation de la jeunesse, le rejet des valeurs traditionnelles, l’inflation et les troubles monétaires… – tout ceci n’étant que les différents aspects de la « problématique mondiale ». Le projet sur l’embarras de l’humanité (Project on the Predicament of Mankind), lancé en 1970, visait à élaborer un modèle global du système-Monde en examinant les facteurs de base qui limiteraient la croissance, les cinq grandes tendances qui pourraient à terme, à partir du milieu du XXIe siècle, mener à la catastrophe, à savoir : l’accélération de l’industrialisation, la forte croissance démographique, la persistance de la faim, l’épuisement des ressources non renouvelables, la dégradation de l’environnement. Plusieurs modèles furent élaborés et exposés. L’objectif était d’abord d’alarmer. Les auteurs du rapport ne s’attendaient pas à ce que le futur se réalise selon l’un ou l’autre des graphiques proposés. Ils avaient conscience que leur modélisation ne tenait pas compte des choix sociétaux et que ceux-ci pouvaient évoluer, ce qui était, au demeurant, avec le progrès technologique, l’un des facteurs d’évolution positive envisageable. Ils espéraient précisément aider à une prise de conscience mondiale en faveur d’un modèle économique qui viserait non plus la croissance, mais l’équilibre.

La même année, en 1972, se tint à Stockholm la Conférence des Nations Unies sur l’environnement humain. La déclaration finale reconnaissait « la nécessité d’adopter une conception commune et des principes communs », en une préoccupation fondamentalement anthropocentrée. Il ne s’agissait pas de préserver la nature pour elle-même, mais de prendre garde à l’environnement des hommes, à l’échelle locale autant que globale, tout en intégrant la question des inégalités. Le principe premier est très explicite :

L’homme a un droit fondamental à la liberté, à l’égalité et à des conditions de vie satisfaisantes, dans un environnement dont la qualité lui permette de vivre dans la dignité et le bien-être. Il a le devoir solennel de protéger et d’améliorer l’environnement pour les générations futures. À cet égard, les politiques qui encouragent ou qui perpétuent l’apartheid, la ségrégation raciale, la discrimination, les formes, coloniales et autres, d’oppression et de domination étrangères sont condamnées et doivent être éliminées.

En vue de cette conférence, Maurice F. Strong, le secrétaire général de la Conférence des Nations Unies sur l’environnement humain, avait demandé à un groupe de 152 conseillers de rédiger un rapport, paru sous la direction de Barbara Ward et de René Dubos, Nous n’avons qu’une Terre. En introduction, ceux-ci soulignaient le fait que la conférence avait lieu « à un moment très critique » : « Maintenant que l’homme est en train d’achever de coloniser la planète, apprendre à la gérer intelligemment est devenu un impératif d’une extrême urgence. L’homme doit accepter la responsabilité de la gestion de la Terre. » L’objectif de cette réunion était précisément « de définir ce qui devait être fait pour que la Terre reste un lieu où les êtres humains puissent vivre, non seulement maintenant, mais aussi au cours des générations futures ». Tout en plaidant pour une solution globale, Barbara Ward et René Dubos insistaient également sur la multiplicité des approches et sur la compatibilité de l’universalité et de l’individualité :

L’attachement que nous portons à nos spécificités ne doit en aucun cas entraver nos efforts pour faire naître une mentalité « planétaire », pour développer un sentiment de loyalisme à l’égard de la Terre dans son ensemble. Au moment où nous entrons dans une ère nouvelle de l’évolution humaine, celle des relations à l’échelle du globe, il est évident que tout homme a deux patries, la sienne et la planète Terre.

L’inscription de la préoccupation environnementaliste dans la problématique de la gouvernance mondiale n’était pas nouvelle. On peut remonter au moins à la fondation à Fontainebleau, le 5 octobre 1948, de l’Union internationale pour la protection de la nature (UIPN), organisation connexe à l’UNESCO. Le premier directeur de cette dernière, le biologiste britannique Julian Huxley, avait déjà montré son intérêt pour la préservation de l’environnement dans les années 1930 lors de la création de parcs nationaux au Kenya. Immédiatement après-guerre, il réitéra sa préoccupation dans son ouvrage L’UNESCO : ses buts et sa philosophie, paru en 1946 :

La reconnaissance du fait que dans le monde les espèces sauvages sont irremplaçables, mais en voie de destruction rapide, peut seule nous amener à nous rendre compte à temps qu’il faut, dans l’intérêt final de l’humanité tout entière, réserver sur la Terre des zones où l’expansion de l’homme cède le pas à la conservation des autres espèces.

Dans le texte constitutif de l’UIPN, on retrouve l’idée de l’absolue nécessité de préserver la nature dans l’intérêt de l’humanité :

On peut entendre par Protection de la nature la sauvegarde de l’ensemble du monde vivant, milieu naturel de l’homme. Cet ensemble renferme les ressources naturelles renouvelables de la Terre, facteur primordial de toute civilisation. […] Leur renouvellement ne pouvant pas suivre la cadence des destructions, le moment est venu de convaincre l’homme de l’étroite dépendance dans laquelle il se trouve à leur égard ; et si l’on veut arrêter cette évolution redoutable, il faut que l’homme se pénètre de la nécessité de protéger et même de régénérer ces ressources et de ne les consommer qu’avec ménagement, de manière à garantir la prospérité du monde et sa paix future.

Le point de vue était nettement anthropocentrique et la protection de la nature s’inscrivait dans la logique d’un monde à préserver si on voulait éviter le pire, à savoir la destruction de la civilisation humaine. C’était donc seulement dans l’adversité que le mondialisme pourrait se développer. Tel est du moins ce qu’exprimait dès 1959 Edgar Morin :

Pour la première fois, l’humanité était embrassée par une civilisation mondiale : la civilisation technique. Pour la première fois les problèmes ne pouvaient se comprendre et se dénouer qu’à l’échelle de la mondialité. Jamais le réseau des interactions n’avait à ce point enserré la planète. Jamais les intérêts et les rêves humains n’avaient été saisis dans de tels rapports d’interdépendance. C’était effectivement la technique qui mondialisait la planète Terre. […] Alors comment dire ? D’incroyables régressions accompagnent la gestation de la planète Terre. Tous les problèmes humains piétinent sur place tandis que s’élancent les ondes radio, les messages électroniques, les avions atomiques, les satellites. L’humanité ne s’arrache pas à sa préhistoire mais nous entrons dans une nouvelle histoire : l’ère planétaire, et même bientôt l’ère cosmique. Ce n’est pas un vrai Moyen Âge que nous vivons, ce n’est pas une vraie Renaissance que nous préparons, ce n’est pas la préhistoire que nous achevons. Nous sommes dans l’âge de fer planétaire.

Cette conscience planétaire, et pas simplement mondiale, s’accéléra au cours des années 1960, ce à quoi l’évolution des relations internationales n’était pas complètement étrangère. En 1963, peu après la crise des fusées de Cuba, les États-Unis, l’URSS et le Royaume-Uni signèrent à Moscou le traité d’interdiction des essais nucléaires dans l’atmosphère, dans l’espace et sous l’eau. En 1964 s’ouvrit la Foire internationale de New York, dans la lignée des expositions universelles du XIXe siècle. Le slogan en était « la paix par la compréhension » ; et pour les publicistes de Madison Avenue, c’étaient « les Jeux olympiques du progrès », l’occasion d’une vaste promotion de l’industrie états-unienne. Cette collusion des intérêts était presque caricaturale dans le pavillon de l’UNICEF, avec une des principales attractions de la foire, sponsorisée par Pepsi et conçue par Walt Disney. « It’s a Small World ! » consistait en une mini-croisière au milieu d’une série de scènes avec des audio-animatronics. Ces automates d’hommes et d’animaux censés représenter les différentes régions du monde – entre Don Quichotte pour l’Espagne, Cléopâtre pour l’Égypte et un lama bleu pour le Pérou –, « chantaient » un hymne polyglotte à la fraternité humaine composé par les frères Sherman, dont le refrain, « It’s a small world after all », « C’est un petit monde après tout », finit par donner son nom à l’attraction. La mièvrerie de l’ensemble est assez fabuleuse, mais le succès fut immense : dix millions de tickets vendus entre 1964 et 1965, au profit de l’UNICEF.

Une autre installation de la foire, que les spectateurs de Men in Black connaissent, est l’Unisphere. Il s’agit d’une sphère en acier inoxydable de plus de 36 mètres de diamètre, creuse et représentant la Terre. Trois anneaux entourent cette sphère, en référence au premier vol habité de Youri Gagarine en 1961, au premier Américain dans l’espace, John Glenn, en 1962, et au premier satellite de télécommunication, Telstar 1, mis en orbite en 1963. L’œuvre de Gilmore D. Clarke était dédiée aux « réalisations de l’homme sur un globe qui rétrécit dans un univers en expansion », « Man’s Achievements on a Shrinking Globe in an Expanding Universe ».

Unisphere

Une expression résuma alors ce pas de côté planétaire : le « vaisseau Terre », Spaceship Earth. La formule disait bien la dimension close de l’espace global ainsi que l’aspect systémique. On a attribué à plusieurs personnes la paternité de l’expression. On s’entend généralement pour reconnaître que celui qui l’a, sinon inventée, du moins mise en avant, est Adlai E. Stevenson, ambassadeur des États-Unis, lors d’un discours à Genève en juillet 1965 dans le cadre d’une réunion du conseil économique et social de l’ONU. Il termina son discours sur la nécessité de penser le monde dans le contexte d’interdépendance qui était désormais le nôtre :

Nous voyageons ensemble, passagers d’un petit vaisseau spatial, dépendant de ses réserves vulnérables en air et en sol ; tous engagés pour notre sécurité par sa sécurité et la paix ; préservés de sa destruction seulement par le soin, le travail et, je dirai, l’amour que nous portons à notre fragile embarcation. Nous ne pouvons le maintenir à moitié fortuné, à moitié misérable, à moitié confiant, à moitié désespéré, à moitié esclave – des anciens ennemis de l’homme –, à moitié libre dans la libération des ressources inimaginées jusqu’à ce jour. Aucune embarcation, aucun équipage ne peut voyager en sécurité avec de telles contradictions. De leur résolution dépend la survie de tous.

Cependant, en mai 1965, Kenneth E. Boulding, économiste anglo-étatsunien, avait fait une présentation à l’université de Washington,
déjà intitulée « Earth as a Space Ship». Il commençait par un constat
: « La Terre est devenue un vaisseau spatial, non seulement dans notre imagination, mais aussi dans la réalité concrète du système social, biologique et physique dans lequel l’homme est enchevêtré. » Avant, les hommes vivaient dans un monde qu’ils pensaient infini ; désormais, ils devaient développer une technologie permettant de vivre dans un écosystème fermé et fondé sur des relations symbiotiques. Ceci impliquait de repenser totalement les comportements et les institutions des hommes, totalement inadaptés à un espace clos, voire, donc, d’adopter une économie centrale planifiée pour contrôler ce système-Monde. Mais Kenneth E. Boulding était bien conscient de la contradiction avec le libéralisme ambiant.

Un des problèmes majeurs des sciences sociales est de comment concevoir des institutions qui combineront ce contrôle homéostatique général avec la mobilité et la liberté individuelles.

Il soulignait également l’importance de l’ignorance générale de l’écosystème planétaire :

Nous ne savons même pas si les activités de l’homme vont entraîner un réchauffement ou un refroidissement de la Terre.

En 1966, Kenneth Boulding développa son analyse dans un article sur « l’économie du vaisseau spatial terrestre à venir », « The Economics of the Coming Spaceship Earth ». Il reprenait l’idée que l’humanité était dans une phase de transition. Pendant des millénaires, les hommes avaient vécu dans un monde virtuellement infini, avec presque toujours la possibilité d’aller en un lieu au-delà de l’horizon. Cette « frontière », au sens américain du terme, était désormais en train de se fermer et il était donc nécessaire de passer d’une « économie de cow-boy » à une « économie d’astronaute », d’une économie fondée sur la production, la valorisation de la consommation et de la croissance, à une économie fondée sur la reproduction, la préservation des ressources et la maintenance. Ceci impliquerait de prendre davantage en considération l’avenir et le sort des générations futures, autrement dit de récuser la devise « Après nous, le déluge ».

En 1966 également, paraissait un petit livre de Barbara Ward, intitulé Spaceship Earth, écrit l’année précédente. Elle réitérait le constat que « nous sommes devenus une seule communauté humaine ». Les hommes étaient devenus des « voisins », par la proximité physique, par la communication instantanée, par les intérêts économiques communs, par l’évolution technologique, par l’industrialisation, par l’urbanisation, et, plus encore peut-être, par le risque total de destruction. Il semblait que « maintenant, nous avons atteint un point planétaire de non-retour » :

La manière la plus rationnelle de considérer la totalité de la race humaine est de la voir comme l’équipage d’un unique vaisseau spatial sur lequel nous tous, avec une combinaison remarquable de sécurité et de vulnérabilité, faisons notre pèlerinage à travers l’infini.

Elle attribuait sans hésitation l’expression de « Spaceship Earth » à Buckminster Fuller.

En 1968, la mission Apollo 8 permit de mettre deux images sur cette formule. La première photo donnait à voir la Terre, d’eau et d’air, avec les circonvolutions des nuages sur les mers. La seconde montrait un « lever de Terre », celle-ci, marbrée de bleu et de blanc, apparaissant à l’horizon de la surface lunaire, stérile, grise, criblée de cratères, le tout sur le fond immense et noir de l’espace intersidéral.

Earthrise, 24 décembre 1968, Appolo 8 (NASAI)

Enthousiasmé, le poète Archibald MacLeish publia un court texte dans The New York Times, le 25 décembre 1968 :

Voir la Terre telle qu’elle est vraiment, petite et bleue, magnifique dans le silence éternel où elle flotte, c’est nous voir nous-mêmes comme des cavaliers sur la Terre, ensemble, frères sur cette resplendissante beauté dans le froid éternel – frères qui savent maintenant qu’ils sont vraiment frères.

En 1972, lors de la mission Apollo 17, une autre photo fut prise, rare, car la Terre y est entièrement éclairée et se voit dans sa globalité, telle une bille, « a blue marble » selon l’expression des astronautes. La photo devint véritablement iconique d’une conscience non plus globale, mais planétaire.

7 décembre 1972, Apollo 17 (NASA)

En 1968, l’UNESCO organisa une conférence intergouvernementale sur l’utilisation rationnelle et la conservation de la biosphère. L’année suivante, un « département des sciences de l’environnement » fut créé puis, en 1971, ce fut le projet sur « l’Homme et la biosphère » (Man and Biosphere). Enfin, en 1972, se tenait à Stockholm la conférence des Nations Unies sur l’environnement humain, qui aboutit en décembre 1972 à la création du Programme des Nations Unies pour l’environnement (PNUE), dont le siège fut installé près de Nairobi, au Kenya.

C’était il y a près d’un demi-siècle et on peut s’interroger sur les progrès réalisés depuis ce que Hans J. Schellnhuber a qualifié de « seconde révolution copernicienne », qui aurait replacé le système Terre au centre du Monde. Les difficultés à trouver une solution mondiale au réchauffement climatique et plus encore à la mettre en œuvre sont consternantes.

La NASA envisage un voyage habité à l’horizon 2030 et de nouveaux acteurs de la conquête spatiale entrent en lice. Certains rêvent de colonisation, mais comme une fuite. C’est clairement ce qu’a récemment déclaré l’astrophysicien britannique Stephen Hawking :

Nous manquons d’espace et les seuls endroits où aller sont d’autres mondes. Il est temps d’explorer d’autres systèmes solaires. Se répandre dehors serait la seule chose qui nous sauve de nous-mêmes. Je suis convaincu que les humains doivent quitter la Terre.

