The advancement of the space industry – space tourism, reusable and low-cost rockets, the discovery of new exoplanets and gravitational waves – these are all achievements that have us cheering for the future of humanity as a space-faring species. But despite the accomplishments, there is always an alternative narrative.
Benefits aside, we have always argued the implications of space exploration from three major standpoints: our moral obligation for/against space exploration, its cost-benefit, as well as space exploration as an environmental issue.
Hopefully, by reading this article, I can help shed some light on the fundamentals for the disparities of human belief behind space exploration.
Space Exploration: The Moral Obligations
Humans are interesting creatures, not in that we enjoy having acidified milk (cheese) as a part of a healthy balanced meal, but our capacity to learn and have a moral conscience. As it may be, this often puts people of differing backgrounds and experiences on various points along a spectrum. It’s not up to me or anyone else to say what is right or wrong, but when it comes to morality, like Mark Twain once said – “Always do what is right. It will gratify half of mankind and astound the other.”
In the paper “Our Moral Obligation to Support Space Exploration” (1) by James S. J. Schwartz, an assistant professor in the Department of Philosophy at Wayne State University, he provides the caveat that “our obligation to support space exploration is conditioned on either our being obligated to ensure the survival of the human species, or on our being obligated to protect the environment.”
With the previous understanding forming the basis, Schwartz outlines three supporting arguments and objections regarding the moral obligation to support space exploration.
The Argument from Resources (Supporting Space Exploration)
Make no mistake, the amount of resources available for use on Earth is finite. And to sustain our current way and quality of life requires an increasing stock of raw materials that the Earth simply cannot provide. As such, we turn our focus outwards, into the realms of space.
Be that as it may, the validity of this argument is based on two important factors – Will we actually exhaust the resources on Earth? And are there actually enough resources in space?
Even with the corona-virus induced lockdowns in 2020, which led to a 9.3% reduction in humanity’s ecological footprint compared with the same period in 2019; humans would still need the equivalent of 1.6 Earths to keep consuming ecological resources at our current rate (The Guardian). Unless humanity is able to further reduce our ecological footprint on this planet, which there are no signs to hint towards that effect, we can be reasonably certain that – yes, it is likely we will exhaust the Earth’s resources.
There are always two facets to every argument. As such, it might be said that if humanity does conserve, it is then likely we will not exhaust the Earth’s resources. Given the possible validity of such a statement, perhaps space exploration is not necessary to sustain human beings on Earth and to protect the environment. But as Schwartz would say, “prudence informs us not to place all of our eggs in one basket. It is better to have a more diverse body of resources to draw upon. Are we willing to wager on the gamble that conservation will fulfill its promise?”
The Argument from Asteroids (Supporting Space Exploration)
It would be foolish to say we learned nothing from the demise of the dinosaurs 66 million years ago. This argument stems from the extreme likelihood that at some time in the future, a catastrophic event will render Earth’s biosphere uninhabitable (1). To that effect, it becomes our moral obligation to develop planetary defenses that can protect Earth from extraterrestrial threats – not only to ensure the long-term survival of humanity but to also protect the environment.
Schwartz explores this idea by proposing different positions from a weak and strong preservationist point of view.
Weak preservationism holds humanity to a minimal standard of sustaining the diversity of Earth’s organisms, which however does not demand sustaining these organisms on Earth. On the other hand, strong preservationism holds us to the same minimal duty to the environment, however to a standard of not only preserving the diversity of organism, but their earthly habitats as well.
Weak preservationism to its end does not require the necessity to develop planetary defenses, as the diversity of organisms can be maintained by establishing self-sustaining off-world colonies. However, the same cannot be said for the strong preservationist, as there are no other methods of preserving the Earth’s ecosystem except through the pursuit of planetary defense. But in either case, preservationism calls for the support of space exploration.
Interestingly, Schwartz introduces Holmes Rolston III, a distinguished Professor of Philosophy at Colorado State University, who calls into questions our preservationist needs to maintain and protect the ecosystem from natural disasters.
