Last night I peered at the moon through the window next to my computer. As my eyes roved the lunar surface, I wondered where on that white disc the Apollo astronauts had landed, where they drove their rovers, and from where they dug up the moon rocks that I occasionally see in museums or state capitols. It has been thirty years since a human has traveled 240,000 miles to walk across those dusty plains. As I watched the moon float through the branches and buds of the oaks outside, I wondered if anyone would ever be able to sit on the moon as casually as I am sitting here now—his gaze drifting between the glowing computer monitor in front of him and the glowing blue-green circle out his window.
It is my opinion that the colonization of the Moon would be beneficial to human kind. Indeed, exploration of any region of Outer Space—Mars, the asteroid belt, the Jovian moons, etc.—is worthy of pursuit. For thirty years, space programs have been shuttling humans in and out of orbit on a regular basis, establishing orbiting space stations (the latest of these being the International Space Station) and launching satellites to transmit phone calls and internet data, gather military intelligence, and collect images of the distant reaches of the universe. Space programs, wary of risking life and tax dollars, send only robotic probes, such as the Viking probes or the Mars Pathfinder, to the void outside of the shelter of Earth's gravitational field. But there are many compelling arguments for further human exploration of Outer Space.
WHY LEAVE THE EARTH?
The most practical of the arguments for leaving the Earth’s surface states that leaving the Earth is necessary for the survival of the human race. In the long view of things, the Sun will, in several million years, "go nova" and expand to engulf the Earth. It is not possible for humans to survive such an explosion if left only on the Earth. And if the Sun's "going nova" didn't happen first, there is a high likelihood of a meteor or asteroid crashing into the Earth and destroying much of its life. In the long view, then, we must make sure we have an escape from this island paradise before the tsunami hits.
Furthermore, it is clear that human population is ever-expanding. Though current estimates suggest that human population will level off at 11 or 12 billion, the current population is already considered by some to be well beyond the proper carrying capacity of the Earth. Dense human populations have detrimental effects on the natural environment, and cause unnecessary harm to ecosystems and individual organisms. If an adequate space program were developed, humans could travel to the Moon or to Mars, easing the strain of a high human population on Earth. Mining asteroids or the Moon could also provide the inhabitants of Earth with more resources—resources that did not have to come at the risk of endangering wildlife habitats and human health on Earth. Some asteroids, for example, are rich in iron and nickel and would be valuable resources to those who could mine them. Also, if all human industry were moved to Outer Space, the fragile ecosystems of Earth would suffer much less pollution. That is the long view. At present, we must travel for knowledge, for adventure, for international cooperation, and for aesthetic pleasure. It is possible to continue sending robots to Mars, for example, to have them explore the Red Planet, but robots are only capable of so much. Humans, with their ever-adapting minds are better suited for the exploration of extraterrestrial places.
There has been tentative evidence from an asteroid found in Antarctica that bacteria and microbes once lived on Mars, but this has never been confirmed. If we sent humans to Mars, they may be able to verify the existence of life outside of our own biosphere. In the 1997 film Contact (directed by Robert Zemeckis, based on the book by Carl Sagan), the young Doctor Arroway (played by Jodie Foster) asks her father, “Do you think there’s people on other planets?” And her father replies, “I don’t know … but I’d say if it is just us, it seems like an awful waste of space.” Humans, as far as we know, are the lone sentient species of the universe. If we were able to find other sentient species, that knowledge alone would justify any amount of spending on space exploration.
Furthermore, it is fundamentally a human trait to be curious. Humans, it seems, are curious about the nature of extraterrestrial objects and phenomena. Science fiction literature and film have for centuries explored human interaction with Outer Space. Jules Verne, Ray Bradbury, Arthur C. Clarke, Isaac Asimov, and many others have all done their part to fuel interest in the future interactions between humans and their future. If we forsake the curiosity that drives the inquiries of science fiction, then we not only forsake the work of the creators of science fiction, but we also forsake the inventive, creative, and curious nature of humans.