En tout cas, c’est l’imaginaire qui est déjà proposé à nos enfants. En 2008, le film d’animation WALL-E montrait une Terre morte, noyée sous les déchets et désertée par les hommes, partis au XXIIe siècle vers des horizons inconnus à bord d’immenses vaisseaux spatiaux aux allures de paquebots de luxe. Cet échec écologique total était le résultat de la mainmise sur la Terre d’une seule entreprise, la Buy-N-Large Corporation. Derrière l’histoire gentillette, le film dresse une dystopie inquiétante.

Image extraite du fil WALL-E (Pixar, 2008)

L’outrepassement du monde

La conquête spatiale a-t-elle ré-ouvert l’horizon ? Elle a indéniablement permis à l’homme de prendre un peu de recul par rapport à la Terre, mais il n’y a pas eu une réouverture de la frontière. Au contraire, l’horizon de l’homme est apparu dans sa clôture planétaire, mince pellicule de biosphère dans un univers bien hostile. La colonisation spatiale reste un projet, et la symbiose de quelques milliards d’êtres humains au sein de l’écosystème-Terre est menacée.

La représentation du Monde

Le globe terrestre avait été représenté et reproduit depuis des siècles. L’imaginaire de la globalité terrestre était devenu banal et la photo de la Terre, frêle esquif de vie suspendu dans le vide, ne fut une expérience scopique qu’indirecte pour les Terriens qui n’étaient pas en orbite ou sur la Lune, c’est-à-dire tous sauf une poignée d’aventuriers. Pourtant, l’image photographique avait une valeur de vérité, elle rendit presque tangible ce qui n’avait été que pensé et imaginé.

Vincent Capdepuy (28 mai 2022). Chapitre 45. 1965 – Le vaisseau-Terre. Carnets de géohistoire.

Guest of the Month for MARCH 2025:

Spaceship Earth Revisited: The Co-Benefits of Overcoming Biological Extinction of Experience at the Level of Person, Place and Planet

by Susan L. Prescott

   Professor | Paediatrics | Planetary Health, University of Western Australia
Director | Nova Network for planetary health: Baltimore, USA
Editor-in-Chief | C hallenges Journal Basel, Switzerland
President | i nVIVO Planetary Health (2012-2022)
Director | ORIGINS PROJECT Telethon Kids Institute
  Immunologist and Paediatrician | Perth Children’s Hospital, Western Australia
  Scholar | Nova Institute for Health, Baltimore, USA
  Adjunct Professor | Family and Community Medicine – University of Maryland, Baltimore, USA

And Jeffrey S. Bland PhD

Functional medicine was created by Jeffrey Bland, who founded The Institute for Functional Medicine (IFM) in the early 1990s

The ORIGINS Project, Telethon Kids Institute, University of Western Australia, Perth Children’s Hospital, Nedlands, WA 6009, Australia

inVIVO Planetary Health of the Worldwide Universities Network (WUN), West New York, NJ 10704, USA

Personalized Lifestyle Medicine Institute, Tacoma, WA 98443, USA

Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.

On Behalf of inVIVO Planetary Health of the Worldwide Universities Network (WUN).

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17(4), 1407; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17041407

Submission received: 6 January 2020 / Revised: 16 February 2020 / Accepted: 18 February 2020 / Published: 21 February 2020

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Planetary Health: From Challenges to Opportunities for People, Place, Purpose and Planet

Abstract

Extensive research underscores that we interpret the world through metaphors; moreover, common metaphors are a useful means to enhance the pursuit of personal and collective goals. In the context of planetary health—defined as the interdependent vitality of all natural and anthropogenic ecosystems (social, political and otherwise)—one enduring metaphor can be found in the concept of “Spaceship Earth”. Although not without criticism, the term “Spaceship Earth” has been useful to highlight both resource limitations and the beauty and fragility of delicate ecosystems that sustain life. Rene Dubos, who helped popularize the term, underscored the need for an exposome perspective, one that examines the total accumulated environmental exposures (both detrimental and beneficial) that predict the biological responses of the “total organism to the total environment” over time. In other words, how large-scale environmental changes affect us all personally, albeit in individualized ways. This commentary focuses the ways in which microbes, as an essential part of all ecosystems, provide a vital link between personal and planetary systems, and mediate the biopsychosocial aspects of our individualized experience—and thus health—over our life course journey. A more fine-grained understanding of these dynamics and our power to change them, personally and collectively, lies at the core of restoring “ecosystems balance” for person, place and planet. In particular, restoring human connectedness to the natural world, sense of community and shared purpose must occur in tandem with technological solutions, and will enhance individual empowerment for personal well-being, as well as our collective potential to overcome our grand challenges. Such knowledge can help shape the use of metaphor and re-imagine solutions and novel ways for restoration or rewilding of ecosystems, and the values, behaviors and attitudes to light the path toward exiting the Anthropocene.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

The term planetary health—defined as the interdependent vitality of all natural and anthropogenic ecosystems (social, political and otherwise [1])—underscores that the health of human civilization is intricately connected to the health of natural systems within the Earth’s biosphere [2]. Ultimately, the health of all “whole” systems depends on the health of every “part” they comprise, with the same principals of interconnectivity applying on each level—from large-scale global systems to the sub-cellular dynamics within each living organism. In this context, the health and resilience of every individual cannot be separated from the health of communities and environments, just as collective personal health determines the health of our societies. Thus, the concept of planetary health blurs the artificial lines between health at scales of person, place and planet, emphasizing the integration of biological, psychological, social and cultural aspects of health in the modern environment, and the need to address these collectively across every level [3].

Given its definition, planetary health addresses the intertwined problems of non-communicable diseases (NCDs), biodiversity losses, climate change, environmental degradation, resource depletion, health inequalities, social injustices, the spread of ultra-processed foods, neoliberalism, over consumption, incivility and other related challenges [4]. Collectively, this quagmire has been referred to as “Anthropocene Syndrome” [5]. According to Lancet Editor-in-Chief Richard Horton, planetary health is intended “as an inquiry into our total world. The unity of life and the forces that shape those lives” [6]. Insofar as humans are the generators of Anthropocene Syndrome—and its victims—planetary health ultimately sits within the purview of human attitudes, emotions and behaviors [7]. In other words, it sits with the drivers of personal and collective well-being—where the power for change lies within the reach of each and every individual.

Whatever labels we attach to our current age—Anthropocene, Plantationocene, Capitalocene, etc.—we have to consider holistic exit strategies. In the words of scholar Donna Haraway, “the Anthropocene marks severe discontinuities; what comes after will not be like what came before. I think our job is to make the Anthropocene as short/thin as possible and to cultivate with each other in every way imaginable epochs to come that can replenish refuge” [8]. Hence, with the understanding that not all humans have contributed equally to our current predicament, that is, along lines of socioeconomic privilege/disadvantage, we might look forward to what has been called the “symbiocene” [9].

Although the concept of planetary health has a rich history and has enjoyed growth in recent years [10], the breadth of its interdisciplinary scope has been a barrier to progress. Indeed, Horton has expressed concern that planetary health runs the risk of simply fading into a “recalibrated version of environmental health” [6]. We see the same risk and emphasize the need for an overarching narrative that unites these concepts—one that speaks to the heart as much as the mind—and inspires all-inclusive engagement around a shared goal: the health of our future.

Volumes of research underscores that we interpret the world through metaphors; indeed, common metaphors are a useful means to enhance the pursuit of personal and collective goals. One enduring metaphor of relevance to planetary health can be found in the concept of “Spaceship Earth”. Here, we revisit this metaphor and place it into the context of emerging research on the exposome and extinction of experience—both psychological and biological—as they relate to health at all scales, from person, to place and planet.

2. Roadmap to the Viewpoint

Here in our Viewpoint article, we will first revisit the early origins and expansion of the Spaceship Earth metaphor; we do this in order to explore its place in the emerging planetary health paradigm. Since the term was popularized by one of the most noted scientists of the 20th century, Rene Dubos, we emphasize the larger context in which Dubos placed the metaphor; that is, an interdisciplinary science that promotes greater inquiry into the biological responses of the whole person to the total environment over time—what we refer to in contemporary lexicon as the exposome. We underscore that Dubos’ scientific specialty was microbiology, and he was among the first to identify the ways in which formerly unseen microbes illuminate the interrelated economy of natural systems, and “give to the phenomenon of symbiosis a significance which transcends analytical biology and reaches into the very philosophy of life” [11].

Since exposome science examines biological responses of the total person to the total environment over time; it forces questions concerning “missing” experiences, or what some researchers have labeled a psychological “extinction of experience” (e.g., less time spent in nature or in contact with biodiversity). We briefly address the research supporting the psychological extinction of experience, and next argue that such behavioral changes are in effect a biological extinction of experience (including missing exposures to diverse microbes) with far-reaching, even trans-generational consequences. We explain that the science exploring the psychological extinction of experience and that behind the biologically oriented biodiversity hypothesis have remained in silos and have not been integrated into the planetary health discourse. The obvious aim of this exercise is to ensure, as Lancet Editor-in-Chief Richard Horton stated, that planetary health does not slip back into an environmental health discipline.

With this background in place, that is, the removal of the thin veneer that separates the psychological from the biological, we next argue that the aims of planetary health require a fine-grained understanding of nature relatedness as it is intertwined with the extinction of biological experience. By doing so, we can draw from the metaphor of Spaceship Earth and press for a deeper status report on “spaceship human”, an assessment that acknowledges we are multi-species entities with diverse biota. How does individual and community nature relatedness expand to promote health at all scales? How can distant others, including policymakers and multinational corporations (and their lobbyists and marketing arms), hinder or support the multi-species spaceship human in reaching its fullest potential?

Whether at the scale of a single person, or vast areas of the planet, interventions directed at the “ecological” health are often described as restorative. This can include personalized attempts to restore “missing microbes” (a lack of which may otherwise contribute to planetary non-communicable diseases) or the large-scale introduction of animal predators and large trees. Thus, we next discuss this restoration effort that has been labeled, for better or worse, as “rewilding”. In this section we argue that the success of restoration requires a change in the way we view systems (e.g., food, Educ. ation and political), which either compromise health at scales of the person, place and planet, or ignore the development of an eco-health psyche. Finally, we discuss the utility of Spaceship Earth as a modern-day metaphor.

At the outset we underscore that the word “total”—whether in Horton’s plea that planetary health moves forward as an inquiry into our total world, or the exposome’s total lived experiences of a person meets total environment—is always an approximation, no matter the degree of advancement in scientific assessment techniques. The idea that the “total” lived experiences of a human being (or our total world) can be “known” is not without hubris. Still, there is little doubt that we need to understand more fully the interconnectedness of multiple variables as they impact health at the scales of the person, place and planet over time.

3. Spaceship Earth as Metaphor

“This solid globe of ours—this huge rotundity we tread—is a ten-thousand fold more wonderful flying machine than the most daring aeronaut has ever devised or conceived. In the open eye of science it is a huge Spaceship, a vast ether transport bearing the whole human race, at the most incredible speed, swiftly on through the unmeasured spaces of the limitless creation, ignoring all weigh stations and bound for an unknown destiny” Prof. E. Knowlton, 1903 [12].

While it may never be known who coined the term “Spaceship Earth”, it was popularized by NASA’s chief administrator James E. Webb. Addressing the Economic Club of Detroit in March of 1962, Webb exclaimed that “we are all space travelers on the good Spaceship Earth. In another six months we will be 190 million miles away from where we are today” [13]. Due to the price tag of the burgeoning space program and moon shot, broad public support was a necessity. Webb tapped into the collective imagination. His statement was also figurative. With rapid cultural changes, the human experience inside the mid-20th century Spaceship Earth would indeed be “millions of miles” from that travelled by ancestors just decades earlier

Months later, Roger Revelle, an environmental science advisor to the Unites States Secretary of the Interior, underscored the idea of the spaceship community: “What is our Earth, then, but a two-billion-person spaceship hurtling through the void? We face exactly the problems that [astronauts] face. We must not, and indeed we cannot, waste anything. We must somehow learn to live together, to tolerate one another, or else we cannot survive” [14].

The Spaceship Earth metaphor inspired public school science teacher Julius Schwartz and well-known artist Marc Simont to collaborate on a popular children’s book entitled The Earth is Your Spaceship [15]. The book provided an environmental message: “Spaceship Earth has good drinking water…lots of fresh air…Spaceship Earth grows food…food from plants and animals that ride with you through space”. Spaceship Earth has its own music, they wrote, “the whistling of the wind, the roaring of thunder, the pounding of ocean waves” [15]. They encourage a mindful awareness of nature, and although inspiring children to dream that one day they might become an astronaut, they conclude:

“But wherever you go
You will be happy to come back
To your warm,
Green,
Friendly,
Spaceship Earth” [15].

Following this, as the space race peaked in the late 1960s, economists, environmentalists and global health leaders began to use the Spaceship Earth metaphor. One of the better-known scientists to do so was Rockefeller University microbiologist Rene Dubos (1901-1982). In 1969, Dubos wrote a nationally syndicated (United States) newspaper editorial with the Spaceship Earth theme [16], and his keynote lecture at the American Academy of Allergy annual meeting bore the title “Spaceship Earth”. In both venues, Dubos argued for a greater scientific focus on the interrelatedness of the environmental determinants of health and vitality:

“Many of the chronic and degenerative disorders which constitute the most difficult and costly medical problems of our societies have their origins in the surroundings and the ways of life, rather than the genetic constitution of the patient…high priority should be given to the study and control of the forces that affect the quality of human life and its environment, and that are rapidly making the Spaceship Earth a place unfit for human life [17].”

“The term ‘Spaceship Earth’ is no mere catchphrase…despite the irresponsible assertions of a few scientists and imaginative science-fiction writers, we are bound to the Earth by the exigencies of our biological nature…since we make so little effort to investigate the effects of social and technological innovations on human life, we are practicing—not by intention, but irresponsibility—a kind of biological warfare against nature, ourselves and especially against our descendants [16]”

Dubos wrote

With his groundbreaking work in microbiology, Dubos was the ideal messenger to emphasize the need to consider the interrelatedness of ecosystems at all scales. Half-a-century before the gut–brain–microbiome zeitgeist, Dubos used germ-free and specific-pathogen-free mice as a means to clearly demonstrate the effects of stress, dietary factors, maternal care, housing conditions, social interactions and sanitation—including microbial influences—on mammalian health over time (and even over generations) [18,19,20,21]. Today, microbiome science underscores that humans are multi-species entities—and that the total lived experiences accumulated by humans over time is, at least to some extent, mediated by microbial arbitrators.

4. The Exposome

“While modern science has been highly productive of isolated fragments of knowledge, it has been far less successful in dealing with complexity…the time has come to give to the study of the responses that the living organism makes to its environment, the same dignity and support which is being given at present to the study of the component parts of the organism” Rene J. Dubos, PhD, 1964 [22].

Acknowledging the value of rEduc. tionism and single-variable science, Dubos called for greater inquiry into the biological responses of the total person to the total environment [23,24]. Today, the study of these total accumulated environmental exposures—insofar as they can help predict the biological responses of the “total organism to the total environment” over time—is referred to as the exposome [25]. In effect, exposures (hence the name exposome) are experiences with the potential to be biologically beneficial or detrimental (Figure 1). Thus, adversity in the exposome is not limited to the potential effects of detrimental exposures (e.g., airborne pollutants) but also the absence of protective or buffering factors (e.g., green space), and as with our genome, our exposome is also highly personalized.