Rolston calls into consideration the extinction of the dinosaurs as an event that gave way to fashioning the world as we see it today. Perhaps such a tragedy was necessary for the rise of a new generation, as “strong inductive evidence suggest that disvalues in nature (e.g., death and disaster) will inevitably transmute into value (e.g., life and new growth)” (1). Following the same train of thought, natural disasters should be cherished, not prevented for their contribution to value in the natural world.
Categorized as a creative process, Rolston explains, “Meteor impacts are also responsible for jumpstarting new creative processes, just as Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction event initiated the evolution of Earth’s current ecosystem.
Just leave it to the philosophers to think up such tangible ideas. Rolston continues on to express the difficulty to which humanity has to decide between the degradation of potential creativity, against the degradation of a place of great active creativity, because without a doubt, Earth’s ecosystem is worthy of our protection.
The Argument from Solar Burnout (Supporting Space Exploration)
It is with no doubt the sun will one day (~5 billion years) exhaust all its hydrogen and render the Earth uninhabitable, if not devoured completely. Our moral obligation to ensure the long-term survival of the human race and to protect the environment means we are required to do what is necessary to meet these expectations.
With the eventual demise of the Sun, “pursuing interstellar colonization is the only way of securing a permanent source of habitable environments”. (1)
But an important question has to be asked – will colonizing space actually ensure our survival? In a spurt of honesty, Schwartz admits that interstellar colonization will not ensure the permanent survival of any living organism. The universe is undergoing an unstoppable expansion that will eventually result in the decay of all remaining nuclei, and with no nuclei there can be no life of which we are familiar with. But hey, in the words of Schwartz, “just because I know I will die someday does not mean I should stop eating today.”
If we work out the math, the remaining habitable lifespan of our sun makes up only a small fraction (~five trillionth) of the remaining period the universe is habitable by humans. To outlive the sun, we have to pursue interstellar colonization.
Despite the limitation in the technology of our time, it is imperative that we keep an open mind and tolerate the research on the subject.
False Hopes (Objection Against Space Exploration)
The first objection to support space exploration is proposed on the grounds that the technologies we have to develop in support of such a goal are just not practical. The likelihood of the human race becoming extinct due to disease, depletion of life-sustaining resources, or a nuclear holocaust is much higher.
However, under careful consideration, each of the aforementioned events will only occur under the condition that humanity have not yet colonized the solar system and beyond. With that, the true nature of the objection lies within what is required of the human race to develop the technology necessary of sustaining space exploration.
The three foremost issues we might encounter are the development of technologies “that will allow us to utilize the resources of the solar system, protect the planet from against extraterrestrial threats, and methods of population transport from Earth to another solar system before the life cycle of the sun renders the planet uninhabitable.” (1)
All of the proposed difficulties in technical advancements we might encounter are valid, but the fate of the human race rests upon our ability to ‘figure it out’. Is it wise to nip the bud of our survival before we even began? Or should we keep an open mind and allow the possibilities to present themselves.
The Support of Space Exploration Conflicts with Protecting the Environment (Objection Against Space Exploration)
Schwartz refers to this objection as a kind of moral hazard argument. Where “if humanity realizes that there are ample resources available in the wider solar system, we may decide to deplete the resources of this planet at a significantly increased rate” (1). And in another thought, the process of developing technologies for space exploration, if done on a large enough scale, will ultimately “hasten the depletion of Earth’s resources, casting doubt on our ability to adequately support space exploration in the first place” (1).
The act of our obligation to support space exploration will be at the cost of our obligation to protect the environment.
Does this make supporting space exploration immoral?
Well, not exactly.
Dr. Hartmann, a senior scientist emeritus at the Planetary Scientist Institute gives us an amusing but convincing answer:
“To argue against insurance for survival in the form of space exploration – on the grounds that it fosters a disposable planet mentality is like a crazy man’s response to the fire chief’s warnings about fire hazards on a luxury liner. Instead of helping the passengers with lifeboat practice, he burns the lifeboats on the grounds that this will encourage the passengers to be more careful with matches.”
