

From the Silk Road to the stars (Article)

Below is an article published in China Watch. The original article can be found here


By Dennis Pamlin | 中国日报网 | Updated: 2019-01-24 10:17

With its successful Jan. 3 moon landing -- the first ever on the “dark side of the moon” -- China helped humanity take another step toward becoming a space-faring civilization.

In the world we live in, the successful moon landing was unfortunately not only celebrated, but was seen by many from a confrontational perspective. US President Donald Trump has already declared that he wants to create a new “Space Force” by 2020. The plan is to make that space force the sixth branch of the military. Without leadership, space could become the next major conflict zone and any space activity seen as a provocation by competing forces.

With many global challenges, we can and should not waste resources on a military space race. Current weapon technology means the consequences of a future space war could also be fatal for humanity. At the same time, it is obvious that the resources for military expansion into space would be much better used if they were invested for peaceful purposes -- as well as addressing urgent global challenges such as world poverty, growing inequity and the accelerating ecological collapse due to biodiversity loss and climate change.

With the successful moon landing, China now has the attention of the world and thereby an opportunity to help shape the direction of global space exploration. A new direction for space exploration could also help set a new standard for global collaboration. Clarifying that the space exploration should be peaceful is a good first step. However, the current situation provides us with a unique opportunity and China should consider establishing a three-pronged approach to sustainable space exploration that would be integrated into an eco-civilization agenda.

First, a new set of global goals for space exploration should be presented. The international Space Station (ISS) where the United States, Russia, Japan, Europe and Canada collaborate, has demonstrated that international space collaboration is possible. A global action plan to develop the technology to prevent future asteroid impacts through the capacity to detect, track and deflect asteroids could be one of humanity’s greatest collaborative achievements, which would reduce one of the main long-term threats to human civilization. China could also propose a global approach to the first human settlement on Mars, and help ensure that the settlement is built on sustainable technologies. These initiatives should be science driven with total transparency and a research agenda where people all around can collaborate.

Second, the excellent work by United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs, which demonstrates the benefits of space exploration for global sustainability, should be accelerated. China could challenge all countries and companies active in space exploration to make relevant solutions for key global challenges available for free. An even stronger link between space exploration and global sustainability would help strengthen peaceful collaboration.

Third, it is time to integrate global infrastructure development on earth with peaceful space exploration. The establishment of the first permanent colony beyond Earth is within reach. This generation could be the first one to experience how we as Homo Sapiens became a space-faring species. A long-term plan for equitable and sustainable space exploration is an important part of such a journey.

By exploring how all major infrastructure investments on earth can help accelerate and guide space exploration in a sustainable direction, we can ensure that space becomes a shared project that is about increased benefits and knowledge for all. Technology development on Earth and in space should support each other so that they can help us move beyond our destructive industrial civilization and focus on the transition to a global eco civilization.

As the largest infrastructure project on the planet the Belt and Road Initiative could lead the way by integrating not just traditional sustainability goals, but also by helping develop and deliver on sustainability goals for an emerging space civilization.

We already see leading thinkers arrange events such as UN Industrial Development Organizations’ “BRIDGE for Cities - Belt and Road Initiative: Developing Green Economies for Cities”. During the BRIDGE event in 2018, links between the Belt and Road Initiative, space exploration and sustainability were discussed with representatives from both China and Europe. Hopefully, we will see more meetings in 2019 at which a peaceful space agenda can be discussed in the context of global sustainability goals.

It will take some time getting used to thinking of humanity as a space civilization. However, many of the children born today will be alive 2100 and by then, we will most certainly be a space civilization. The question is: What kind of civilization will that be? Let us do what we can so that those alive in 2100 will be able to look will back at 2019 as the year when, despite many conflicts and problems, the world took the first significant steps towards a spaced based eco-civilization.

Dennis Pamlin is a senior adviser at the Research Institutes of Sweden (RISE). The author contributed this article to China Watch exclusively. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of China Watch.








Link to the Climate KIC page for the event







PDF with the PPT for my Keynote

The agenda

Zero to one, by Peter Thiel

This book was a real surprise. I think it is the first simple “how to think like an entrepreneur”-book that I have recommended people to read. There are a lot of very interesting thinking in this short book that I think everyone who tries to make the world a better place, and realise that more than incremental change is needed, should read. I have found Peter interesting, but did not expect him to cover so many of the most important challenges in this short book. But maybe is was Blake Masters that helped him?

It is written without any references/footnotes and in this case I think that is perfectly OK as, for most of it, Peter writes about things he has knowledge about and expericne of.

What I find frustrating is his simplified view of technology as the only driver of change. It is as if values and structures don’t exist. In many ways, the ideas are very close to a simplified version of Marx, but a mirror image. If the books would have included a more nuanced approach to change I think it could have been a classic.

One of the big surprises for me was that Peter spend so much time on our generation’s major challenges from a global perspective. He does this in a way where it is natural, as it should be. This is such a stark contrast to books who claim to have a global approach and about important things, but then basically just focus on American trivial ideas/innovations (a good example of a book that fails in those areas is Bold by Peter Diamandis

The following could be from any UN sustainability study or progressive international NGO:

“Without technological change, if China doubles its energy production over the next two decades, it will also double its air pollution. If every one of India’s hundreds of millions of households were to live the way Americans already do—using only today’s tools—the result would be environmentally catastrophic. Spreading old ways to create wealth around the world will result in devastation, not riches. In a world of scarce resources, globalization without new technology is unsustainable.”