Figure 1. Addressing the multidimensional complexity of the exposome across the life-course: Health depends on (1) minimizing adversity, recognizing that life in distress (dysbiosis) is multidimensional, and (2) promoting the often underestimated value of protective and buffering factors. Both aspects of this challenge may be enhanced by restoring value systems that promote connectivity and responsibility for people, place and planet.

From a life-course perspective, exposome science emphasizes that certain windows of vulnerability (for disease risk) and opportunity (for health promotion) can be identified [26]. Physiological responses are a product of accumulated experiences and may differ, temporally, depending on previous and current experiences; these can include early life stress and nutrition, chronic stressors, neighborhood conditions, social support, the experience of daily hassles and other shifting environmental variables [27,28]. Accordingly, these factors are core to personalized approaches to wellness and disease prevention. Advances in “omics” technologies have afforded researchers the opportunity to simultaneously measure large numbers of biomolecules representing genes, gene expressions, proteins and metabolites. Thus, researchers can identify biological markers of relevance to the total lived experience of individuals, communities and entire populations [28,29,30]. Importantly, these technologies allow individuals to become more engaged in their health, amplifying person-focused action. This may address the limited success of traditional population-based approaches to health, which have arguably not been owned by individuals.

5. Extinction of Experience

“What is the extinction of the condor to a child who has never seen a wren?” [31].

Quite literally, our birds are dying. There are almost 30% fewer birds than in 1970 in North America, with the loss of 3 billion birds over the last 50 years [32], and similar trends in Europe with losses of 421 million birds over 30 years and alterations in relative species abundance [33]. As an indicator of ecosystems health, this is grave cause for grave concern—the “canary in the coal mine” may have already perished.

The Anthropocene is characterized by grotesque levels of species loss; this rapid scale of extinction has been referred to as biological annihilation [34]. The seriousness of biodiversity losses cannot be overstated [35,36,37]. However, insofar as human cognition and behavior is associated with biological annihilation, very little research has been directed at extinction of a different sort. Extinction of experience.

Recent studies support the idea that adults and children in westernized nations are spending more time indoors [38,39,40]; researchers have demonstrated age-related, cross-generational declines in childhood experiences with nature [41]. Increased engagement with screen-based technology may help explain diminished time outdoors in natural environments [42,43,44,45]. Moreover, cultural products (such as fiction books, film storylines and song lyrics) are trending away from inclusion of nature [46], and the rise of celebrity-oriented mass media has been associated with diminished environmental knowledge [47]. If direct experiences with wild flowering plants are a bellwether of larger interactions with wildlife, it is interesting to note a recent nationwide study in Japan shows that the majority of plant–people interactions are experienced by a small number of people [48].

The interrelated findings of greater time spent indoors, widely expanding use of screen-based media and diminished, mindful [49] contact with the natural world are of high-level importance to planetary health. Like miners unaware of poisonous gas, the Anthropocene may be obscuring individual and collective awareness of lost experiences; this extinction of experience is described as the loss of direct, personal, cognitive-emotional contact with plant and animal species, and other elements of the natural world [50,51].

There are many pressing research questions surrounding the extinction of experience. Since emerging research indicates that time spent in nature in early life predicts later-life engagement in nature-based activities [52,53,54,55] and subsequent pro-environmental attitudes (and quite likely, pro-environmental behaviors) [56,57], a greater understanding of experiential losses in the context of sustaining life on Spaceship Earth seems urgent. In a self-reinforcing way, experience within natural environments may help develop an emotional connectedness with nature and an enduring “environmental identity” [58,59]. Children with greater experiential nature exposure are more likely to react to signs of environmental harm [60] and protect the environment in the future [56,57]. As we consider that advocacy and action towards planetary health are driven by one’s personal experience, what could be more important?

6. Extinction of Biological Experience

The concept of extinction of experience is largely housed in the psychological realm of scientific research; as mentioned, the primary focus is the critical understanding of the ways in which diminished contact with natural environments and biodiversity influence emotions, cognition and behavior. Running in parallel with this line of inquiry is a largely separate body of research which examines the biological consequences of loss of “experience” (the often-used term is exposure) with biodiversity in the context of immune responses and other aspects of human physiology.

Here, researchers focus on the ways in which modernity can influence microbial exposures (as one marker of biodiversity), particularly in early-life exposures. If children are indeed spending more time indoors, and less time in contact with biodiversity (compounded by the losses of surrounding biodiversity regardless of time use), there may be untold biological consequences. Throughout human Evol. ution, diverse microbial exposures have been critical to the normal training of the immune system [61]. In relation to our Evol. utionary past, rapid modernity-associated alterations to microbial exposures through antibiotic use, smaller family sizes, overuse of household “hygiene” products and dietary practices (e.g., diminished consumption of traditional fermented foods) could serve to compound the biological extinction of experience. Indeed it is now clear that the social, environmental and lifestyle dimensions of modernity are driving the propensity for systemic chronic inflammation across the life-course [62]—most linked to microbial dysbiosis—as a common denominator in the unprecedented rise in chronic non-communicable diseases globally [63,64].

This area of research is found under the banner of the “biodiversity hypothesis”. As stated in the World Allergy Organization position statement: “biodiversity loss leads to rEduc. ed interaction between environmental and human microbiotas. This in turn may lead to immune dysfunction and impaired tolerance mechanisms in humans” [65]. Leading experts in the field summarize it this way: “Changes in lifestyle and diet, destruction of natural environments, and urbanization threaten our natural exposure to these beneficial bacteria and thus also rEduc. e their impact on our physiology” [66]. The biodiversity hypothesis emphasizes the biological consequences of loss of experience, while the extinction of experience queries the psychological and never (or at least very rarely) the twain shall meet.

Advances in the omics technology of the exposome have already underscored that separation of the biological from the psychological is untenable [67]. With one microbial cell to match each human cell, and impressive numbers of functional microbial genes (quite capable of influencing disease risk as well as vitality [68]), humans are indeed multi-species entities [69,70]. Consider the implications of just a single non-pathogenic microbial strain influencing brain activity during social stress [71] or findings that suggest that our microbial partners could be putting their “weight” on the scale of human cognitive empathy [72] and personality [73]. Moreover, these observations open a door to narrative around very personal biological consequences of large-scale biodiversity loss [63].

7. Building Nature Relatedness

The ability to develop an emotional connection with the natural world is also, of course, dependent upon personal experience [74]. Several validated instruments capture the extent to which an individual is drawn to, has awareness of and a fascination with the natural world and its constituent parts. These scales include Nature Relatedness [75], Nature Connectedness [76] and Nature Connectivity [77]. The types of statements on these scales include items such as “My relationship with Nature is an important part of who I am” and “I enjoy digging in the Earth and getting dirt on my hands” [75,76,77].

Higher scores on these scales (for convenience, collectively referred to here as nature relatedness) have been linked with health and wellbeing [78,79]. Nature relatedness is also positively associated with empathy, pro-environmental attitudes and pro-social behaviors (higher humanitarianism and lower materialism) [80,81,82,83,84], and in at least one study, nature relatedness explains a high degree of variance in children’s ecological behavior (vs. environmental knowledge alone) [85] (Figure 2). Research also shows that nature relatedness is associated with stronger connections to abstract social groups (that is, all of humanity, rather than a local social network) and distant others (such as a homeless person on the street) [86]; with this background, and separate research indicating that (at least to some degree) the health value of spending time in natural environments is predicated on baseline nature relatedness [87], it seems obvious that a greater understanding of how nature relatedness is “built” seems urgent [88,89].

Figure 2. Nature connectivity in childhood improves long term physical and mental health outcomes and environmental attitudes: Regular contact with nature improves health and health behaviors, including improved physical activity, improved eating behaviors, social behaviors and lifelong nature connectedness—promoting long-term emotional well-being and pro-environmental concern as adults.

However, it is our contention that the aims of planetary health require a fine-grained understanding of nature relatedness as it is intertwined with the extinction of biological experience. This necessitates a removal of the thin veneer that separates the psychological from the biological; it also requires a deeper status report on “spaceship human”. To reemphasize—we are multi-species entities with diverse biota. As each one of us moves through space and time, leaving our environmental footprints for subsequent generations, we rely upon others (including distant others, policymakers, multinational corporations and their lobbyists and marketing arms) to ensure that the spaceship human reaches its fullest potential.

To these ends, researchers need to expand the ways in biodiversity losses are tabulated. For example, children throughout the world are increasingly dependent upon ultra-processed foods (stripped of fiber and natural phytochemicals found in whole plant foods, while inclusive of numerous emulsifiers, additives and artificial ingredients [90,91]). This is no less an extinction of experience, no less a disconnection from nature, with trans-generational biological implications due to changes in the biodiversity of the gut ecosystem [92,93,94]. While there is much to be learned, the available bench and epidemiological evidence would suggest direct lines can be drawn between extinction of biological experiences—e.g., the absence of healthy, fiber-rich foods supplanted by ultra-processed foods—and a higher risk of non-communicable diseases [62]. The extent to which the microbiota carried by (and associated with) industrialized humans has diverged in its compatibility with the human genome is an area of intense scientific scrutiny [95].

While green space and local biodiversity are associated with health and vitality [96,97,98] (and biodiversity losses/environmental degradation with ill-health [99,100,101]), these links require complex considerations. For example, closer residential proximity to green spaces and greater access to open spaces and safe, local parks, is associated with healthier dietary habits; however, this could be explained by experience through opportunity—more green spaces and parks may simply be a surrogate marker for lower density of fast-food outlets, convenience stores and an unhealthy food environment in general [102,103,104]. At this stage it is unknown if those scoring high on nature relatedness scales avoid ultra-processed foods, consume more fermented foods and/or maintain healthier dietary habits in general; however, a greater understanding of the emotional/cognitive drivers of a sustainable planetary health diet (a plant-based diet with minimal emphasis on animal products [105,106]) will require a closer look at nature relatedness.

We conclude this section with an important reminder that the bulk of the research (epidemiology, laboratory, field work and in the psychological sciences) concerning nature relatedness and the health associations linked to natural environments in general (to use the broad term) has emerged from westernized nations. Although this research has demonstrated that the value of natural environments may be particularly important for disadvantaged individuals and communities in western societies [107,108], the topic requires more research and perspectives from diverse cultures. Nature relatedness scales have been translated for use in non-western nations, and the results are consistent with findings in North America, Europe and elsewhere [109]. The available cross-cultural research demonstrates that nature relatedness is a basic psychological need [110].

There are many social and environmental factors that could potentially facilitate or impair the development of nature relatedness. Grotesque social inequities could easily influence time availability (e.g., demanding work hours, low wages and work conditions) and other resources that predetermine time spent connecting with the health-promoting aspects of nature or biodiversity. Moreover, it is also important to point out that “nature” is a broad term, and “exposure” to nature is often interpreted (or assumed) to be a benefit. In reality, disadvantaged individuals and communities, especially in non-Western nations, are often confronted with pathogenic microbes, lethal vectors, harsh elements and other pressures from the natural world. Despite an increasingly robust body of research on the benefits of natural environments/nature relatedness vis-a-vis health and pro-environmental behaviors, more diverse multicultural perspectives are essential for the progress of planetary health.

8. Spaceships and Earthly Values

“(No one) ever seemed to acknowledge the deep irony in enlisting the help of an image that was itself the product of the very complex of economic, bureaucratic, military and technological systems they held responsible for the destruction of the environment…in missing the irony inherent in Spaceship Earth, environmentalists rendered the metaphor self-defeating” William Bryant, PhD [111].

With similar enthusiasm and hyperbole reminiscent of the 1960s, much has been written in the last several years about planned human-piloted missions to Mars—and the notion of “terraforming” the red planet into a fertile green and blue sphere [112]. Very little discussion has taken place regarding the extent to which such ideas and underwriting are a form of intellectual escapism that otherwise detract from investments in understanding the Anthropocene and its cognitive–behavioral drivers [5]. Reflecting on the origins of the term spaceship earth and the emergence of objective exposome science, we can now evaluate its utility in the contemporary lexicon.

The Spaceship Earth metaphor has not been without criticism; some have argued that the term was a product not only of the space race, but also the military industrial complex and Cold War, one which relegated nature—delicate interconnected ecosystems—to a technological artifact [113]. Anthropologist Margaret Mead was of the opinion that “the label Spaceship Earth to describe the planet is a monumental conceit” [114]. “We can think of ourselves as on something like a man-made spaceship, or we can recognize that we live within a biological system…we can treat this Planet Earth like an expendable machine, or we can recognize that our dignity is dependent upon the respect we pay to the origins of our Earthly life, and upon the responsibility we take for its preservation”, said Mead [115].

Dubos, in his 1969 Spaceship Earth address, leveraged the term in order to prod consideration of scientific investments and priorities:

“Modern scientists give much lip service to their social responsibilities, but in practice they behave as if they were captive of an establishment which often appears asocial…if a massive effort similar to the one represented by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is not soon initiated to deal with the environmental crisis, then it will be obvious that the scientific community and the governmental agencies responsible for the funding and administration of science are not as interested in human welfare as they pretend to be” [17].

Dubos was a Pulitzer-Prize-winning author; he understood the importance of metaphor in society at large, including the sciences where it can act as a catalyst in determining the types of questions scientists seek to answer; that is, questions deemed worthy of answering. Thus, as Rene Dubos said, “we must try to imagine the kinds of surroundings and ways of life we desire, lest we end up with a jumble of technologies and counter-technologies that will eventually smother body and soul” [116]; he argued that our imaginative metaphors matter.

Today, with so many complex, interconnected problems on Earth, an emerging science seeks to understand how humans imagine a better world; that is, the science of utopian thinking. While it can be used as a pejorative (those seeking mental health reform in the mid-1800s were dismissed as “utopians”) and often confused with dystopia, utopian thinking is an imaginative process that develops ideas for change, justifies them on the basis of normative principles and places them into available scientific knowledge of the root causes of problems; the ideas can then be subjected to larger-scale critical scrutiny [117]. Utopian thinking can be an important asset to society [118].

When researchers prime individuals to engage in utopian thinking (that is, to imagine and provide a descriptive of their own utopia) it can manifest in a greater desire to take action—subjects were less satisfied with the current state of affairs and reported a rEduc. tion in system-justifying attitudes [119] (that is, the attitudes that otherwise defend, bolster and justify aspects of existing social, economic and political systems [120]). However, research suggests there may be key differences between the utopian thinking rooted in other worldly science fiction and Earthly ecology; the former, Sci. -Fi utopia, operates from a place of abundance and advanced technology, while the latter, Green utopia, is visualized from a place of balance between human development and sustainable material comfort.

When primed with the Green utopia, individuals report higher levels of motivation to engage in social change activities; they also donated more to a pro-environmental charity within the research design. On the other hand, Sci. -Fi utopia priming did not move the needle on motivation for social change at all. The difference appears to be the experience of participative efficacy—stronger feelings that actions can indeed “make a difference” in achieving the aims of the visualized Green utopia. Researchers also found that Green (vs. Sci. -Fi) utopia was associated with positive emotions and greater interpersonal warmth and positive emotion, while still having a similar level of competence (that is, efficiency and productivity are on par with the Sci. -Fi utopia) [121].

Why does this matter to the current context of planetary health? Separate groups of researchers have found that individuals report higher levels of motivation to support changes to society when such changes are visualized as bringing about a society in which individuals show warmth and are collectively more benEvol. ent [122,123,124].

9. Restoration

Conservation ecology and preventive medicine share the common goals of health preservation and ecological balance; given the emerging links between biodiversity and human health (wellness) and vitality, as complex as they may be, the need for interdisciplinary approaches to preserving health at all scales (species, habitats and ecosystems) is now apparent. In addition to conservation/prevention, the sheer scale of environmental destruction and biodiversity losses—and the pace at which they are occurring—requires proactive steps to remediate/restore degraded ecosystems (in much the same way that clinical interventions attempt to address NCDs). To this end, concepts of de-extinction and rewilding have entered mainstream academic discourse.