Let’s also consider the available statistics – NASA’s budget in the fiscal year 2020 is $22.629 billion dollars, which only represents 0.48% of all U.S government spending. The cancelled Constellation program, which in 2010 would have returned humans to the moon, was estimated by NASA to only contribute 0.0012 percent of ozone depletion globally, and 0.004 percent of U.S. carbon emissions if the mission went through (1).
Interestingly enough, the trickle-down benefits of space exploration positively impact many sectors back on Earth, including “advances in solar energy, petroleum remediation, and environmental monitoring technology. (1)” Although this does not lend itself to justify the support for space exploration, but it leaves many schools of thought up for consideration.
Space Exploration as Aesthetic Insensitivity and Hubris (Objection Against Space Exploration)
I know, this objection sounds like a bunch of words you would know separately but makes no sense in a sentence. Essentially, this argument objects to space exploration on the grounds that human beings are not morally permitted to use space resources.
Schwartz examines objections made by Robert Sparrow, a professor of Philosophy at Monash University, based on the concept of Aesthetics and Hubris.
Aesthetic Insensitivity
Sparrow claims, using terraforming as a consequence of space exploration, it would result in the destruction of something beautiful, which would also be the product of our insensitivity to cosmic beauty. Since aesthetic insensitivity is a vice, terraforming would therefore demonstrate a vicious character.
Under human’s anthropocentric conception of beauty, there are without a doubt, things we don’t consider as beautiful. But Sparrow retorts, just because human’s do not find beauty in an object, does not necessarily mean it’s not beautiful.
This understanding however is flawed in that it’s based on the theory to which everything will then be objectively beautiful. Schwartz (1) provides a hilarious example pinpointing such an outcome:
“I suppose I may no longer breathe when waking up because the precise arrangement of molecules in my room is beautiful according to some (possible) theory, and breathing would destroy something beautiful. Since I am unaware of this theory, I breathe in ignorance.”
Hubris
On account of hubris, which can be defined as excessive pride or self-confidence, Sparrow (1) indicates humanity’s act of space exploration as “one which oversteps the limits of our wisdom and abilities, as our activities and capabilities are subject to certain natural boundaries.”
Within these natural boundaries are then what he would call humanity’s “proper place” in the universe. It is not a human being’s proper place if one has to wear protective gear to go outside; our place “should nurture us, allow us to reproduce, provide for us, and offer us security. (1)”
Schwartz, debates back with one thought (1) – “sparrow has not given a convincing argument that Earth is our only “proper place”, there is no reason to doubt, given enough effort, a similar future (industrialization) awaits us in space.”
Although, truthfully, as Sparrow takes a step back from his objections:
“Our proper place is at home until we have shown that we are mature enough to leave it. Whether or not people are ready to leave home depends on how well they live at home and how they look after that home. On this test, the human species does not look well qualified to start moving out to other planets. We must show that we are capable of looking after our current home before we could claim to have any place on another.”
Space Exploration: The Cost-Benefit
Before we begin, this section of the article is not meant to provide examples of why space exploration is or is not worth its associated cost (although examples might be given to make a point). I only mean to help those curious to explore the conflicting thoughts behind space exploration and how its corresponding decisions might be made.
The concept of cost-benefit is simple enough to understand. For a given decision, there is an associated cost and its correlating outcome. In general, a decision is more likely to recommended as its cost decreases and benefits increase.
As it may be, “humanity faces many important decisions about space exploration” (2). But given the importance of the possible arrangements, how are we to decide on what has to be done to pursue a deeper understanding for the mysteries of the universe?
To discuss such implications, we will be using a major but somewhat controversial decision-making paradigm – Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA).
The terms “cost” and “benefit” can be extremely subjective based on their context of use and how they are measured. Without a doubt, such flexibility when applied to another broad and subjective topic – space exploration, is a major headache.
Unlike other sectors, the cost-benefit associated with space exploration does not end with only monetary and environmental effects, but also a physical dimension that might directly lead to the loss of human life.