I do not think it too strange to presume that human-made art is to be highly valued, and that the world is a better place when more art is in it. With that in mind, let us consider briefly the role of the landscapes in art. Georgia O'Keefe, for example, painted the deserts of New Mexico, and the viewers of her paintings are often awed by her smooth gradients of colors and they are inspired by the barren vistas before them. There is no doubt that these desert paintings of Ms. O'Keefe have added much good to the world, and they could not have done so without being done in such a unique place, namely, Taos, New Mexico. If we extend this thinking to include the landscapes of the Moon, of Mars, and other rocks orbiting the sun, then we must conclude that the art produced on and of these places will be profoundly different from art that is created on the Earth, and that this extraterrestrial art (whether it be painting or poetry) will benefit humankind by providing not only new subject matter for art, but also new insights into humanity and its surroundings.
Of a more practical concern for people today, the space program is capable of united the nations of the world under a common goal. The Cold War is over, and with it the race to the Moon. Now nations are cooperating like never before in order to further space exploration. The nations of Europe work together to fund and operate the European Space Agency (ESA), and the US is cooperating with Russia to operate the International Space Station (ISS). With NASA’s shuttle fleet currently grounded due to the Columbia disaster, American astronauts are flying to the ISS aboard Russian Soyuz rockets. Further space exploration will only increase the amount of international cooperation. Consider, for example, if an international coalition were formed to put a person on Mars. The citizens of all the nations involved would certainly experience a shared excitement, and the heads of state would respond in turn, seeking friendship and alliance to further the effort of a Martian landing.
In response to all of these arguments for the exploration of Outer Space, some say: “We've got enough problems down here. Why waste our money jumping into the sky when we could be using it to relieve world hunger?” The cost of ending world hunger is estimated to be about $5 billion annually. This figure is only ten times the cost of one Space Shuttle mission, and less than half of NASA’s current budget. The benefits of ending world hunger and saving countless lives far outweigh the benefits of risking human lives to travel alien places not meant for human habitation. The obvious solution is to cut funding on the space program, and save human lives.
This objection is a serious one, but I believe its attack on the space program is misplaced. Since 1950, the US military budget has been consistently close to $300 billion annually. Military spending seems to me to be directly at odds with humanitarian efforts. It is better to divert funds from weapons manufacturing rather than from knowledge-gaining endeavors in Outer Space. A decrease of 6% in military spending could curb world hunger, while this same money could come from a 50% decrease in NASA’s budget. This is the law of diminishing returns: the decrease in NASA’s budget would drastically limit the organization, while a much smaller decrease in military spending would produce the same effect without drastically compromising the effectiveness of the military. A further objection to the pursuit of space flight can be raised. The Earth is suffering from poor environmental policies, and many of its precious wilderness areas are destroyed for personal, corporate, or national gain. Many of the places that we have set aside are overrun by tourists, making them less wild than ever. The planets and moons of our solar system are in the most pristine state of nature, and they should be left alone.
This objection fails to recognize that life is only found on Earth, and the diversity and flourishing life in a given area are significant criteria in allocating wilderness areas. Furthermore, if every object in the Solar System were treated as a wilderness area, then the natural conclusion would be that the Earth itself (the home of billions of unique life forms and vast swaths of pristine wilderness, such as the oceans) is the most deserving of all to receive protection as a wilderness area. But this is absurd, for then humans would have to leave the Earth in order to preserve it. This means they would either have to travel to another planet (impossible if all extraterrestrial objects were kept completely pristine) or die off (absurdity). Many of the objects in the Solar System are deserving of special protection as pieces of wilderness. The Great Red Spot or the rings of Saturn, for example, are unique and have special cultural and aesthetic significance. On Earth we take efforts to preserve unique ecosystems, species, habitats, and geologic phenomena. In Outer Space we should also take efforts to preserve what is unique and what is significant. .