Briefly, de-extinction utilizes advances in synthetic biology, genetic engineering and reproduction technologies to revive currently extinct species (or hybrids inclusive of traits of extinct species—e.g., woolly mammoth genes incorporated into Asian elephant embryos) and reintroduce them to areas that might resemble their former habitats [125]. Rewilding was originally defined as restoring “Big Wilderness” by focusing on a top-down approach whereby keystone species and large animals are provided ample space and corridors for sustainable movements [126]; today, rewilding is defined more broadly as the “restoration of wildness” [127] wherein wildness refers to the autonomy of natural process that are characteristic of scales ranging from vast wilderness areas to vacant lots in an urban environment. Restoration is likely a more suitable term, especially since the endgame of “rewilding” and “de-extinction”, insofar as planetary health is concerned, is to return the Earth’s natural systems to a healthier condition.

De-extinction has been a contentious topic, particularly in the context of bioethics; discourse concerning the ethical implications of restoring species (most notably the wooly mammoth and passenger pigeon) can be found elsewhere [128,129]. The extent to which de-extinction of select species can resurrect the ecology of the extinct species (that is, a beneficial influence on broad ecological dynamics) is in the domain of functional ecology [130]; de-extinction forces many questions for the social sciences, including “what kind of nature does de-extinction seek to make?”, “what are the political economies of de-extinction?” and “who (humans and other species) accumulates gains/losses with this kind of nature?” [131].

Whether or not a new hybrid of the woolly mammoth roams in Pleistocene Park (as planned within the next decade), the technological tools of de-extinction—genomics in particular [132]—will almost certainly apply to smaller scale rewilding. Although the “ideal” human gut microbiome is elusive, and dysbiosis is a relative term [133], microbes that appear to be functionally extinct in Westernized populations (yet found in the few remaining hunter–gatherer and other traditional-living groups), as well as soil-based organisms, are candidates for rewilding of the gut/skin microbiota, certainly with an eye toward health preservation [93,134,135]. In addition, microbiota-based interventions within homes, workplaces and urban green spaces—micro-rewilding—offer potential solutions to combat the prevailing rEduc. tion in contact with biodiversity [136,137,138]; already, sophisticated DNA-based research is providing important data concerning the ways in which woodland ecosystem restorations projects might enhance human exposure to immune-modulating microbial diversity [139].

10. De-Extinction of Experience, Psychobiological Restoration: Made Personal

While science and technology march forward with innovate fixes to remediate and restore ecosystems to health at scales of person and place, it must be acknowledged that human cognition and behavior has directed us to the Anthropocene; unless we approach solutions through the lens of the psyche (individual and collective), the fulfillment of rewilding potential will likely be diminished. Put another way, the potential for success with rewilding efforts will be enhanced by a greater understanding of nature relatedness and the psychobiological underpinnings of human connections to the natural world (and how/why we seem so willing to allow for its degradation). De-extinction of experience with the natural world, even with its diminished levels of biodiversity, should be prioritized.

Insofar as we are unwilling to consider that rewilding of our value systems requires at once deeper connections with the natural world, and relinquishing the extreme production/consumption characteristic of the Anthropocene, the re-introduction of the wooly mammoth and washing with soil-based soaps is unlikely to save us from ourselves. Rewilding, in our opinion, requires a change in the way we view systems (e.g., food, Educ. ation and political) that either compromise health at the scales of the person, place and planet, or ignore the development of an eco-health psyche.

Rewilding planetary health values requires understanding the ways in which neoliberal ideologies drive global materialism, environmental destruction and grotesque consumption, placing the sole responsibility for health and healthy behaviors on the individual while undermining their capacity to do this [140,141]. These ongoing competing interests are unsustainable. Efforts to achieve “personalized medicine” will ultimately fail if they are counter to the economic forces driving inequity, social injustice and proliferation of grey space. Individual interests and responsibilities must be facilitated by the interests of society at large for personalized medicine (wellness) to be truly meaningful. This calls for reinvigorating concepts of “high-level wellness”, in which not only individuals reach their potential, but the interests of individuals, societies and the environment are aligned, with the recognized co-benefits of mutualism [142,143].

Fundamentally, these perspectives also require a more “whole person” functional approach to promoting health through nutrition, lifestyle and environment as a greater priority—with increasing evidence that this is important and effective in improving health-related quality-of-life [144].

This must be in tandem with a “long view” that considers not only a life course approach, but also the transgenerational implications. Volumes of developmental origins of health and disease (DOHaD) research emphasizes that health through young adulthood, middle age and through the aging process is set on a trajectory very early in life. Moreover, it is well known that environmental exposures (including pollutants, adverse nutrition and a variety of stressors) in one generation mediate “heritable” epigenetic effects on DNA that can influence the phenotype and disease predisposition of the next generation(s) [145]. The same research has revealed that, in addition to genetics, early environmental conditions contribute to “thrifty phenotypes” that store calories more than those with calorie burning “spendthrift phenotypes”—providing yet another dimension to personalized medicine [146,147]. It also reinforces that there are multifaceted reasons for individual differences in response to lifestyle interventions and why future preventive approaches are likely to be more effective if they are individualized according to phenotype (patterns of gene expression).

Of specific relevance to ecological discussions, included in DOHaD findings, is intriguing research that suggests that non-pathogenic microbes (and other aspects of biodiversity) in early life have multisystem consequences through effects on immune development [148]. One of the more fascinating dimensions of this has been revelations that this might even influence subsequent brain development and mental health [149,150,151,152]. When paired with separate research on access/residential proximity to natural environments and healthy birth outcomes (again, setting life-course health) [153,154], the psychobiological implications of rewilding loom large. While there is much to learn, it seems obvious that rewilding can be viewed as part of a larger effort to start undoing the extinction of experience, re-imagining an early-life Educ. ation that fosters empathy for each other, and a planet in crisis. Therefore, narratives around individual efforts towards improving personal ecology (through nutrition, lifestyle behaviors and interventions such as probiotics when indicated) must ultimately occur within a societal narrative with the same goals across all sectors—ideally through a shared overarching perspective that assists in shifting normative value systems.

11. Conclusions

In an age of destruction and polarization on a never-before-seen scale, it is, more than ever, important to be reminded of the calls for civility and good citizenship on “Spaceship Earth” [17]—at the time of the first moon landing in 1969 as we saw our exquisitely beautiful, fragile planet from across the void of space. It was a moment to be reminded of calls for “civilization” during the Enlightenment of the eighteenth century—the quest for a universal humanity that valued moderation, self-regulation, humane laws, a high level of purpose, decency in conduct and limitations on war. Even then, it was clear that the “health of human civilization” necessitated a frameshift in attitudes, intentions, emotions, ideals, values and, especially, behaviors [155]. While all of these elements do sit in the domain of individuals, this should be harnessed to add weight to the call for greater responsibility by global leaders, dominant groups and influential organizations to apply both science and humanity to promote planetary health—and call out efforts to subvert this [156,157,158,159,160,161,162,163] to restore hope and public trust [164].

Linguistics research leaves little doubt that human beings interpret the world around us through metaphors [165,166]; indeed, even common metaphors have been found to be useful as a means to enhance the pursuit of goals [167]. Hence, discussions of metaphor in the context of planetary health are salient. Spaceship Earth has been used as a metaphor for over a century, gaining popularity for its utility in promoting environmental awareness during the technologically driven space race of the 1960s.

Today, as tremendous resources are directed at planning for crewed flights and colonization on Mars (and “terraforming” the red planet with life) [112,168,169], and as social scientists remind enthusiasts of the more pressing priorities here on Earth, the Spaceship Earth metaphor is reentering the discourse [170]. This represents a new opportunity to rewild an old, but salient, metaphor. The keyword in the metaphor is Earth. While technology and scientific exploration are vital to solving the interconnected grand challenges of our time, the fullest potential of our investments in such endeavors will require an understanding of the developmental origins of an individual and collective “Earth-oriented, eco-health psyche”, one which comprehends why/how de-extinction and rewilding have entered the scientific lexicon.

Author Contributions

S.L.P. developed the conceptual framework and refined the draft manuscript; as well as created the artwork; J.S.B. provided additional intellectual input. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work received no external funding.

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge Alan C. Logan for his advice and for sharing his historical research materials.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