It is with such ambiguous outcomes that non-market valuations for space exploration are a matter of controversy. The world would become a much colder but more efficient place if we resorted to measuring the value of everything in monetary units. But in the end, our capacity for emotions is what makes us human.
No matter the valuation system, even non-monetary (units of ecosystem services or human lives), there will always be objections. Although, make no mistake, the cost-benefit of space exploration cannot be constrained by a value system in any mere human anthropocentric standards.
Yes, there is money to be made with the advancement of space exploration, through stock options, asteroid mining or otherwise; yes, there might be environmental objections regarding excessive carbon emissions or the clutter of space junk; and yes, there will even be objections made against space exploration based on concepts such as aesthetic insensitivity.
But in truth, can such considerations stand against the insight we might gain about our place in the universe? Can human worries change a thing in God’s grand plan for his majestic creation? Humanity might even be wiped out tomorrow in the event of nuclear warfare, a pandemic with a much higher death and infection rate than COVID-19, or even an asteroid that lost its way and decided to land on Earth for a break.
There will be no time for regrets then. We have the freedom to make our own decisions now.
Space Exploration: Astroenvironmentalism
The environmental issues Earth is currently facing is no stranger to anyone alive – the melting of polar ice caps, deforestation, atmospheric degradation; it’s awful, it’s horrible, it’s inhumane, but it is the hole we dug ourselves in.
Instead of focusing our attention on the possible negative impacts of space exploration to the environment on Earth (which was discussed in the first section), Astroenvironmentalism is “a concept that applies the values of environmentalism and preservationism to developments in space exploration, commercialization, and militarization” (3).
To put it more simply, humanity’s responsibility and struggle to preserve the environment of our home planet will have to now be carried into outer space.
The concerns of Astroenvironmentalism include and is definitely not limited to: “keeping the space surrounding Earth clear of pollution, debris, and garbage; the consideration of space and celestial bodies as pristine wilderness that needs to be protected rather than frontiers to be conquered” (3). This might include issues of terraforming without first thoroughly exploring the planet for indigenous life, and the privatization of property in space, as to see that outer space does not become another battleground of militarization.
The fundamental values behind such possible outcomes are unfortunately engrained within humans. Greed, self-centeredness, pride and ego all lead towards self-interest. I am in no place to be pessimistic and criticize political or business views, but that does not mean I, nor many others are satisfied with the current state of the world. Is it not enough to leave one home in shambles, so much so that we turn our sights outwards?
Protecting the frontiers of space from human hands does not mean we stop looking out into the stars, but to establish stringent guidelines humanity can abide by. Even in Star Trek it is known to not disturb civilizations that have not yet developed warp drive capabilities, as to prevent the loss of possible creative potential.
But like all environmental issues, this is easier said than done. “The attempt to apply environmental concepts to the Solar System represents a significant challenge for environmental ethics, since so far as we know at present the solar system, except for Earth, is a collection of nonliving natural objects, the kind of entity that offers the greatest conceptual difficulties for environmental ethics. If serious planning begins without adequate ethical and environmental input, then future NASA and associated industrial/commercial projects in the Solar System may produce a new environmental crisis that swards our current one”. (3)
In the end, it’s not my place to tell you what to think; I simply provide the opposing schools of thought on the topic at hand. But no matter how much you learn, it comes down to belief.
“What do you want to believe? Which one suits you best? Or, perhaps more to the point: Which one told the story you were already telling yourself?”
Michael Paterniti
References
- Schwartz, J. S. J. (2011). Our Moral Obligation to Support Space Exploration. Environmental Ethics, 33(1), 67–88. https://doi.org/10.5840/enviroethics20113317
- Baum, S. D. (2009). Cost–benefit analysis of space exploration: Some ethical considerations. Space Policy, 25(2), 75–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spacepol.2009.02.008
- Miller, R. W. (2001). Astroenvironmentalism: The Case for Space Exploration As An Environmental Issue. Electronic Green Journal, 1(15), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.5070/g311510439