HOW BEST TO LIVE IN OUTER SPACE
It seems clear that humans will not cease their journeys to the regions of Outer Space anytime in the near future. Despite the grounding of NASA’s space shuttles in light of the Columbia disaster, Americans are still flying to the International Space Station aboard the Russian Soyuz shuttles. But as NASA evaluates the safety and effectiveness of its shuttle fleet and as the Mars Society pushes for the rapid deployment of astronauts to Mars, it is important to consider the best approaches to space flight and the eventual colonization of moons or other planets. In his book, The Case For Mars, Robert Zubrin writes, “The required propellant and supplies needed for a Mars mission do not have to come from Earth. They can be found on Mars.” He demonstrates how a simple chemical process is able to convert the CO2 atmosphere of Mars into usable rocket fuel, suitable for launching a human crew back to the Earth after a short stay on Mars. This “Mars Direct” plan would save money on the initial launch of a Mars rocket, since that rocket would not also be carrying the weight of fuel needed for a return trip. Zubrin’s proposal suggests that travel to Mars is perhaps not so outrageous after all. He writes that the Mars Direct plan would cost merely $20 billion, only seven percent of the current American space budget, and less than one-third the budget of the Apollo program.
The Mars Direct proposal carries at its heart a profound notion of sustainability. It purposefully uses as few resources from the Earth as possible, and instead harvests the local Martian atmosphere for raw material. Zubrin characterizes the Mars Direct plan as being in the spirit of early North American fur trappers and traders: they could not carry all the supplies they needed with them, so they lived off the land instead, hunting and gathering along the way.
As the rate of space exploration increases, and more astronauts sail through the stars, it becomes more and more foolish to think that all of their supplies will be carried with them from Earth. If humans were to strap all the necessary supplies for a long voyage into a spacecraft, they would not only be added unnecessary baggage and weight (and thus cost) to the craft, but they would also be stripping the Earth of valuable resources and shipping them into irrecoverable void of Outer Space. It is essential that any long term missions off the Earth use extraterrestrial resources to the fullest extent possible.
While future missions to Outer Space must use extraterrestrial resources, those resources must not be plucked from the planets, moons, and asteroids without some caution. There are places of extreme beauty and historical significance that ought be preserved and not be destroyed for commercial gain. Just as the Great Barrier Reef and the Grand Canyon are magnificent places worthy of our protection and care, so are Olympus Mons (the highest volcano in the solar system) and Valles Marineris (a Martian canyon that would stretch the length of the United States). Outlining some of the basic criteria for places that ought to be protected, Holmes Rolston III writes, “Respect any natural place spontaneously worthy of a proper name.” While the ethicists of the early 21st century lack much data to determine exactly which extraterrestrial places ought to be preserved, and which ones developed, it is certainly obvious that as humans explore Outer Space they should be mindful of the value of the places they encounter.
The international community has not been silent in matters of space exploration. In 1967, members of the UN drafted the Outer Space Treaty (whose full title is the Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies). The Outer Space Treaty has been signed by 27 nations, including the US. This treaty achieves several notable ends: the demilitarization of Outer Space (Article IV), prohibition of private ownership of territory (Article I), and freedom of exploration and investigation (Article I). Most importantly for the environmental ethicists, Article IX declares that “States Parties to the Treaty shall pursue studies of outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, and conduct exploration of them so as to avoid their harmful contamination and also adverse changes in the environment of the Earth.” This article clearly has good intentions, but if falls short of actually indicating a definition of contamination or the nature of a regulatory body that would govern these affairs. Furthermore, the treaty does not allow for the creation of specific wilderness areas.
The 1979 Moon Treaty is a later attempt to regulate the activities of nations in Outer Space. Officially, it is called the Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, and the US has yet failed to sign it. This treaty continues in the tradition of the Outer Space Treaty, and includes the same statement of avoiding contamination that is quoted above. But the Moon Treaty goes further, and in Article VII indicates that States will report to the Secretary-General concerning the environmental impact of their actions. In addition, Article VII allows for the allotment of “international scientific preserves” that are of special or significant scientific interest. These “scientific preserves” are a step closer to wilderness designation, but still are lacking. There is yet no indication of the nature of a regulatory body to govern the allocation of “scientific preserves” and the terminology does not indicate any inherent value in the environments of Outer Space. A better treaty would clearly indicate both the value of extraterrestrial environments and the precise nature of the regulations and government that would be established to enforce wilderness designations.