Prescott, S.L.; Logan, A.C.; Albrecht, G.; Campbell, D.E.; Crane, J.; Cunsolo, A.; Holloway, J.W.; Kozyrskyj, A.; Lowry, C.A.; Penders, J.; et al. The Canmore Declaration: Statement of Principles for Planetary Health. Challenges 2018, 9, 31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Whitmee, S.; Haines, A.; Beyrer, C.; Boltz, F.; Capon, A.G.; de Souza Dias, B.F.; Ezeh, A.; Frumkin, H.; Gong, P.; Head, P.; et al. Safeguarding human health in the Anthropocene epoch: Report of The Rockefeller Foundation-Lancet Commission on planetary health. Lancet 2015, 386, 1973–2028. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Logan, A.C.; Prescott, S.L.; Haahtela, T.; Katz, D.L. The importance of the exposome and allostatic load in the planetary health paradigm. J. Physiol. Anthropol. 2018, 37, 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Mooney, G. Neoliberalism is bad for our health. Int. J. Health Serv. 2012, 42, 383–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Prescott, S.L.; Logan, A.C. Down to Earth: Planetary Health and Biophilosophy in the Symbiocene Epoch. Challenges 2017, 8, 19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Horton, R. Offline: Planetary health-worth everything. Lancet 2018, 391, 2307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Schill, C.; Anderies, J.M.; Lindahl, T.; Folke, C.; Polasky, S.; Cardenas, J.C.; Crepin, A.S.; Janssen, M.A.; Norberg, J.; Schluter, M. A more dynamic understanding of human behaviour for the Anthropocene. Nat. Sustain. 2019, 2, 1075–1082. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Haraway, D. Anthropocene, Capitalocene, Plantationocene, Chthulucene: Making Kin. Environ. Humanit. 2015, 6, 159–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Albrecht, G. Ecopsychology in the symbiocene. Ecopsychology 2014, 6, 58–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Prescott, S.L.; Logan, A.C. Planetary Health: From the Wellspring of Holistic Medicine to Personal and Public Health Imperative. Explore N. Y. 2019, 15, 98–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Dubos, R. The Unseen World; The Rockefeller Institute Press: New York, NY, USA, 1962. [Google Scholar]
Knowlton, E. Professor Knowlton on Aeronautics. Statesman J. Salem Or. 1903, 24, 3. [Google Scholar]
Pearson, J. You’re a spaceman, too. Detroit Free Press 1962, 7, 24. [Google Scholar]
Oakley, L. World affairs. Fort Lauderdale News 1962, 3, 2. [Google Scholar]
Schwatrz, J.; Simont, M. The Earth is Your Spaceship; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1963. [Google Scholar]
Dubos, R. We’re stuck on this planet; let’s make the best of it. Miami News 1969, 9, 11. [Google Scholar]
Dubos, R. The spaceship earth. J. Allergy 1969, 44, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Dubos, R. Man Adapting; Yale University Press: New Haven, CT, USA, 1965. [Google Scholar]
Dubos, R. Lasting biological effects of early influences. Perspect Biol. Med. 1969, 12, 479–491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Dubos, R.; Savage, D.; Schaedler, R. Biological Freudianism. Lasting effects of early environmental influences. Pediatrics 1966, 38, 789–800. [Google Scholar]
Dubos, R.; Schaedler, R. Some biological effects of the digestive flora. Am. J. Med. Sci. 1962, 244, 265–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Dubos, R. Environmental biology. BioSci. Ence 1964, 14, 11–14. [Google Scholar]
Logan, A.C.; Katszman, M.A.; Balanza-Martinez, V. Natural environments, ancestral diets, and microbial ecology: Is there a modern “paleo-deficit disorder”? Part I. J. Physiol. Anthropol. 2015, 34, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Logan, A.C.; Katzman, M.A.; Balanza-Martinez, V. Natural environments, ancestral diets, and microbial ecology: Is there a modern “paleo-deficit disorder”? Part II. J. Physiol. Anthropol. 2015, 34, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
Renz, H.; Holt, P.G.; Inouye, M.; Logan, A.C.; Prescott, S.L.; Sly, P.D. An exposome perspective: Early-life events and immune development in a changing world. J. Allergy Clin. Immunol. 2017, 140, 24–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
Kim, K.N.; Hong, Y.C. The Exposome and the Future of Epidemiology: A Vision and Prospect. Environ. Health Toxicol. 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Epel, E.S.; Crosswell, A.D.; Mayer, S.E.; Prather, A.A.; Slavich, G.M.; Puterman, E.; Mendes, W.B. More than a feeling: A unified view of stress measurement for population science. Front. Neuroendocrinol. 2018, 49, 146–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Prescott, S.L.; Logan, A.C. Each meal matters in the exposome: Biological and community considerations in fast-food-socioeconomic associations. Econ. Hum. Biol. 2017, 27, 328–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
McEwen, B.S. Integrative medicine: Breaking down silos of knowledge and practice an epigenetic approach. Metab. Clin. Exp. 2017, 69S, S21–S29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Tebani, A.; Afonso, C.; Marret, S.; Bekri, S. Omics-Based Strategies in Precision Medicine: Toward a Paradigm Shift in Inborn Errors of Metabolism Investigations. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2016, 17, 1555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Pyle, R.M. The extinction of experience. Horticulture 1978, 56, 64–67. [Google Scholar]
Rosenberg, K.V.; Dokter, A.M.; Blancher, P.J.; Sauer, J.R.; Smith, A.C.; Smith, P.A.; Stanton, J.C.; Panjabi, A.; Helft, L.; Parr, M.; et al. Decline of the North American avifauna. Sci. Ence 2019, 366, 120–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Inger, R.; Gregory, R.; Duffy, J.P.; Stott, I.; Vorisek, P.; Gaston, K.J. Common European birds are declining rapidly while less abundant species’ numbers are rising. Ecol. Lett. 2015, 18, 28–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Ceballos, G.; Ehrlich, P.R.; Dirzo, R. Biological annihilation via the ongoing sixth mass extinction signaled by vertebrate population losses and declines. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2017, 114, E6089–E6096. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
Pavoine, S.; Bonsall, M.B.; Davies, T.J.; Masi, S. Mammal extinctions and the increasing isolation of humans on the tree of life. Ecol. Evol. 2019, 9, 914–924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
Ceballos, G.; Ehrlich, P.R. The misunderstood sixth mass extinction. Sci. Ence 2018, 360, 1080–1081. [Google Scholar]
Humphreys, A.M.; Govaerts, R.; Ficinski, S.Z.; Lughadha, E.N.; Vorontsova, M.S. Global dataset shows geography and life form predict modern plant extinction and rediscovery. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2019, 3, 1043–1047. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Matz, C.J.; Stieb, D.M.; Davis, K.; Egyed, M.; Rose, A.; Chou, B.; Brion, O. Effects of age, season, gender and urban-rural status on time-activity: CanadianHuman Activity Pattern Survey 2 (CHAPS 2). Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2014, 11, 2108–2124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Clements, R. An Investigation of the Status of Outdoor Play. Contemp Issues Early Child. 2004, 5, 68–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Hofferth, S.L. Changes in American children’s time-1997 to 2003. Electron. Int. J. Time Use Res. 2009, 6, 26–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Soga, M.; Gaston, K.J.; Kubo, T. Cross-generational decline in childhood experiences of neighborhood flowering plants in Japan. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2018, 174, 55–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Mullan, K. A child’s day: Trends in time use in the UK from 1975 to 2015. Br. J. Sociol. 2019, 70, 997–1024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Pergams, O.R.; Zaradic, P.A. Evidence for a fundamental and pervasive shift away from nature-based recreation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2008, 105, 2295–2300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Pergams, O.R.W.; Zaradic, P.A. Is love of nature in the US becoming love of electronic media? 16-year downtrend in national park visits explained by watching movies, playing video games, internet use, and oil prices. J. Environ. Manag. 2006, 80, 387–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Larson, L.R.; Szczytko, R.; Bowers, E.P.; Stephens, L.E.; Stevenson, K.T.; Floyd, M.F. Outdoor Time, Screen Time, and Connection to Nature: Troubling Trends Among Rural Youth? Environ. Behav. 2019, 51, 966–991. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Kesebir, S.; Kesebir, P. A Growing Disconnection From Nature Is Evident in Cultural Products. Perspect. Psychological Sci. Ence 2017, 12, 258–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Aruguete, M.S.; Gillen, M.M.; McCutcheon, L.E.; Bernstein, M.J. Disconnection from nature and interest in mass media. Appl. Environ. Educ. Commun. 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Soga, M.; Tsuchiya, K.; Evans, M.J.; Ishibashi, S. The inequalities of the extinction of experience: The role of personal characteristics and species traits in the distribution of people-plant interactions in Japan. Ecol. Res. 2019, 34, 350–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Nisbet, E.K.; Zelenski, J.M.; Grandpierre, Z. Mindfulness in nature enhances connectedness and mood. Ecopsychology 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Nabhan, G.P.; St. Antoine, S. Losing touch with nature. Defenders Wildlife. 1994, 69, 31–37. [Google Scholar]
Pyle, R.M. Biodiversity. Defenders Wildlife. 1994, 69, 33–37. [Google Scholar]
Hosaka, T.; Numata, S.; Sugimoto, K. Research Note: Relationship between childhood nature play and adulthood participation in nature-based recreation among urban residents in Tokyo area. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2018, 180, 1–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Wood, C.J.; Smyth, N. The health impact of nature exposure and green exercise across the life course: A pilot study. Int. J. Environ. Health Res. 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Pensini, P.; Horn, E.; Caltabiano, N.J. An exploration of the relationships between adults’ childhood and current nature exposure and their mental well-being. Child. Youth Environ. 2016, 26, 125–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Cleary, A.; Fielding, K.S.; Murray, Z.; Roiko, A. Predictors of nature connection among urban residents: Assessing the role of childhood and adult nature experiences. Environ. Behav. 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Rosa, C.D.; Collado, S. Experiences in Nature and Environmental Attitudes and Behaviors: Setting the Ground for Future Research. Front. Psychol. 2019, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
Ngo, K.M.; Hosaka, T.; Numata, S. The influence of childhood nature experience on attitudes and tolerance towards problem-causing animals in Singapore. Urban For. Urban Gree. 2019, 41, 150–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Balunde, A.; Jovarauskaite, L.; Poskus, M.S. Exploring the Relationship Between Connectedness With Nature, Environmental Identity, and Environmental Self-Identity: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Sage Open 2019, 9, 2158244019841925. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Gkargkavouzi, A.; Halkos, G.; Matsiori, S. A Multi-dimensional Measure of Environmental Behavior: Exploring the Predictive Power of Connectedness to Nature, Ecological Worldview and Environmental Concern. Soc. Indic. Res. 2019, 143, 859–879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Collado, S.; Sorrel, M.A. Children’s environmental moral judgments: Variations according to the type of victim and exposure to nature. J. Environ. Psychol. 2019, 62, 42–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Kirjavainen, P.V.; Karvonen, A.M.; Adams, R.I.; Taubel, M.; Roponen, M.; Tuoresmaki, P.; Loss, G.; Jayaprakash, B.; Depner, M.; Ege, M.J.; et al. Farm-like indoor microbiota in non-farm homes protects children from asthma development. Nat. Med. 2019, 25, 1089–1095. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Furman, D.; Campisi, J.; Verdin, E.; Carrera-Bastos, P.; Targ, S.; Franceschi, C.; Ferrucci, L.; Gilroy, D.W.; Fasano, A.; Miller, G.W.; et al. Chronic inflammation in the etiology of disease across the life span. Nat. Med. 2019, 25, 1822–1832. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Prescott, S.L.; Wegienka, G.; Logan, A.C.; Katz, D.L. Dysbiotic drift and biopsychosocial medicine: How the microbiome links personal, public and planetary health. Biopsychosoc Med. 2018, 12, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Logan, A.C.; Prescott, S.L.; Katz, D.L. Golden Age of Medicine 2.0: Lifestyle Medicine and Planetary Health Prioritized. J. Lifestyle Med. 2019, 9, 75–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Haahtela, T.; Holgate, S.; Pawankar, R.; Akdis, C.A.; Benjaponpitak, S.; Caraballo, L.; Demain, J.; Portnoy, J.; von Hertzen, L. The biodiversity hypothesis and allergic disease: World allergy organization position statement. World Allergy Organization Special Committee on Climate Change and Biodiversity. World Allergy Organ. J. 2013, 6, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
Ruokolainen, L.; Lehtimäki, J.; Karkman, A.; Haahtela, T.; von Hertzen, L.; Fyhrquist, N. Holistic view on health: Two protective layers of biodiversity. Ann. Zool. Fenn. 2017, 54, 39–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Nelson, D.H.; Prescott, S.L.; Logan, A.C.; Bland, J.S. Clinical Ecology-Transforming 21st-Century Medicine with Planetary Health in Mind. Challenges 2019, 10, 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Greenblum, S.; Carr, R.; Borenstein, E. Extensive strain-level copy-number variation across human gut microbiome species. Cell 2015, 160, 583–594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Gilbert, S.F.; Sapp, J.; Tauber, A.I. A symbiotic view of life: We have never been individuals. Q. Rev. Biol. 2012, 87, 325–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Bordenstein, S.R.; Theis, K.R. Host Biology in Light of the Microbiome: Ten Principles of Holobionts and Hologenomes. PLoS Biol. 2015, 13, e1002226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Wang, H.; Braun, C.; Murphy, E.F.; Enck, P. Bifidobacterium longum 1714 Strain Modulates Brain Activity of Healthy Volunteers During Social Stress. Am. J. Gastroenterol. 2019, 114, 1152–1162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Heym, N.; Heasman, B.C.; Hunter, K.; Blanco, S.R.; Wang, G.Y.; Siegert, R.; Cleare, A.; Gibson, G.R.; Kumari, V.; Sumich, A.L. The role of microbiota and inflammation in self-judgement and empathy: Implications for understanding the brain-gut-microbiome axis in depression. Psychopharmacology 2019, 236, 1459–1470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Kim, H.N.; Yun, Y.; Ryu, S.; Chang, Y.; Kwon, M.J.; Cho, J.; Shin, H.; Kim, H.L. Correlation between gut microbiota and personality in adults: A cross-sectional study. Brain Behav. Immun. 2018, 69, 374–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Soga, M.; Gaston, K.J.; Yamaura, Y.; Kurisu, K.; Hanaki, K. Both Direct and Vicarious Experiences of Nature Affect Children’s Willingness to Conserve Biodiversity. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2016, 13, 529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
Nisbet, E.K.; Zelenski, J.M. The NR-6: A new brief measure of nature relatedness. Front. Psychol. 2013, 4, 813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
Mayer, F.S.; Frantz, C.M. The connectedness to nature scale: A measure of individuals’ feeling in community with nature. J. Environ. Psychol. 2004, 24, 503–515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Dutcher, D.D.; Finley, J.C.; Luloff, A.E.; Johnson, J.B. Connectivity with nature as a measure of environmental values. Environ. Behav. 2007, 39, 474–493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Capaldi, C.A.; Dopko, R.L.; Zelenski, J.M. The relationship between nature connectedness and happiness: A meta-analysis. Front. Psychol. 2014, 5, 976. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Martyn, P.; Brymer, E. The relationship between nature relatedness and anxiety. J. Health Psychol. 2016, 21, 1436–1445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Nisbet, E.K.; Zelenski, J.M. Underestimating nearby nature: Affective forecasting errors obscure the happy path to sustainability. Psychol. Sci. 2011, 22, 1101–1106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Metz, A.L. Back to nature: The relationship between nature relatedness on empathy and narcissism in the Millennial Generation. Vistas Online 2017, 11, 1–14. [Google Scholar]
Craig, T.P.; Fischer, A.; Lorenzo-Arribas, A. Shopping versus Nature? An Exploratory Study of Everyday Experiences. Front. Psychol. 2018, 9, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Sobko, T.; Jia, Z.; Brown, G. Measuring connectedness to nature in preschool children in an urban setting and its relation to psychological functioning. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0207057. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Dopko, R.L. Effects of Nature Exposure and Nature Relatedness on Goals: Implications for Materialism. Ph.D. Thesis, Carleton University, Ottawa, ON, Canada, 2017. Available online: https://curve.carleton.ca/f0d70cbb-c973-42c7-b41d-74d414e3485a (accessed on 10 February 2020).
Otto, S.; Pensini, P. Nature-based environmental Educ. ation of children: Environmental knowledge and connectedness to nature, together, are related to ecological behaviour. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2017, 47, 88–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Moreton, S.; Arena, A.; Tiliopoulos, N. Connectedness to nature is more strongly related to connection to distant, rather than close, others. Ecopsychology 2019, 11, 59–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Berto, R.; Barbiero, G.; Barbiero, P.; Senes, G. An Individual’s Connection to Nature Can Affect Perceived Restorativeness of Natural Environments. Some Observations about Biophilia. Behav. Sci. Basel 2018, 8, 34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
Hughes, J.; Rogerson, M.; Barton, J.; Bragg, R. Age and connection to nature: When is engagement critical? Front. Ecol. Environ. 2019, 17, 265–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Craig, J.M.; Logan, A.C.; Prescott, S.L. Natural environments, nature relatedness and the ecological theater: Connecting satellites and sequencing to shinrin-yoku. J. Physiol. Anthropol. 2016, 35, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
Hall, K.D.; Ayuketah, A.; Brychta, R.; Cai, H.; Cassimatis, T.; Chen, K.Y.; Chung, S.T.; Costa, E.; Courville, A.; Darcey, V.; et al. Ultra-Processed Diets Cause Excess Calorie Intake and Weight Gain: An Inpatient Randomized Controlled Trial of Ad Libitum Food Intake. Cell Metab 2019, 30, 226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
Monteiro, C.A.; Cannon, G.; Moubarac, J.C.; Levy, R.B.; Louzada, M.L.C.; Jaime, P.C. Freshly Prepared Meals and Not Ultra-Processed Foods. Cell Metab. 2019, 30, 5–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Logan, A.C.; Prescott, S.L. Astrofood, priorities and pandemics: Reflections of an ultra-processed breakfast program and contemporary dysbiotic drift. Challenges 2017, 8, 24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Sonnenburg, E.D.; Smits, S.A.; Tikhonov, M.; Higginbottom, S.K.; Wingreen, N.S.; Sonnenburg, J.L. Diet-induced extinctions in the gut microbiota compound over generations. Nature 2016, 529, 212–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Segata, N. Gut Microbiome: Westernization and the Disappearance of Intestinal Diversity. Curr. Biol. 2015, 25, R611–R613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Sonnenburg, E.D.; Sonnenburg, J.L. The ancestral and industrialized gut microbiota and implications for human health. Nat. Rev. MicroBiol. 2019, 17, 383–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Mavoa, S.; Davern, M.; Breed, M.; Hahs, A. Higher levels of greenness and biodiversity associate with greater subjective wellbeing in adults living in Melbourne, Australia. Health Place 2019, 57, 321–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Wang, R.; Helbich, M.; Yao, Y.; Zhang, J.; Liu, P.; Yuan, Y.; Liu, Y. Urban greenery and mental wellbeing in adults: Cross-sectional mediation analyses on multiple pathways across different greenery measures. Environ. Res. 2019, 176, 108535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
Liao, J.; Zhang, B.; Xia, W.; Cao, Z.; Zhang, Y.; Liang, S.; Hu, K.; Xu, S.; Li, Y. Residential exposure to green space and early childhood neurodevelopment. Environ. Int. 2019, 128, 70–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Donovan, G.H.; Michael, Y.L.; Gatziolis, D.; Prestemon, J.P.; Whitsel, E.A. Is tree loss associated with cardiovascular-disease risk in the Women’s Health Initiative? A natural experiment. Health Place 2015, 36, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Casey, J.A.; Wilcox, H.C.; Hirsch, A.G.; Pollak, J.; Schwartz, B.S. Associations of unconventional natural gas development with depression symptoms and disordered sleep in Pennsylvania. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 11375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
Cunsolo, A.; Ellis, N.R. Ecological grief as a mental health response to climate change-related loss. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2018, 8, 275–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Mena, C.; Fuentes, E.; Ormazabal, Y.; Palomo-Velez, G.; Palomo, I. Role of access to parks and markets with anthropometric measurements, biological markers, and a healthy lifestyle. Int. J. Environ. Health Res. 2015, 25, 373–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Hsieh, S.; Klassen, A.C.; Curriero, F.C.; Caulfield, L.E.; Cheskin, L.J.; Davis, J.N.; Goran, M.I.; Weigensberg, M.J.; Spruijt-Metz, D. Fast-food restaurants, park access, and insulin resistance among Hispanic youth. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2014, 46, 378–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Paquet, C.; Coffee, N.T.; Haren, M.T.; Howard, N.J.; Adams, R.J.; Taylor, A.W.; Daniel, M. Food environment, walkability, and public open spaces are associated with incident development of cardio-metabolic risk factors in a biomedical cohort. Health Place 2014, 28, 173–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Schosler, H.; de Boer, J. Towards more sustainable diets: Insights from the food philosophies of “gourmets” and their relevance for policy strategies. Appetite 2018, 127, 59–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Willett, W.; Rockstrom, J.; Loken, B.; Springmann, M.; Lang, T.; Vermeulen, S.; Garnett, T.; Tilman, D.; DeClerck, F.; Wood, A.; et al. Food in the Anthropocene: The EAT-Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems. Lancet 2019, 393, 447–492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Mitchell, R.J.; Richardson, E.A.; Shortt, N.K.; Pearce, J.R. Neighborhood Environments and Socioeconomic Inequalities in Mental Well-Being. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2015, 49, 80–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Mitchell, R.; Popham, F. Effect of exposure to natural environment on health inequalities: An observational population study. Lancet 2008, 372, 1655–1660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Adiwena, B.Y.; Djuwita, R. Nature Relatedness as a Predictor of Psychological Well-Being: A Study of Indonesian Urban Society. Indones. Psychol. J. 2019, 34, 175–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Baxter, D.E.; Pelletier, L.G. Is nature relatedness a basic human psychological need? A critical examination of the extant literature. Can. Psychol. 2018, 60, 21–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Bryant, W. The re-vision of planet Earth: Spaceflight and environmentalism in postmodern America. Am. Studies 1995, 36, 43–63. [Google Scholar]
Sleator, R.D.; Smith, N. Terraforming: Synthetic biology’s final frontier. Arch. MicroBiol. 2019, 201, 855–862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Deese, R.S. The artifact of nature: “Spaceship Earth” and the dawn of global environmentalism. Endeavour 2009, 33, 70–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Leiren, H. The hungry turn their eyes on Canada. Vancouver Sun, 15 April 1975. [Google Scholar]
Mead, M.; Heyman, K. World Enough; Little, Brown and Co.: Boston, MA, USA, 1975. [Google Scholar]
Dubos, R. Man Overadapting. Psychol. Today 1971, 4, 5–53. [Google Scholar]
Parijs, P.V. The universal basic income: Why utopian thinking matters, and how sociologists can contribute to it. Politics Soc. 2013, 41, 171–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Fernando, J.W.; O’Brien, L.V.; Judge, M.; Kashima, Y. More Than Idyll Speculation: Utopian Thinking for Planetary Health. Challenges 2019, 10, 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Fernando, J.W.; Burden, N.; Ferguson, A.; O’Brien, L.V.; Judge, M.; Kashima, Y. Functions of Utopia: How Utopian Thinking Motivates Societal Engagement. Pers Soc. Psychol. Bull. 2018, 44, 779–792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Jost, J.T. A quarter century of system justification theory: Questions, answers, criticisms, and societal applications. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 2019, 58, 263–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Fernando, J.W.; O’Brien, L.V.; Burden, N.J.; Judge, M.; Kashima, Y. Greens or space invaders: Prominent utopian themes and effects on social change motivation. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Kashima, Y.; Shi, J.Q.; Tsuchiya, K.; Kashima, E.S.; Cheng, S.Y.Y.; Manchi, M.; Shin, S.H. Globalization and Folk Theory of Social Change: How Globalization Relates to Societal Perceptions about the Past and Future. J. Soc. Issues 2011, 67, 696–715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Kashima, Y.; Bain, P.; Haslam, N.; Peters, K.; Laham, S.; Whelan, J.; Bastian, B.; Loughnan, S.; Kaufmann, L.; Fernando, J. Folk theory of social change. Asian J. Soc. Psychol. 2009, 12, 227–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Judge, M.; Wilson, M.S. Vegetarian Utopias: Visions of dietary patterns in future societies and support for social change. Futures 2015, 71, 57–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Novak, B. De-Extinction. Genes 2018, 9, 548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Soule, M.; Noss, R. Rewilding and biodiversity as complementary goals for Continental conservation. Wild Earth 1998, 8, 19–26. [Google Scholar]
Perino, A.; Pereira, H.M.; Navarro, L.M.; Fernandez, N.; Bullock, J.M.; Ceausu, S.; Cortes-Avizanda, A.; van Klink, R.; Kuemmerle, T.; Lomba, A.; et al. Rewilding complex ecosystems. Sci. Ence 2019, 364, eaav5570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
Sandler, R. De-extinction and Conservation Genetics in the Anthropocene. Hastings Cent. Rep. 2017, 47, S43–S47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
Campbell, D.I.; Whittle, P.M. Ethical Arguments For and Against De-extinction. In Resurrecting Extinct Species; Palgrave Macmillan: Cham, Switzerland, 2017. [Google Scholar]
McCauley, D.J.; Hardesty-Moore, M.; Halpern, B.S.; Young, H.S. A mammoth undertaking: Harnessing insight from functional ecology to shape de-extinction priority setting. Funct. Ecol. 2017, 31, 1003–1011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Friese, C.; Marris, C. Making De- Extinction Mundane? PLoS Biol. 2014, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
Breed, M.F.; Harrison, P.A.; Blyth, C.; Byrne, M.; Gaget, V.; Gellie, N.J.C.; Groom, S.V.C.; Hodgson, R.; Mills, J.G.; Prowse, T.A.A.; et al. The potential of genomics for restoring ecosystems and biodiversity. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2019, 20, 615–628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Logan, A.C. Dysbiotic drift: Mental health, environmental grey space, and microbiota. J. Physiol. Anthropol. 2015, 34, 23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Hassell, J.E.; Fox, J.H.; Arnold, M.R.; Siebler, P.H.; Lieb, M.W.; Schmidt, D.; Spratt, E.J.; Smith, T.M.; Nguyen, K.T.; Gates, C.A.; et al. Treatment with a heat-killed preparation of Mycobacterium vaccae after fear conditioning enhances fear extinction in the fear-potentiated startle paradigm. Brain Behav. Immun. 2019, 81, 151–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Gronroos, M.; Parajuli, A.; Laitinen, O.H.; Roslund, M.I.; Vari, H.K.; Hyoty, H.; Puhakka, R.; Sinkkonen, A. Short-term direct contact with soil and plant materials leads to an immediate increase in diversity of skin microbiota. Microbiol. 2018, 8, e00645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Mills, J.G.; Weinstein, P.; Gellie, N.; Weyrich, L.S.; Lowe, A.J.; Breed, M.F. Urban habitat restoration provides a human health benefit through microbiome rewilding: The Microbiome Rewilding Hypothesis. Restor. Ecol. 2017, 25, 866–872. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Robinson, J.M.; Mills, J.G.; Breed, M.F. Walking Ecosystems in Microbiome-Inspired Green Infrastructure: An Ecological Perspective on Enhancing Personal and Planetary Health. Challenges 2018, 9, 40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Hui, N.; Gronroos, M.; Roslund, M.I.; Parajuli, A.; Vari, H.K.; Soininen, L.; Laitinen, O.H.; Sinkkonen, A.; Kalvo, R.; Nurminen, N.; et al. Diverse Environmental Microbiota as a Tool to Augment Biodiversity in Urban Landscaping Materials. Front. MicroBiol. 2019, 10, 536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Liddicoat, C.; Weinstein, P.; Bissett, A.; Genie, N.J.C.; Mills, J.G.; Waycott, M.; Breed, M.F. Can bacterial indicators of a grassy woodland restoration inform ecosystem assessment and microbiota-mediated human health? Environ. Int. 2019, 129, 105–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Benatar, S.; Upshur, R.; Gill, S. Understanding the relationship between ethics, neoliberalism and power as a step towards improving the health of people and our planet. Anthr. Rev. 2018, 5, 155–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Prescott, S.L.; Logan, A.C. Narrative Medicine Meets Planetary Health: Mindsets Matter in the Anthropocene. Challenges 2019, 10, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Dunn, H.L. High-level wellness for man and society. Am. J. Public Health Nations Health 1959, 49, 786–792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Locke, R. All the problems of man are not going to be solved in a laboratory. Advocate Newark 1984, 164, 1B. [Google Scholar]
Beidelschies, M.; Alejandro-Rodriguez, M.; Ji, X.; Lapin, B.; Hanaway, P.; Rothberg, M.B. Association of the Functional Medicine Model of Care With Patient-Reported Health-Related Quality-of-Life Outcomes. JAMA Netw. Open 2019, 2, e1914017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Prescott, S.L. Origins: Early-Life Solutions to the Modern Health Crisis; UWA Publishing: Perth, Australia, 2015. [Google Scholar]
Godfrey, K.M.; Sheppard, A.; Gluckman, P.D.; Lillycrop, K.A.; Burdge, G.C.; McLean, C.; Rodford, J.; Slater-Jefferies, J.L.; Garratt, E.; Crozier, S.R.; et al. Epigenetic Gene Promoter Methylation at Birth Is Associated With Child’s Later Adiposity. Diabetes 2011, 60, 1528–1534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Hanson, M.; Gluckman, P. Developmental origins of noncommunicable disease: Population and public health implications. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2011, 94, 1754S–1758S. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Prescott, S.L. Early-life environmental determinants of allergic diseases and the wider pandemic of inflammatory noncommunicable diseases. J. Allergy Clin. Immunol 2013, 131, 23–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Gao, W.; Salzwedel, A.P.; Carlson, A.L.; Xia, K.; Azcarate-Peril, M.A.; Styner, M.A.; Thompson, A.L.; Geng, X.; Goldman, B.D.; Gilmore, J.H.; et al. Gut microbiome and brain functional connectivity in infants-a preliminary study focusing on the amygdala. Psychopharmacology 2019, 236, 1641–1651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Aatsinki, A.K.; Lahti, L.; Uusitupa, H.M.; Munukka, E.; Keskitalo, A.; Nolvi, S.; O’Mahony, S.; Pietila, S.; Elo, L.L.; Eerola, E.; et al. Gut microbiota composition is associated with temperament traits in infants. Brain Behav. Immun. 2019, 80, 849–858. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Kristine, E.; Bocker, P.C.; Lars, A.; Constantinos, T.; Bo, M.P.; Jens-Christian, S. Childhood exposure to green space-A novel risk-decreasing mechanism for schizophrenia? Schizophr. Res. 2018, 199, 142–148. [Google Scholar]
Engemann, K.; Pedersen, C.B.; Arge, L.; Tsirogiannis, C.; Mortensen, P.B.; Svenning, J.C. Residential green space in childhood is associated with lower risk of psychiatric disorders from adolescence into adulthood. Proc. Natl Acad Sci. USA 2019, 116, 5188–5193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
Nieuwenhuijsen, M.J.; Agier, L.; Basagana, X.; Urquiza, J.; Tamayo-Uria, I.; Giorgis-Allemand, L.; Robinson, O.; Siroux, V.; Maitre, L.; de Castro, M.; et al. Influence of the Urban Exposome on Birth Weight. Environ. Health Perspect. 2019, 127, 047007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Ebisu, K.; Holford, T.R.; Bell, M.L. Association between greenness, urbanicity, and birth weight. Sci. Ence Total. Environ. 2016, 542, 750–756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
Prescott, S.L.; Logan, A.C. Larger than Life: Injecting Hope into the Planetary Health Paradigm. Challenges 2018, 9, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Malone, R.E.; Chapman, S.; Gupta, P.C.; Nakkash, R.; Ntiabang, T.; Bianco, E.; Saloojee, Y.; Vathesatogkit, P.; Huber, L.; Bostic, C.; et al. A “Frank Statement” for the 21st Century? Tob. Control. 2017, 26, 611–612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Moodie, A.R. What Public Health Practitioners Need to Know About Unhealthy Industry Tactics. Am. J. Public Health 2017, 107, 1047–1049. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Lee, C.W. The roots of astroturfing. Contexts 2010, 9, 73–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Donohoe, M. Corporate Front Groups and the Abuse of Science. Z Magazine 2007, 1, 42–46. [Google Scholar]
Clapp, J.; Scrinis, G. Big food, nutritionism, and corporate power. Globalizations 2017, 14, 578–595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Leon, K.S.; Ken, I. Food Fraud and the Partnership for a ‘Healthier’ America: A Case Study in State-Corporate Crime. Crit. Crim. 2017, 25, 393–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Aaron, D.G.; Siegel, M.B. Sponsorship of National Health Organizations by Two Major Soda Companies. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2017, 52, 20–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Daube, M.; Moodie, R.; McKee, M. Towards a smoke-free world? Philip Morris International’s new Foundation is not credible. Lancet 2017, 390, 1722–1724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
McGreer, V. Trust, hope and empowerment. Australas. J. Phil. 2006, 86, 237–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Landau, M.J.; Meier, B.P.; Keefer, L.A. A Metaphor-Enriched Social Cognition. Psychol. Bull. 2010, 136, 1045–1067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Deckert, M.; Schmoeger, M.; Schaunig-Busch, I.; Willinger, U. Metaphor processing in middle childhood and at the transition to early adolescence: The role of chronological age, mental age, and verbal intelligence. J. Child. Lang. 2019, 46, 334–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Huang, S.C.; Aaker, J. It’s the Journey, Not the Destination: How Metaphor Drives Growth After Goal Attainment. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 2019, 117, 697–720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Musk, E. Making Humans a Multi-Planetary Species. New Space 2017, 5, 46–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Schwendner, P.; Mahnert, A.; Koskinen, K.; Moissl-Eichinger, C.; Barczyk, S.; Wirth, R.; Berg, G.; Rettberg, P. Preparing for the crewed Mars journey: Microbiota dynamics in the confined Mars500 habitat during simulated Mars flight and landing. Microbiome 2017, 5, 129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Billings, L. Colonizing other planets is a bad idea. Futures 2019, 110, 44–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS StylePrescott, S.L.; Bland, J.S. Spaceship Earth Revisited: The Co-Benefits of Overcoming Biological Extinction of Experience at the Level of Person, Place and Planet. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 1407. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17041407

