Ethics and Impacts of Space Expansion
The Ethics
of Space
Expansion:
impact and
damage.
Tony Milligan,
Department of Theology and Religious Studies,
King’s College LondonAnthony.milligan@kcl.ac.uk
Space Resources: Promising and Problematic: October 15-
16, 2018. Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study, Harvard
University.
There is no
clear-cut
justification for
space
exploration.
Typical Appeals
•
A duty to extend life/human life.
•
The value of space science.
•
The need for a shift in perspective that space
activity is uniquely placed to bring.
•
We have an innate urge to explore which
should not be frustrated.
•
We must back up the biosphere.
•
Space can relieve resource or population
pressures on the Earth.
•
There are major economic spin-offs.
There is also no
knock-down
argument
against space
exploration.
Ethical arguments geared to an
in principle
rejection of all space activity face a
problem of
realpolitik
: this is going to
happen.
If such arguments draw upon an
understanding of human action as
unavoidably or inherently bad, then they
could also carry implausible implications for
how we live now, here on Earth.
Ethical discussion of
these matters may
best be thought of as
a concern about
how best to
expand
our presence.
‘doing things
in a suitable way and with
appropriate constraints’
‘minimising repetitions of past mistakes’
‘framing the expansion process in a
socially beneficial way’
The focus below will be upon some of the
potentially damaging impacts that an expansion
of our activities in space might have.
Damaging impact
o
Launch sites
Damaging impact
o
Launch sites
o
Space debris (at GEO and especially
at LEO)
Space
debris
Both an issue of environmental harm and
justice.
Typical problem of environmental injustice:
the burden is likely to be carried, in the
future, by a significant number of launch
states but the problem has been generated
by a much smaller number of launch states.
Damaging impact
o
Launch sites
o
Space debris (at GEO and especially
at LEO)
o
Asteroids
Asteroids
Should we worry about damage to
asteroids?
Asteroid
Mining
As long as we are talking about asteroids in the
restricted sense (not minor planets in the asteroid
belt like Vesta or Ceres) terrestrial grounds for
environmental protection (e.g. protecting integrity
and/or diversity) are unlikely to carry over
effectively. There is little talk about the need for
‘asteroid protection.’
Ethical examinations of asteroid mining are not likely
to focus upon in situ damage but may focus upon
its sustainability, and about how best to contain the
impact of such mining elsewhere (on our terrestrial
economy, on the minor planets and on Mars).
Damaging impact
o
Launch sites
o
Space debris (at GEO and especially
at LEO)
o
Asteroids
o
Lunar strip mining for
3
He
Lunar
Mining
Given the variability of
3
He deposits, their
concentration in the upper regolith,
3
He mining
could require extensive surface disruption.
This makes such mining a far strong candidate
for an environmental ethics critique.
Ethical
Problems of
Lunar Mining
Lunar ‘integrity’ may be placed at risk by extensive
mining for
3
He, or extensive regolith use for habitat
construction. The moon is ‘inherently important’ or else
it is a culturally significant object, part of our common
heritage.
•
Future science may lose important opportunities.
•
Future generations may lose important experiential
opportunities.
•
Such change is unwelcome and irreversible.
Impact of
asteroid
mining-1
Asteroid mining for
3
He, although technically
more demanding than lunar mining, could
relieve pressures towards lunar mining.
This may help an ethical case for asteroid
mining.
Impact of
asteroid
mining-2
Extensive asteroid of any sort (e.g. for
platinum group metals) could, however,
bring a problem of containment.
A sustaining mining industry would require
access to the Main Belt, and a base of
operations for the latter…somewhere with a
shallow gravity well. Mars fits the bill. This
would give ground for reasonable ethical
concern.
Unless we restrict ourselves to a specialised theory which holds that
ethical concern is appropriate only where there is sentient life
(sentientism) or an existing ecosystem (e.g. a ‘Land Ethic’) then various
environmental ethical considerations which apply in the case of the
Earth will also apply in the case of Mars.
Unless we restrict ourselves to a specialised theory which holds that
ethical concern is appropriate only where there is sentient life
(sentientism) or an existing ecosystem (e.g. a ‘Land Ethic’) then various
environmental ethical considerations which apply in the case of the
Earth will also apply in the case of Mars.
Note: in each case of damaging impact
above, ethical
constraining
can also be
seen (plausibly) as
enabling
…it keeps open future opportunities
which might otherwise be lost.
At least some of
the issues above
also pose a
dilemma about
how we run
ethical
arguments in
space.
Do we:
A) Go metaphysically deep and talk
about ‘value’ and ‘inherent value’
of places and of possible microbial
life?
B) Stay more pragmatic and appeal
to universally accepted
considerations: human interest,
future generations, sustainability and
distributive justice (who gets to own
or to appropriate things)?
‘precursor-
apt’ or
‘policy-
apt’?
This might not be an ‘either’/’or’ story.
In precursor discussions, we may want to draw
upon matters of depth (and so include various
perspectives on ‘value’ or ‘inherent value’).