One lacking feature from both the Outer Space Treaty and the Moon Treaty is the establishment of private property in Outer Space. Many Web sites claim to sell acres of the Moon or of Mars, but this is more a novelty than any officially recognized business transaction. Private property was forbidden in these treaties mainly due to American fears that Soviets would lay claim to lunar resources before America could. The treaty states that the “moon and its natural resources are the common heritage of mankind” (Article XI, paragraph 1). Any resources extracted would be shared equally among the states, with special consideration going to developing nations and those nations directly involved in space exploration. This idea of common property is generally considered to be detrimental to the efforts of exploration and development of the Moon: it “would discourage—if not outright prevent—the development of Lunar resources any time soon.” It was mainly for this reason that the United States failed to ratify the treaty. Some might find the lack of development would be beneficial because it would preserve the extreme pristine state of nature found on the Moon and other planets and moons. But the benefits to be gained by this approach are quite fewer than the benefits to be gained by further exploration and development of Outer Space (both by public and private institutions; private institutions play an especially important role now, with NASA under intense scrutiny and unable to manage its finances). Since the US has not signed the Moon Treaty, it could yet recognize private property in Outer Space. With a strict regulatory body (presuming it could be defined and established) watching out for important wilderness areas, corporations and nations could reap the benefits of private ownership and exploitation of the land.
It also seems inevitable that colonies situated many thousand miles from the surface of the Earth will, in time, grow separate from the governments and institutions of the Earth, and have little regard for the policies implemented there. George S. Robinson and Harold M. White, Jr. have already prepared a “Declaration of Independence” for “space migrants” wishing to separate themselves from their ties to Earth. To avoid revolt in the Outer Space colonies (sometime in the far future)—those colonies who do not wish to split equally their dividends with all the countries of Earth—it seems best to allow private property from the start. But we should also be prepared for the eventual secession of lunar or Martian colonies from their parent governments.
Someday all of this may become a reality. Now it is only speculation, and we must do the best we can to ensure the protection of the most important regions of Outer Space while encouraging exploration beyond our precious blue globe.
1. Hartman, William K. “Space Exploration and Environmental Issues.” Beyond Spaceship Earth. Ed. Eugene C. Hargrove. USA: Sierra Club Books, 1986. p. 132
2. Ibid. p. 126.
3. McGovern, George. “The Real Cost of Hunger.” United Nations Chronicle: Online Edition. Volume 38, Issue 3 (2001). April 27, 2003. http://www.un.org/Pubs/chronicle/2001/issue3/0103p24.html
4. Council for a Livable World. April 16, 2003. April 28, 2003. http://www.clw.org/milspend.html
5. Zubrin, Robert. The Case For Mars. Touchstone Books, 1997. p. 3. Rolston, Holmes III. “The Preservation of Natural Value in the Solar System.” Beyond Spaceship Earth. Ed. Eugene C. Hargrove. USA: Sierra Club Books, 1986. p. 172.
6. “Outer Space Treaty.” United Nations Office at Vienna: Office for Outer Space Affairs. April 1, 2003. April 28, 2003. http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/SpaceLaw/outerspt.html Note: the text of the Outer Space Treaty can be accessed from this site.
7. For a full discussion of the idea of wilderness and the Outer Space Treaty and the Moon Treaty, see Bishop, William P. and Paul F. Uhlir. “Wilderness and Space.” Beyond Spaceship Earth. Ed. Eugene C. Hargrove. USA: Sierra Club Books, 1986. pp. 195-201.
8. The text of the Moon Treaty can be found at: “Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies.” United Nations Office at Vienna: Office for Outer Space Affairs. April 1, 2003. April 25, 2003. http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/SpaceLaw/moon.html
9. Robinson, George S. and Harold M. White, Jr. Envoys of Mankind: A Declaration of First Principles for the Governance of Space Societies. USA: Smithsonian Institution, 1986. p. 192.
10. Reynolds, Glenn Harlan. “Key Objections to the Moon Treaty.” April 28, 2003 http://nsschapters.org/ hub/pdf/MoonTreatyObjections.pdf
11. Robinson, George S. and Harold M. White, Jr. Envoys of Mankind: A Declaration of First Principles for the Governance of Space Societies. USA: Smithsonian Institution, 1986. p. ix.