AMA Style
Prescott SL, Bland JS. Spaceship Earth Revisited: The Co-Benefits of Overcoming Biological Extinction of Experience at the Level of Person, Place and Planet. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2020; 17(4):1407. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17041407

Chicago/Turabian Style
Prescott, Susan L., and Jeffrey S. Bland. 2020. « Spaceship Earth Revisited: The Co-Benefits of Overcoming Biological Extinction of Experience at the Level of Person, Place and Planet » International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17, no. 4: 1407. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17041407

APA Style
Prescott, S. L., & Bland, J. S. (2020). Spaceship Earth Revisited: The Co-Benefits of Overcoming Biological Extinction of Experience at the Level of Person, Place and Planet. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(4), 1407. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17041407

Guest of the Month for JANUARY 2025:

Shani Cairns, MLIS, Science Communicator

Director, Research at Scientists Warning Foundation

Shani Cairns is a Director, Research at Scientists Warning Foundation based in Richmond, California.

Spaceship Earth: An Introduction to Earth System Science

“All of our victories are temporary, but all of our losses are permanent.” – David Brower, founder of Friends of the Earth

What is Earth System Science?
Earth System Science (ESS) is the application of systems science to the Earth sciences. It attempts to study the whole Earth as a system of many interacting parts and focus on the changes within and between systems. In this framework, the Earth is a super-organism, consisting of both living organisms and a non-living environment that gave rise to it. Earth has the ability to self-regulate the climate and chemistry of interconnected systems across vast distances inconceivable to humankind. Life is maintained at an optimum homeostasis (planetary equilibrium) and the biosphere itself performs this maintenance.

Earth System Science further considers interactions between the Earth’s “spheres”—atmosphere, hydrosphere, cryosphere, geosphere, pedosphere, biosphere, and, even, the magnetosphere from solar winds and high-energy particles. It also considers the impact of human societies on these components. This ‘system science’ acknowledges that changes to the Earth’s systems, atmosphere (air), hydrosphere (water and ice), biosphere (life) and the lithosphere can hinder or enhance the human dimension.

The Science Education Resource Center, defines Earth System Science as follows, “Earth System Science embraces chemistry, physics, biology, mathematics and applied sciences in transcending disciplinary boundaries to treat the Earth as an integrated system. It seeks a deeper understanding of the physical, chemical, biological and human interactions that determine the past, current and future states of the Earth. Earth System Science provides a physical basis for understanding the world in which we live and upon which humankind seeks to achieve sustainability.”

Origins
For millennia, humans have speculated how the physical and living elements on Earth combine in a totality. The notion that the Earth, itself, is alive was a regular theme of Greek philosophy and religion. Early scientific interpretations of the Earth system began with the field of geology, initially in the Middle East and China, and largely focused on aspects such as the age of the Earth and the planetary processes involved in mountain and ocean formation. As the science of geology developed, understanding the interplay of different facets of the Earth system increased, leading to the inclusion of factors such as the Earth’s interior, planetary geology and living systems.

In many respects, the foundational concepts of Earth system science can be seen in the holistic interpretations of nature discussed by the 19th century geographer Alexander von Humboldt. Then in the 20th century, Vladimir Vernadsky (1863–1945) saw the biosphere as a geological force generating a dynamic disequilibrium, which in turn supported the diversity of life.

The oldest Earth system-like theories arise from the Vedas, the oldest known attempt to give context to existence, and an antecedent to many of the major world philosophies and religions. Vedic science may refer to a number of disciplines both ancient and modern, as well as scientific, metaphysical, and proto-scientific, found in or based on the Vedas. ESS related theories encompass an inherent reverence for life, a profound respect for the fecundity and importance of nature, and a recognition of connections beyond traditional attempts at definition.

Gaia Hypothesis
In the mid-1960s, James Lovelock first postulated a regulatory role for the biosphere in feedback mechanisms within the Earth system. Initially named the “Earth Feedback hypothesis.” Lovelock later renamed it the Gaia hypothesis, and during the 1970s further developed the theory with American evolutionary theorist Lynn Margulis.

