Semiotics

The Semioethics Interviews III 177

Centuries] is interesting, because the authors are astronomers. Their

conclusion, looking ahead to the next few hundred years – and even with a

perspective of 100.000 years – is that the most optimistic ones of those who

talk about terraforming another planet, like Mars, are underestimating the

enormous costs. Yes, it might be technologically possible, but economically

it would not make sense, because it would be much easier to preserve what

we have here on this planet than to recreate those conditions on another one.

(The two discuss the theoretical possibility of interstellar travels)

MT: The idea would be that we could always move on. Those who claim that
humankind can potentially live forever, even after the demise of the Sun,
typically claim that we can just jump from one solar system to another –
whenever the technology is mature.
JD: Provided that it is mature in time.
MT: I am not saying that that is absolutely not going to happen. I am just saying
that it would be crazy to base today‘s policies on it.
JD: Sure. It certainly would.

TO REALIZE THAT TOMORROW IS NOT A FOREVER THING

MT: Capitalism. It is not a term you use much.
JD: What term?
MT: Capitalism.
JD: No. I hate it.
MT: Why?
JD: The few people I have known that were very wealthy seemed to have a
radically distorted view of life. They think that what gives meaning to life is
making money.
MT: The tragedy of that view of life is that there can always be more money, and
since status comes from money, you have to run even to keep your status –
since it is all about relative comparisons.
JD: I do not even know what the term ―capitalism‖ means – do you?
MT: Some would say it is denoting a free-market economy. Others would say that
it denotes a certain production system. But I would prefer a definition that
mentioned the mechanism of growth, because I think the term capitalism is
meaningless without the notion of ongoing growth year after year. Quite
often the term is used without any conscious time frame whereafter this
mechanism of growth is thought to disappear. I think it is outrageous that in
today‘s society, practically all governments have policies based on sustained
growth without having any officially stated idea as to how long it should, or
can, go on. But in the long run, it is bound, eventually, to be a historical
phenomenon with a beginning and an end. I think this represents a bizarre
naivety in today‘s political system. People live as if they lived in a timeless