In policy discussions, we may want to draw upon
insights from precursor discussions, but in a way
more likely to yield a workable consensus.
Ethical considerations surrounding space exploration and expansion are discussed, highlighting both promising and problematic aspects. The debate includes the value of space science, environmental impacts, and the need for responsible expansion to mitigate potential damages. Topics such as launch sites, space debris, and the ethical challenges of extending human activity into space are explored.
Download Presentation
Please find below an Image/Link to download the presentation.
The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author. Download presentation by click this link. If you encounter any issues during the download, it is possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.
E N D
Presentation Transcript
Space Resources: Promising and Problematic: October 15- 16, 2018. Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study, Harvard University. The Ethics of Space Expansion: impact and damage. Tony Milligan, Department of Theology and Religious Studies, King s College London Anthony.milligan@kcl.ac.uk
Typical Appeals A duty to extend life/human life. The value of space science. The need for a shift in perspective that space activity is uniquely placed to bring. We have an innate urge to explore which should not be frustrated. We must back up the biosphere. Space can relieve resource or population pressures on the Earth. There are major economic spin-offs. There is no clear-cut justification for space exploration.
Ethical arguments geared to an in principle rejection of all space activity face a problem of realpolitik: this is going to happen. There is also no knock-down argument against space exploration. If such arguments draw upon an understanding of human action as unavoidably or inherently bad, then they could also carry implausible implications for how we live now, here on Earth.
doing things in a suitable way and with appropriate constraints Ethical discussion of these matters may best be thought of as a concern about how best to expand our presence. minimising repetitions of past mistakes framing the expansion process in a socially beneficial way
The focus below will be upon some of the potentially damaging impacts that an expansion of our activities in space might have.
Damaging impact o Launch sites
Damaging impact o Launch sites o Space debris (at GEO and especially at LEO)
Space debris Both an issue of environmental harm and justice. Typical problem of environmental injustice: the burden is likely to be carried, in the future, by a significant number of launch states but the problem has been generated by a much smaller number of launch states.
Damaging impact o Launch sites o Space debris (at GEO and especially at LEO) o Asteroids
Asteroids Should we worry about damage to asteroids?
As long as we are talking about asteroids in the restricted sense (not minor planets in the asteroid belt like Vesta or Ceres) terrestrial grounds for environmental protection (e.g. protecting integrity and/or diversity) are unlikely to carry over effectively. There is little talk about the need for asteroid protection. Asteroid Mining Ethical examinations of asteroid mining are not likely to focus upon in situ damage but may focus upon its sustainability, and about how best to contain the impact of such mining elsewhere (on our terrestrial economy, on the minor planets and on Mars).
Damaging impact o Launch sites o Space debris (at GEO and especially at LEO) o Asteroids o Lunar strip mining for 3He
Lunar Mining Given the variability of 3He deposits, their concentration in the upper regolith, 3He mining could require extensive surface disruption. This makes such mining a far strong candidate for an environmental ethics critique.
Ethical Lunar integrity may be placed at risk by extensive mining for 3He, or extensive regolith use for habitat construction. The moon is inherently important or else it is a culturally significant object, part of our common heritage. Problems of Lunar Mining Future science may lose important opportunities. Future generations may lose important experiential opportunities. Such change is unwelcome and irreversible.
Asteroid mining for 3He, although technically more demanding than lunar mining, could relieve pressures towards lunar mining. Impact of asteroid mining-1 This may help an ethical case for asteroid mining.
Extensive asteroid of any sort (e.g. for platinum group metals) could, however, bring a problem of containment. Impact of asteroid mining-2 A sustaining mining industry would require access to the Main Belt, and a base of operations for the latter somewhere with a shallow gravity well. Mars fits the bill. This would give ground for reasonable ethical concern.
Unless we restrict ourselves to a specialised theory which holds that ethical concern is appropriate only where there is sentient life (sentientism) or an existing ecosystem (e.g. a Land Ethic ) then various environmental ethical considerations which apply in the case of the Earth will also apply in the case of Mars.
Unless we restrict ourselves to a specialised theory which holds that ethical concern is appropriate only where there is sentient life (sentientism) or an existing ecosystem (e.g. a Land Ethic ) then various environmental ethical considerations which apply in the case of the Earth will also apply in the case of Mars.
Note: in each case of damaging impact above, ethical constraining can also be seen (plausibly) as enabling it keeps open future opportunities which might otherwise be lost.
At least some of the issues above also pose a dilemma about how we run Do we: A) Go metaphysically deep and talk about value and inherent value of places and of possible microbial life? ethical B) Stay more pragmatic and appeal to universally accepted considerations: human interest, future generations, sustainability and distributive justice (who gets to own or to appropriate things)? arguments in space.
precursor- apt or policy- apt ? This might not be an either / or story. In precursor discussions, we may want to draw upon matters of depth (and so include various perspectives on value or inherent value ). In policy discussions, we may want to draw upon insights from precursor discussions, but in a way more likely to yield a workable consensus.