The Gaia hypothesis contends that living systems interact with physical components of the Earth system to form a self-regulating whole that maintains conditions that are favorable for life. However, it is important to note that ESS and Gaia hypothesis are not necessarily synonymous with each other though some posit them very closely.

What’s Your Operating System (OS)?
In parallel with ESS, the field of systems science was developing across numerous other scientific fields, driven in part by the increasing availability and power of computers, and leading to the development of climate models that began to allow the sophisticated interacting simulations of the Earth’s weather and climate. Subsequent extension of these models has led to the development of “Earth System Models” (ESMs) that include facets such as the cryosphere and the biosphere.

Daisyworld
Lovelock developed the Daisyworld computer model as an answer to the criticism that Gaia was teleological, (goal directed), life affirming and therefor full of logical fallacies according to those who assert to the contrary that the Universe is hostile to human life. Daisyworld is a computer simulation that analyzes a hypothetical world orbiting a Star whose radiant energy is slowly increasing or decreasing. It is meant to mimic important elements of the Earth-Sun system. Artificial Intelligence (AI) is increasingly being applied in the study of Earth System Science.

Daisyworld is seeded with two varieties of daisy as its only life forms: black daisies and white daisies. White petaled daisies reflect light, while black petaled daisies absorb light. The simulation tracks the two daisy populations and the surface temperature of Daisyworld as the Sun’s rays grow more powerful. According to Lynn Margulis the Daisyworld model shows that daisies cool their world despite the warming Sun.

This perturbation of Daisyworld’s receipt of solar radiation caused the balance of daisies to gradually shift from black to white, but the planetary temperature was always regulated back to this optimum (except at the extreme ends of solar evolution). This situation is very different from the corresponding abiotic world, where temperature is unregulated and rises linearly with solar output.

Spaceship Earth
Buckminster Fuller, in addition to being a successful architect and inventor, was also known as an Earth systems science philosopher. He used the phrase “Spaceship Earth” to express the need for mankind to be sensitive to and aware of, sustainability toward Earth’s limited resources. Ephemeralization was another systems’ term coined by Fuller to express the concept of accomplishing more with fewer resources. Today we might call this a minimalist approach or living simply taking only what you need.

Fuller’s third system philosophy is Synergetics which is an attempt to combine various scientific disciplines to describe the energy output of an overall system exceeding the output from individual parts of a system. Fuller’s theories are complex and provide an excellent paradigm for achieving sustainability through ecology and utilitarian philosophical approaches that encompass a deep and profound tradition of respect for nature and all life in the biosphere. There are many other theories that also embody similar views and are compatible with this approach.

How is Climate Change Related to ESS?
Climatology and climate change have been central to Earth System Science since its inception, as evidenced by the prominent place given to climate change in early NASA reports. Earth’s climate system is a prime example of an emergent property of the planetary system as a whole which cannot be fully understood without regarding it as a single integrated entity. Climate is also a property of the system in which human impacts have been growing rapidly in recent decades, lending immense importance to the development and advancement of Earth System Science research.

As just one example of the centrality of climatology to the field, leading American climatologist Michael E. Mann established one of the earliest centers for Earth system science research, the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University. Its mission statement states that, “the Earth System Science Center (ESSC) maintains a mission to describe, model, and understand the Earth’s climate system.” Many such research centers are are attempting to use ESS to analyze climatic changes. Just some of these are listed below.

The Importance of ESS in Problem Solving
Without a fundamental understanding of the interconnected nature and workings of the biosphere we call Earth and the larger Universe which encompasses it, we are in many ways forced to move blindly into the future. Because of our limited knowledge and understanding, we unwittingly collapse extremely complex, intertwined systems into linear models that do not adequately reflect the real-time problems they are meant to solve.

Our current data modeling is in its infancy in this respect. We are still discovering the deeper complexity of many systems and their inner-workings needed to properly define and protect life on this planet. For example, many scientists have been attempting to model all the tipping points that may bring about a blue ocean event in the Arctic for years. However, again and again they discover aspects of the system we cannot or do not have a way to include in this modelling. As a result of this incomplete understanding, many of our life support systems on Spaceship Earth are now in grave danger.

This problem of complex systems thinking and our inability to consistently reproduce it, has plagued humankind in the modern era despite our many scientific advances. We have sought a grand unified theory (GUT) unsuccessfully. We have tried and failed to stop war, famine, and disease. We seem unable to connect the dots of Indra’s Jeweled Net thinking ourselves entitled to destroy one portion of our habitat without even accounting for the affects on every other. All along we have assumed that we have the technology, knowledge and capacity to fix these resource extractions later. However, complex inter-related life systems are repeatedly showing us that they are profoundly more intricate and interconnected than we have yet grasped.

In his book Hua-yen Buddhism: The Jewel Net of Indra, Francis Dojun Cook wrote,

“Thus each individual is at once the cause for the whole and is caused by the whole, and what is called existence is a vast body made up of an infinity of individuals all sustaining each other and defining each other. The cosmos is, in short, a self-creating, self-maintaining, and self-defining organism.”

Nowhere is our failure as a global species to see these interlocking pieces more stultifying than in the total annihilation that is incumbent with nuclear war. Last year the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists moved the arms of its doomsday clock to 2.5 minutes to midnight—the closest it has been since 1953. This inspired what’s known as Noam Chomsky’s doomsday clock speech. Meanwhile, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels now hover above 410 parts per million.

Why are these two facts related? Because they illustrate the two factors that could transport us beyond the Anthropocene—the geological epoch marked by humankind’s fingerprint on the planet—and into yet another new, even more hostile era of our own making. Andrew Glikson’s book titled The Plutocene: Blueprints for a post-Anthropocene Greenhouse Earth describes the future world we are on course to inhabit, now that it has become clear that we are still busy building nuclear weapons rather than working together to defend our planet.

We should not split hairs, let alone atoms, if we can’t understand the entire system and know that we can restore it to its prior state. Lovelock himself postulated that radiation is as dangerous as oxygen arguing that our entire planet is radioactive. From a certain perspective this is true. On the other hand, modern researchers argue that the anthropogenic radiation sources produced in industry and war are disruptive to the self-regulating mechanisms of the biosphere, as the system simply cannot renew itself under such toxic conditions. In short, we have yet to answer the question, who speaks for Earth (video), posed so eloquently by Carl Sagan many decades ago.

Humanity is learning from these egregious mistakes that systems don’t always work in one observable, predictable way as prescribed. They are arranged in vast arrays of synergistic spheres many of which are still opaque to human understanding. In fact, we don’t know why life arose on this planet in the first place. We don’t even have a consensus on what the term ‘living’ really means. We constantly make huge sweeping generalizations about the patterns we think we see on this planet, with an incomplete physics and very little understanding of our world. We attempt to observe the intricacies of life sustaining systems in our ecosphere in their full grandeur, but it seems they are always just one step beyond our grasp.

“No matter how many white Swans you see there is always a chance that the next Swan you come across will be black, therefore you can never rigorously generalize to ‘all Swans are white.” – James Kirchner

The Black Swans of Sustainability
Earth Systems Science seeks to understand and connect seemingly disparate events so that we can make sense of our world. When we consider Black Swan events like storms, disasters, accidents and other unexpected events that commonly make the headlines, we tend to see them as separate global, socio-economic or catastrophic incidences.

The Black Swan theory or theory of Black Swan events is a metaphor that describes an event that comes as a surprise, has a major effect, and is often inappropriately rationalized after the fact with the benefit of hindsight. A New York Times article recently referred to this as the science of the improbable.

But such events increasingly reveal the interconnected workings of our life support systems on Earth. For example, environmental protection and social benefits are deeply intertwined issues. Studying Black Swan events from an ESS perspective provides a useful lens for the analysis of environmental and social sustainability impacts.

According to Yale Climate Connections “the last 50 years, since the publication of Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring, have seen the rise of environmentalism and the subsequent evolution of corporate social responsibility. A quick scan of Black Swan sustainability events over this period reveals a series of news stories, beginning with Silent Spring, that have become household names — the crash of the Exxon Valdez, chemicals released at Union Carbide’s Bhopal plant, poor labor conditions in Nike’s supply chain, and Superstorm Sandy hitting the US Eastern seaboard, to name just a few.” These events have a multitude of interconnections that we just becoming aware of.

As a global society this is leading us to ask the all important question of whether or not it is a coincidence that the such driving forces of global impact carry the hallmarks of Black Swans, or whether there is an inherent link we aren’t seeing between Black Swans and the major sustainability challenges we are now witnessing on a vast scale never before thought possible? A coincidence seems unlikely.

There are several strands of logic to suggest why today’s sustainability challenges take the form of Black Swan-type events in a nexus of interrelated complex issues that may mean climate change is actually a White Swan, an expected event, once we understand the connections between these seemingly surprising, unexpected events. The trick for us advanced primates is to begin to understand the unseen connections in events that seem unrelated, to be able to predict not just the White Swans but the Black Swans too. ESS is helping us do that.

Love or Luck?
Scientists and philosophers alike ask redundantly if life arose by chance, a fluke so to speak, or by a self-organizing principle. The argument at the heart of the Gaia hypothesis is that life is fundamentally self-organizing in ways we cannot observe at the human level alone. According to the latest news, researchers think there is finally an explanation for the Gaia hypothesis. The mechanism is based on “sequential selection”.

These researchers explain that the chances for life and environment spontaneously organizing into self-regulating states may be much higher than we might expect. If fact, given sufficient biodiversity, it may be extremely likely! But there is a limit to this stability. Push the system too far, one way or the other, hot or cold, and it may go beyond a tipping point and rapidly collapse to a new and potentially very different state.

Utopia or Oblivion?
According to Buckminster Fuller, without an understanding of interlocking interwoven system dynamics, human hubris can all too easily run rampant as we fail to see the interconnections that comprise our very life support systems. In his inspiring work Utopia or Oblivion, Fuller expounds profoundly on this consistent and fundamental oversight of humanity.

In modern materialistic worldviews all life is objectified and largely dissected into separate departments. Absent a gestalt vantage point, humans fail to see the bigger picture components of system workings and become unable to properly utilize, sustain or support a viable system dynamics — the state we find ourselves now in the Anthropocene epoch.

Professor Clive Hamilton of Charles Sturt University, says the idea of the Anthropocene was conceived by Earth System scientists to capture the very recent rupture in Earth history arising from the impact of human activity on the Earth System as a whole. In the canonical statement of the Anthropocene, the proposed new division in the Geological Time Scale is defined by the observation that:

“the human imprint on the global environment has now become so large and active that it rivals some of the great forces of Nature in its impact on the functioning of the Earth system…”

The Anthropocene is not defined by the broadening impact of humans on “the environment”, “ecosystems” or “the landscape”, that is, as an extension of what humans have been doing for centuries or millennia. It is defined by human interference, over recent decades, in the functioning of the Earth System, that is, the planet as a whole understood as a unified, complex, evolving system far beyond the sum of its parts.

At this time as a global species, we simply do not have a cohesive social or scientific understanding of our own nature or its inherent self-organizing principles. This has lead us to doubt their existence altogether and to fundamentally lose our way to the extent that our continued existence now threatens all life on Earth.

Understanding and predicting the complexity of Earth’s natural changes and variations as well as its responses to human interference, management and alteration requires many disciplines of science working together – but this is still a work in progress a long way from the synergies presented by nature itself. Our simple replicas fall far short.

This knowledgebase is published under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International license.

Guest of the Month for december 2024:

Pierre Brisson, président de la Mars Society Switzerland, membre du comité directeur de l’Association Planète Mars (France), économiste de formation (University of Virginia), ancien banquier d’entreprises de profession, planétologue depuis toujours.

L’attribut alt de cette image est vide, son nom de fichier est Pierre_Brisson-002-1024x963.jpg.

Nous reproduisons, avec son autorisation, ici un article qu’il a écrit le 19 juillet 2018 sur son blog: blogs.letemps.ch. Vous pouvez aussi suivre ses écrits et réflexions sur son nouveau blog: explorationspatiale-leblog.com

La pérennité du « Système de support vie avancé » du vaisseau Terre est en question, nous sommes responsables

Nous sommes tous embarqués dans le vaisseau-spatial « Terre » qui, sous l’emprise gravitationnelle de son étoile, le Soleil, orbite autour du centre de notre galaxie à la vitesse « folle » de 200 km/s. Notre système approche et s’éloigne des systèmes voisins mais les distances aux étoiles proches qui sont emportées comme nous-mêmes dans cette gigantesque ronde, restent énormes puisqu’elles se chiffrent en années-lumière, 4,3 pour Proxima du Centaure notre plus proche voisine aujourd’hui. Il faut environ 27.000 ans à la lumière émise par le Soleil pour parvenir jusqu’au centre de la Voie Lactée dont le diamètre est d’environ 100.000 années-lumière et dont nous ne faisons le tour qu’en 240 millions d’années. La dernière fois que nous étions au même endroit par rapport à ce centre, le Trias de notre histoire géologique commençait et la vie récupérait après l’une des grandes-extinctions les plus terribles connues qui avait marqué la fin du Permien. Les premiers dinosaures ainsi que les thérapsides, nos ancêtres reptiliens qui avaient survécu à un abaissement considérable de la quantité d’oxygène dans l’atmosphère, avaient un boulevard devant eux.

Le temps a passé, les dinosaures ont acquis une position dominante puis ont disparu lors de la grande-extinction suivante qui a laissé le champ libre aux mammifères il y a 65 millions d’années et nous voici, nous les hommes, petits nouveaux en ce monde puisque notre espèce ne remonte qu’à 3 millions d’années (ou 7 si l’on part de la différenciation de nos ancêtres d’avec ceux des grands singes), pleins de capacités extraordinaires mais aussi pleins d’arrogance, en train de provoquer la « sixième » grande-extinction ! Il ne faut en effet pas être « grand-clerc » pour constater la catastrophe écologique dans laquelle nous nous enfonçons, de notre fait. Mais nous avons des œillères et en plus la vue courte.

Où en sommes-nous ? La population humaine de la Terre a dépassé les 7,3 milliards d’individus, elle n’avait pas atteint les 2,5 milliards quand je suis né, avant 1950, et on nous dit qu’elle pourrait dépasser les 9 milliards en 2050 (projection moyenne). Certains s’en réjouissent, d’autres s’en moquent, je m’en effraie. Réfléchissons ! Un quadruplement en cent ans, est-ce bien raisonnable ? Sommes-nous si certains que notre « vaisseau » Terre disposera, demain comme aujourd’hui, des ressources nécessaires et que nous saurons les exploiter de telle sorte qu’elles restent suffisantes et puissent se renouveler pour « la suite » ? Déjà nos frères animaux non-domestiques disparaissent par espèces entières à une vitesse effectivement indicative d’une grande extinction. Notre égoïsme est insondable ; nous ne pensons qu’à nous. Mais au-delà de cet aspect moral, nous faisons comme si nous n’avions pas besoin des autres formes de vie, comme si leur disparition pouvait nous laisser indemnes, comme si nous étions de purs esprits. Nous persévérons dans les comportements suicidaires. Les sacs plastiques envahissent non seulement nos décharges sauvages sur Terre mais aussi nos océans. Le taux de gaz carbonique atteint des niveaux jamais atteints depuis des centaines de millions d’années, les poussières de natures diverses nous empoisonnent littéralement, la température globale monte, les banquises de glace fondent en milliers de km³. Les coraux meurent, les tortues meurent, les poissons meurent, les insectes meurent, les oiseaux meurent, les gros mammifères sauvages ne sont plus que des souvenirs et nous pensons « nous en tirer » !? Qui va polliniser nos fleurs ? Comment contrôler notre équilibre climatique et celui, biochimique, de nos sols ? Qui va contrôler l’équilibre biologique de notre environnement, y compris microbien ? J’ai été très choqué d’apprendre récemment que la forêt avait quasiment disparu de Côte-d’Ivoire ; les média en ont vaguement parlé à l’occasion des problèmes que cela posait pour la pousse des cacaoyers ! Et le reste ? Ce pays était à 90 % couvert de forêt quand j’étais jeune. En Amazonie c’est pareil, on fait pousser du soja après avoir brûlé la forêt primaire. En Indonésie, on fait pousser des hévéas sur les cendres des arbres d’essences prodigieusement variées qui poussaient sur ce sol depuis des dizaines de millions d’années et tant pis pour ces espèces végétales et pour les orangs-outans (et les autres animaux) qui meurent par milliers alors qu’ils sont sur le point d’extinction. La forêt c’est la production d’un solde positif d’oxygène pour la planète, c’est la diversité de la vie, toutes sortes de molécules y ont été concoctées depuis plusieurs centaines de millions d’années, nous en avons besoin pour élaborer nos médicaments, pour nous nourrir, pour que les autres formes de vie puissent persister. Sommes-nous si stupides que nous pensions pouvoir nous en passer ?! Certains parmi nous sont conscients. Ils doivent non seulement alerter mais faire prendre conscience aux autres du grand danger et faire appliquer les solutions. Il n’y en pas « trente-six » mais seulement trois. Il y a obligation de résultat et la voie est très étroite.