He also brings up some of the most important and forgotten aspects in today’s society:

“we have inherited a richer society than any previous generation would have been able to imagine.

Any generation excepting our parents’ and grandparents’, that is: in the late 1960s, they expected this progress to continue. They looked forward to a four-day workweek, energy too cheap to meter, and vacations on the moon. But it didn’t happen. The smartphones that distract us from our surroundings also distract us from the fact that our surroundings are strangely old: only computers and communications have improved dramatically since midcentury.”

His urge to get people to think beyond the incremental is very refreshing and all organisations working with global challenges could benefit from his comparison between old and new ideas

Old ideas that still dominate

  1. Make incremental advances
  2. Stay lean and flexible
  3. Improve on the competition
  4. Focus on product, not sales”

New ideas that are needed, and more fit for the 21st century, but that are still seen as radical

  1. It is better to risk boldness than triviality.
  2. A bad plan is better than no plan.
  3. Competitive markets destroy profits.
  4. Sales matters just as much as product.”

I was also surprised that he makes similar observation as I have done about higher elite education.


The contribution from different groups in society is also very much spot-on.

“Bankers make money by rearranging the capital structures of already existing companies. Lawyers resolve disputes over old things or help other people structure their affairs. And private equity investors and management consultants don’t start new businesses; they squeeze extra efficiency from old ones with incessant procedural optimizations. It’s no surprise that these fields all attract disproportionate numbers of high-achieving Ivy League optionality chasers; what could be a more appropriate reward for two decades of résumé-building than a seemingly elite, process-oriented career that promises to “keep options open”?”

He is also seem rightfully frustrated by how short-sighted we are.

“We are more fascinated today by statistical predictions of what the country will be thinking in a few weeks’ time than by visionary predictions of what the country will look like 10 or 20 years from now.”

And how we simplify things in dangerous ways.


His approach to change and what the obstacles are is also interesting.

“We have to find our way back to a definite future, and the Western world needs nothing short of a cultural revolution to do it. Where to start? John Rawls will need to be displaced in philosophy departments. Malcolm Gladwell must be persuaded to change his theories. And pollsters have to be driven from politics. But the philosophy professors and the Gladwells of the world are set in their ways, to say nothing of our politicians. It’s extremely hard to make changes in those crowded fields, even with brains and good intentions.”

His urge to focus on important issues combined with a frustration that we fiddle around the margins is very refreshing.

“We are within reach not just of marginal goals set at the competitive edge of today’s conventional disciplines, but of ambitions so great that even the boldest minds of the Scientific Revolution hesitated to announce them directly. We could cure cancer, dementia, and all the diseases of age and metabolic decay. We can find new ways to generate energy that free the world from conflict over fossil fuels. We can invent faster ways to travel from place to place over the surface of the planet; we can even learn how to escape it entirely and settle new frontiers.”

His frustration that many entrepreneurs make vague bold claims is also easy to relate to.

“Here are some bad answers: “Your stock options will be worth more here than elsewhere.” “You’ll get to work with the smartest people in the world.” “You can help solve the world’s most challenging problems.” What’s wrong with valuable stock, smart people, or pressing problems? Nothing—but every company makes these same claims, so they won’t help you stand out.”

But I would argue that the problem with “You can help solve the world’s most challenging problems.” Is not that too many make such claims, but that those who do tend to define those claims do so in very trivial ways and thereby undermine the idea of working with the word’s most challenging problems. For those who are serious here is a good list to start with:

When it comes to the market for sustainable technologies (those making it possible for 11 billion or more to have a great life without destroying the planet) Peter’s observations should be discussed more:

“At the start of the 21st century, everyone agreed that the next big thing was clean technology”… “Could successful energy start-ups be founded after the clench crash just as Web 2.0 start-ups successfully launched amid the debris of the dot-coms? The macro need for energy solutions is still real. But a valuable business must start by finding a niche and dominating a small market.”

“Cleantech gave people a way to be optimistic about the future of energy. But when indefinitely optimistic investors betting on the general idea of green energy funded cleantech companies that lacked specific business plans, the result was a bubble.”


Interestingly his own contributions to something significant are hardly discussed at all. But he does mention a few things.

“In addition to helping find terrorists, analysts using Palantir’s software have been able to predict where insurgents plant IEDs in Afghanistan; prosecute high-profile insider trading cases; take down the largest child pornography ring in the world; support the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in fighting foodborne disease outbreaks; and save both commercial banks and the government hundreds of millions of dollars annually through advanced fraud detection.”

There are no discussions about these “contributions”. Compared to his clarity and logical approach to different aspects in society it is strange to see Peter suddenly list controversial methods in important areas without any discussion about pros and cons.

The Belt and Road Forum for International Cooperation (BRF)


Distinguished Heads of State and Government, 

Heads of International Organizations, 

Ladies and Gentlemen, 

Dear Friends, 


Ladies and Gentlemen, 

Dear Friends, 








Ladies and Gentlemen, 

Dear Friends, 










Ladies and Gentlemen, 

Dear Friends, 
















Ladies and Gentlemen, 

Dear Friends, 










Ladies and Gentlemen, 

Dear Friends, 



Thank you!