a “cyclotron for the life sciences.” We were able to find things out rapidly, rather than over decades.
The technologies designed by our engineers also had to replace natural forces in order to supply much of what we take for granted since our planetary biosphere does it so reliably and for free; temperature control, rainfall, winds, tides, waves, and also supplement biogeochemical and nutrient cycles. There are no ‘wastes’ in a closed system. There is no dump or drain to dispose of unwanted substances; in fact, all “wastes” contain valuable resources. Thus, our engineering and ecological teams worked closely together to create new kinds of technical support systems that wouldn’t harm life. For example, we made advances with innovative ways of purifying air using soil and plant biofiltration. In the ocean, we used a vacuum pump to make waves instead of centrifugal pumps that can decimate marine microfauna and flora. Wetlands function as the Earth’s kidneys as they absorb and detoxify potential pollutants; so we worked with Dr. Billy Wolverton from NASA to design constructed wetlands to treat and recycle all of our human and domestic animal wastes produced inside Biosphere 2.
In a closed ecological system, our farm had to reach beyond organic standards to succeed in recycling all of its water and nutrients to grow enough food. Everything that came out of the soil had to be returned and we could not use any toxic products since they would build up in our soils and waters. The farm also had to be highly productive on a limited area of about half an acre. Though we did not succeed in growing all of our food during the first two years (we ate some seed stock during the second year inside), the 81% we did grow made Biosphere 2 one of the most productive farms in the world. Improvements made after our first closure mission, including using crops better adapted to the lowered light inside the facility, enabled the second crew to succeed in growing 100% of their food during their experiment in 1994.
The ocean system surpassed nearly all of our advisors’ predictions; we built and sustained the largest coral reef ever created, let alone one in an artificial tank located over a thousand miles from the closest ocean basin, at 3,800 feet above sea level with temperate (not tropical) seasonal sunlight. When the ocean was resurveyed after the two-year experiment, 75% of the individual hard and soft corals had survived and some were reproducing. Even though the Biosphere 2 ocean had to deal with rising carbon dioxide, acidification, and low light levels, it persisted. Our mini-ocean taught us many things, but perhaps the single most important lesson was that it could adapt to new environments.
Many of our friends told us when we were building Biosphere 2, that it was 50 years ahead of its time. If we were to build it now, its purposes would be self-evident. In many ways, they were right.
Today, who can doubt the importance of developing highly productive ecologically-based farming systems to feed the world’s growing population of around 8 billion while not polluting our rivers and oceans? Or applying methods to regenerate our farm and rangeland soils to hold more CO2 rather than contribute to the climate crisis? Who can honestly dispute that deforestation and the demise of coral reefs and other ecosystems worldwide are fueling the frightening loss of species as well as diminishing our biosphere’s ability to be resilient and adaptive? Why do we put up with pollution and the risks of exposure to untested chemicals when technology can and must be reinvented to not harm us, our ecosystems and our biosphere? Biosphere 2 successfully addressed all of these issues because it was a miniature replica of Earth’s biosphere, as well as an ecologically engineered laboratory which made it possible to investigate how ecosystems function and interact.
Finally, and equally significant, the magnificent structure was inspiring. It was a celebration of architecture with stepped pyramid and barrel vault shapes, geodesic domes, a fjord-like ocean and expansive roofs to allow for the growth of trees during the project’s intended 100-year lifetime. It showcased a new model that, by contrast, reveals the short-sightedness and self-destruction of our current assault on the global biosphere. We laughed when media accounts said we’d created an Eco-Disneyland. Our world wasn’t make-believe; we were living and demonstrating that ecology and living ecologically is inspiring, gratifying, and meaningful. A good part of a generation grew up dreaming of becoming a biospherian with a vision of knowing that it is possible to live harmoniously with all other life. Despite the lack of the internet, when we exited the experiment in 1993, satellite TV coverage of our ‘re-entry’ to Earth’s biosphere reached close to a billion people around the world.
BIOSPHERE 2 PROVIDED INSIGHTS FOR LIVING IN SPACE
It’s not easy to fully comprehend or study our Earth’s biosphere because it is so vast. It is one thing to know that we live in a biosphere with finite resources and critical feedback loops requiring biodiverse systems, but it’s another thing to learn with immediacy how it works or how our actions enhance or degrade its health. Thus, previous expeditions and space exploration were useful analogies for our planning. During the design phase, we met frequently to prepare for the two-year journey as if we were going to leave Earth. During the Biosphere 2 experiment, we observed ourselves and the challenges we encountered as precursors to what it would be like to live off this planet. We knew Biosphere 2 was to become our home for two years and that we would have to be resourceful, like we will need to be during future extended space exploration or in off-planet bases. In that respect, in addition to creating a laboratory for ecological experiments, Biosphere 2 also served as a test-bed to inform space design, generate baseline data about sustainable life support systems, and provide knowledge about group dynamics during long-term space missions.
During the two years, we came to realize that future space missions must include a wealth of living systems, for both physical and psychological health. All eight of us deeply understood that humans have evolved in and depend upon our biospheric life support system. Our ability to live in another world separated from Earth was only possible because Biosphere 2 contained a variety of Earth’s ecological systems. The beauty of our ecosystems was nourishing; the life around us gave us joy, we were part of this new biosphere and evolved with it. That included developing and then fine-tuning its systems and our skills to provide for our needs; all of which will be required for people to live and thrive in space. The most important question for such space habitation is “what do we need to be OK once we leave this planet?” Answering this question produced years of discussions during the design phase that made Biosphere 2 a world where we could not just survive but live well.
A NEW EXPLORATORY SCIENCE AHEAD OF ITS TIME
The project presented a stark alternative to how “business as usual” threatens our Earth’s biosphere because of our addictions to chemicals, plastics, fossil fuels, and technology that dominate our attention and divorce us from the natural world. Our wilderness biomes were off-limits to human expansion. They were valued for their own intrinsic beauty and uniqueness, and it was understood that biomes are the vital building blocks of a biosphere and critical for maintaining a healthy atmosphere and water cycles. Our rainforest was not cut down for short-term profits from timber and farming, nor did we slash and burn it or our savannah to create more farmland for growing food. Our mangrove marsh was not polluted with city and farming chemicals or other waste, nor was its water depleted for human use. Our coral reef was not overfished nor used as a dumping ground for trash or industrial and organic waste.
Our farm dramatically differed from industrial agriculture, one of the largest polluters and sources of greenhouse gases. Biosphere 2’s farm produced delicious organic produce that was not suspect because we didn’t (and couldn’t, since we’d be harming ourselves) use chemical fertilizers, pesticides, or herbicides. We recycled our wastes and returned the nutrients to the farm soils rather than letting them pollute ground and surface water and create marine dead zones. Our animals were champions in this recycling system; they were both our companions and part of a successfully working agricultural ecology.
Greenhouse