La première solution, et ça déplaira aux « bonnes-âmes » mais tant pis, c’est de stopper l’explosion démographique. La population humaine n’est pas sur le point de disparaître faute de naissances, elle est en train d’étouffer sous les naissances. Et n’en déplaise aux mêmes bonnes-âmes c’est dans les pays « en voie de développement » et surtout en Afrique mais aussi en Asie ou en Amérique Latine que le problème se pose. C’est dans ces pays qu’il faut changer les mentalités, éduquer, introduire le planning familial, faire comprendre, car dans les autres les populations se sont stabilisées. Les adultes doivent accepter que les enfants ne soient pas la seule solution pour leur permettre de survivre dans leurs « vieux jours », les œuvres humanitaires, que leur rôle n’est pas de favoriser le plus possible de naissances mais uniquement celles pour lesquelles il y a une issue vers une bonne éducation et une évolution responsable et viable. Il est trop facile de dire qu’il y a suffisamment de richesses pour tous ou que l’on peut facilement en créer, ce n’est pas vrai.

La deuxième, c’est de gérer nos ressources et nos déchets beaucoup plus sérieusement. Une des caractéristiques essentielles de la vie depuis les premiers procaryotes c’est que l’organisme vivant se sépare de ses rejets métaboliques. Nous le faisons individuellement plus ou moins bien mais nous le faisons collectivement de façon toujours catastrophique sans nous soucier suffisamment de la récupération / réutilisation et de la pollution. Si nous ne changeons pas nos pratiques, nous sommes condamnés de ce fait à disparaître. L’« écologie-industrielle » théorisée par le Professeur Süren Erkman (Université de Lausanne) est la voie qu’il faut suivre. Elle consiste à refuser le retour en arrière, vers un âge d’or bucolique qui n’a jamais existé et que l’on ne pourrait plus supporter compte tenu de notre nombre et de nos standards civilisationnels, et à choisir un traitement technologique de la situation. Ne crachons pas sur le progrès, c’est la seule solution pour continuer notre développement économique tout en réduisant notre impact écologique. Cela veut dire qu’il faut être toujours plus économes de nos ressources, utiliser ces ressources en pensant toujours à limiter les dégâts que nous causons, réutiliser tout ce que nous avons déjà extrait du sol de notre planète et se mettre en capacité de le faire dès le début de tout processus industriel, pour éviter les productions trop difficiles à recycler. Pour évoluer au mieux selon cette ligne, il faut voir que les missions spatiales longues et lointaines sont des « analogues » précieux pour étudier et mettre en application la soutenabilité des processus pour la Terre; il faut prendre conscience que le contrôle des systèmes clos étudiés pour l’espace (projet MELiSSA par exemple) introduit des connaissances spécifiques indispensables pour mettre en place une « économie circulaire » sur Terre et qu’il faut donc considérer ces études avec sérieux et les faire progresser très vite (ce qui n’exclut pas, bien au contraire, l’investissement dans les innovations ni la croissance des richesses).

La troisième c’est de partir essaimer ailleurs. Nous savons que pour qu’un système aussi colossal que le système écologique anthropisé terrestre se redresse, il faut prendre en compte une force d’inertie considérable. Tel pays (dont probablement la Suisse) prendra assez facilement des mesures conservatives et dynamiques, d’autres (comme la Chine) ne les prendront que contraints et forcés par les nuisances dont ils souffrent de leur fait* mais les prendront tout de même, d’autres enfin ne le feront que sous la pression de la collectivité mondiale. Dans ces conditions nul ne peut dire aujourd’hui que les conséquences de l’accélération de l’explosion démographique et de la pollution commencée dans les années 1960 pourront être maîtrisées avant le naufrage corps et bien de notre humanité. Il nous faut une solution de rechange à un éventuel échec sur Terre. Il nous faut au moins un canot de sauvetage ou plutôt une nouvelle arche de Noé où nous tenterons de sauver ce que nous avons de plus précieux, nos graines et notre mémoire ; il nous faut très vite une base martienne créée pour durer et nous survivre en cas de besoin.

*L’exploitation des terres-rares, notamment, a conduit à des situations écologiques épouvantables.

Nous sommes responsables de notre destin. Nous avons un devoir vis-à-vis de nos ascendants dont nous portons la mémoire, vis-à-vis de nos descendants auxquels nous préparons un enfer si nous ne faisons rien ou pas assez, et vis-à-vis de l’Univers entier car les êtres conscients et capables de communiquer et de se diriger en fonction de leur volonté y sont sans doute extrêmement rares ; nous sommes peut-être les seuls, un merveilleux accident non reproductible de l’Histoire. Réfléchissez et agissez! Si nous ne faisons rien ou pas assez, le Soleil et le vaisseau Terre qui lui est indissolublement lié continueront certes leur « course folle » autour du centre galactique, mais ses passagers humains, nos descendants directs, ne pourront bientôt plus s’en émerveiller ou en parler car, prisonniers de leur unique planète de naissance, ils seront tous morts étouffés par la masse de leurs enfants et sous leurs propres déjections.

Lecture :

« Vers une écologie industrielle » Par Suren Erkman chez Charles Léopold Mayer (2004).

« La guerre des métaux rares (la face cachée de la transition énergétique et numérique) » par Guillaume Pitron, éditions « Les Liens qui Libèrent » 2018.

Guest of the Month for November 2024:

La Terre est-elle un vaisseau spatial

Maxence Fournaux✌

Ex-ingénieur | J’aide les talents à bifurquer ✌| Fondateur de Bifurque, collectif de talents épanouis |

4 juin 2019

Avril 2019 : Je reviens d’un intense voyage perdu dans le Cantal.

J’y ai vu des forêts, des plaines, des pâturages, des petits lacs au coucher du Soleil.

J’avais l’impression de découvrir une exoplanète ou un immense vaisseau spatial, d’une beauté et d’une technologie incroyable.

Un vaisseau spatial, une capsule de survie, appelé maladroitement « planète », du même nom que tous ces astres pourtant morts, eux.

Je me suis dit que peut-être que ce vaisseau n’avait pas toute notre considération parce que ce n’est pas nous qui l’avions construit.

Les coupes rases et les forêts sans vie sauvage m’ont profondément attristé.

(la sylviculture crée des forêts mais c’est une véritable hécatombe pour les Vivants, il n’y a que des arbres, très peu d’oiseaux et d’arbustes grandissant sous la protection des grands arbres)

Mais, une fois monté en haut des cols, une énergie profonde m’envahissait.

Mon regard parcourait l’horizon et cette pensée, maintes fois répétée, m’obstinait : je vivais la merveilleuse aventure de vivre à bord d’un vaisseau spatial qui ressemble à s’y méprendre avec un paradis.

Il suffirait d’un rien, juste d’une contagion sociale à grande ampleur, pour que l’on ressente cette « conscience planétaire ».

Lorsque le ciel est d’un bleu éclatant, je ne peux m’empêcher d’y voir un gigantesque hublot.

Lorsque mes poumons s’emplissent d’une partie de l’atmosphère, des larmes de gratitude me montaient aux yeux en pensant à tous ces petits êtres qui œuvrent à le rendre si bon et si vital.

Lorsque la nuit tombe et que l’on peut regarder le Soleil dessiner une palette de couleur d’une beauté hors de l’entendement, je ne peux dorénavant plus qu’y voir une sorte de miracle scientifique, d’un grand feu perdu au milieu de rien qui nous atteint.

Je ne peux qu’avoir envie de remercier cette boule qui ne sais rien des merveilles qu’elle crée à millions de kilomètres d’elle.

(pour le Soleil, nous ne sommes que des étoiles parmi d’autres, perdues dans un noir profond, comme Mars, Vénus ou Saturne le sont pour nous)

Comme Vénus ne sait rien qu’on l’a surnommé ici, à bord du vaisseau spatial, « l’étoile du Berger », car c’est elle que l’on voit en premier et qu’elle a guidé des dizaines de milliers d’hommes et de femmes à travers les siècles.

Impossible pour elle de savoir l’effet, certes insignifiant à certains égards, qu’elle a eu sur nous.

Je me dis qu’on peut tous et chacun être l’étoile insignifiante de quelqu’un ou quelque chose.

Cette pensée me rassure. Quoi que l’on fasse, nous existons comme une étoile.

Et puis la nuit tombe pour de vrai, les astres s’allument par millier.

Je me sens alors comme sur le pont d’un navire gigantesque, au clair de Lune, à contempler la mer et les étoiles.

Je me sens au bord de ce grand tout.

Un gigantesque hublot donnant sur l’océan des étoiles.

Et nous sur ce vaisseau.

Et tous ces gens qui vivent ce miracle sans en avoir conscience.

Je me dis qu’on pourra vivre avec ce dédain prétentieux que lorsque nous serons capables de construire des vaisseaux qui naviguent sans coque, avec des conditions optimales pour la vie,donnant sur le vide intersidéral.

Un énorme bouclier magnétique qui nous protège des vents dévastateurs solaires, quelques nuages qui font écran et apportent un peu d’ombre, de repos et d’eau vitale à l’ensemble des habitants du vaisseau.

Nul besoin de payer ces prestations extraordinaires.

Nous sommes les héritiers d’une demeure magnifique et rudement bien conçue.

Il eut seulement fallu qu’il eut été conçu par un architecte humain de renom pour qu’on l’acclame et qu’on en fasse une légende historique (salut Elon Musk).

Mais non, ce n’est pas de notre fait, alors, tels des ados pourris gâtés, on respire sans s’en rendre compte.

On consomme les économies en énergies et en ressources sans se soucier du miracle qu’elles soient là.

(Pour rappel, aux balbutiemments de l’Univers, l’ensemble des atomes qui existait était de l’Hydrogène. Tout le reste, Oxygène, Carbone, Aluminium, Fer, etc. n’existait tout simplement pas. Ils ont été forgé des millenaires durant, au coeur des étoiles, à base d’Hydrogène primordial. Les minerais que nous exploitons ont été forgés dans les étoiles, par un miracle de la mécanique quantique (1 chance sur 100 millions), tenté suffisamment de fois pour s’accomplir. Niveau miracle, on fait difficilement mieux.)

La surconsommation et le capitalisme, dans ce paradigme, m’importe peu.

Il s’agit là de gratitude, de respect et d’amour profond.

Nos ancêtres ont crée des Dieux a vénéré à tout prix.

Etait ce une tentative d’ « humaniser » ces grands architectes à qui l’ont doit tout ?

Si c’était vraiment des architectes de génie, fait de chair et d’os, peut être ces religions auraient elles pris un autre tournant.

Peut-être que le rêve fou de la technologie et de l’Homo Deus (Homme Dieu de Harari) se réalisera un jour et que l’on comprendra à ce moment les prouesses véritablement stupéfiantes qu’il faut pour créer tout ce niveau de complexité.

Et peut-être que l’on respectera cet ouvrage gigantesque car il sera humain, lui.

On aura de quoi se donner de bonnes tapes dans le dos pour se féliciter d’être des génies.

Mais j’aurai préféré que le vaisseau initial soit compris et respecté plus tôt.

Car si ces architectes ne sont peut être pas humains, ils sont en tout cas Vivants.

J’aimerai donner cette tape dans le dos à tous les petits ếtres de cette planète, pardon, ce vaisseau.

Les féliciter de ce qu’ils accomplissent, un à un, alors qu’une partie de l’équipage leur met des bâtons dans les roues, les asservit et les extermine.

Tout ça pour manger de la viande à tous les repas (la culture humaine, c’est important vous comprenez et cela justifie la déforestation du temple de l’Amazonie), et se créer des moyens de transports et gadgets fabuleux, qui consomment une énergie que l’on a hérité – le soleil ancestral stocké dans des combustibles fossiles – et nous font sentir puissants outre mesure.

On a tous, individuellement et collectivement, dans les Etats ou les entreprises, envie de puissance.

Et c’est la fonction du marketing que de promettre cette puissance.

Mais, collectivement, à l’échelle des Vivants, nous l’avons déjà : nous vivons sur un vaisseau spatial paradisiaque.

Voilà ce que m’a révélé ce voyage, cette visite des dédales du vaisseau.

Le désir d’accomplir cette volonté de puissance collectivement, avec tous les Vivants, plutôt qu’individuellement.

Se sentir puissants, réalisé ce fantasme intemporel et « inaliénable », ensemble.

Se battre pour la Vie comme on défend des prouesses technologiques.

Prendre soin des écosystèmes avec autant de soin que si c’était nous qui avions bâti ces cathédrales.

C’est un peu la mission que je voudrais pour la communauté.

Comprendre et ressentir cette conscience planétaire, cette puissance déjà là.

Et vendre cette satisfaction au travers de tout ce que l’on consomme.

Vendre une satisfaction plutôt qu’une frustration.

Rendre désirable ce qui est déjà là, ce qui est nécessaire à la Vie sur le vaisseau.

Mais pour cela, il va falloir qu’on travaille fort vous et moi.

Même si les autres ne comprennent pas tout.

Même si on nous critique à tout va à coup de cohérence, d’écologisme à outrance, de libéralisme, de grands méchants marketeux ou entrepreneurs capitalistes.

Il faut se battre pour ça, pour le vaisseau et son équipage.

Ensemble, nous sommes déjà puissants. Les Vivants ont colonisé cette planète avant Elon Musk (même si une part de moi aime beaucoup ce qu’il fait et la vision de « propager la vie » pour laquelle il se bat).

Alors vendons cette satisfaction à tous ceux qui croisent notre route.

(je sais, ça fait un peu secte dis comme ça, mais promis je ne vous prendrais pas tout votre argent ni ne vous exhorterais à couper vos relations sociales)

Changeons la fonction du marketing avec cette idée en tête.

Rendre puissant par la satisfaction de l’inconnu déjà là, plutôt que par la promesse de réinventer la roue du vivant pour se flatter d’avoir copier la « Nature », ou de pouvoir regarder n’importe où et n’importe quand notre cher Netflix.

Et peut-etre que si cette idée germe et grandit, nous pourrons vivre dans une société biocentrique où l’on respecte les petits êtres qui font fonctionner le système de survie avec autant d’humilité et de gratitude que lorsque l’on salue une femme de ménage ou un architecte talentueux.

A nous de jouer.