THE ETHICAL DIMENSIONS OF SPACE SETTLEMENT

More documents

Recommendations

Info

ecocentrism. Undoubtedly however,extraterrestrial life, of whatever kind,would also be assigned intrinsic valuefrom the ecocentric perspective 20 . Wewould have to further the interests ofwhatever life forms we encounter in space.Bacteria at home on Mars would havemoral priority over humans. Theirscientific usefulness to us would beirrelevant as a criterion for theirpreservation. They would be entitled tothis by right. To the ecocentrist,terraforming Mars is only moral if it istruly a barren world.Cosmic PreservationismIt is clear therefore that geocentric theoriesof environmental ethics, when projectedinto space, do not categorise spacesettlement and terraforming as wrong.This has caused some philosophers toreact with concern. Those who believe thatnature should be respected as it is,irrespective of context, feel that whateverthe intrinsic values of terrestrial life and itssubsets, these are not values that can beimposed on the extraterrestrialenvironment. The cosmos has its ownvalues, they claim, and its mere existencegives it not only the right to exist, but theright to be preserved from any humanintent. Such a moral principle we mightcall the Principle of the Sanctity ofExistence, with uniqueness as its basis ofintrinsic value. Moral behaviour undersuch a system would involve non-violationof the extraterrestrial environment and thepreservation of its existing state.Uniqueness is a slippery concept andcould conceivably be applied to allexisting objects, from whiffs of interstellargas to galaxies. The fuzziness of valuedistributed in this way seems to underminethe very point of moral philosophy sinceits only imperatives are to exist and not toprevent other things from existing.Rolston 34 , an exponent of Preservationismhas therefore defined the uniqueness set ascontaining any object—alive or not—of“formed integrity”, or “worthy of a propername”, generated by the "spontaneousconstruction" that arises from the playingout of the laws of nature. His presciption isthat, "... humans ought to preserve projectsof formed integrity wherever found." Mars,and all its features—large and small—would be entitled protection withinRolston's ethic. Rocks would have rightson Mars.To those who are bemused by this idea,Marshall 35 (another cosmicpreservationist) ripostes with the beliefthat intrinsic value is not imposed byhuman beings, but merely involve humanrecognition of value. To him, rocks alsohave a viewpoint that commands respect:existing in, “... a blissful state of satorionly afforded to non-living entities.” Withrespect to Mars especially, Marshalladvocates strict enforcement policies topreserve the planet in its existing, or"natural" state.It is curious to note that, at the end of theirpapers, both these philosophers appear tomake a partial retreat from theirprescriptions. Perhaps these are fall-backpositions in the expectation of strictpreservationism never being accepted.Both urge that if space settlement everproceeds then a representative portion ofthe extraterrestrial environment should bepreserved, but cast doubts on whether thisis realistically possible. If life were to befound on Mars then Marshall augments hisposition with ecocentrism andrecommends permanently quarantining theplanet. Ideally, cosmic preservationistswould like terrestrial life to stay at home,to observe and empathise with theuniverse, not to invade it.REFLECTIONS AND CONCLUSIONS.Would terraforming Mars, and spacesettlement generally, lead to thebetterment of humanity? The answer is alikely yes, given the caveat mentionedabove, that the process is not to thedetriment of the population that remainsresident on the Earth. Would theseactivities be to the betterment of life as awhole? Here, we can reply with a certainyes. Life is a phenomenon at least 3.8billion years old with no intrinsic expiry6
date. Yet our Solar System is middle agedand the Sun’s fiery senescence will ensurethat the Earth will not remain habitableindefinitely. Total extinction of terrestriallife can thus only ultimately be avoided byvacating our planet for a more benevolentlocale elsewhere in the cosmos.Would terraforming lead to the bettermentof Mars itself? It is this question that is atthe heart of the debate. Yet if Mars is abarren planet, does this question even fallwithin the scope of morality?Preservationists would have it so, andothers whose philosophy is less clear cut.It is common at conference debates to hearpeople, whose earth-bound ethic is clearlynot preservationist, articulating apreservationist line with regard to thecosmos. Whilst choosing one’s paradigmaccording to context and personal tastemay be problematic within science, it isnot necessarily so in philosophy. Youcould reject realism (belief in a universalmoral standard) and argue instead forrelativism or pluralism and apply differentethical theories to different situations; andeven if you remained a realist, you havethe initial choice of a wide variety ofbelief systems. But doesn’t this freedom initself cast doubt on the validity of thevalues claimed for non-human, andespecially non-living, objects? It doesseem that, whatever the intrinsic value innature beyond the confines of our humanbodies, since morals are there to constrainour behaviour, values still seem to boildown to what we think and how effectivewe are at influencing the behaviour ofothers.Does a barren Mars really have intrinsicworth, or are the claims to this effectactually human values in disguise? Astriking feature of the ethical spectrumdisplayed in Table 1 is that the further onelooks down the Table, away from theposition of anthropocentrism, the greater isthe moral constraint on human freedom ofaction within the environment and thegreater are our duties towards it. Sincemorality is there to regulate our behaviouralone, these philosophies often resort tojustifying their positions withmisanthropic arguments: gloomy critiquesof humanity that emphasise our capacityfor evil. To the zoocentrist, humans areunnecessarily cruel to our fellow creatures;to the ecocentrist, we are seen on the onehand as nothing special, and on the other,uniquely arrogant and destructive. To thecosmic preservationist, the idea of lettingloose such a wicked and cancerous specieson the Universe at large is nothing short ofan abomination. Misanthropy thus alsoincreases in measure down Table 1, andsince misanthropy is evidently held as avaluable belief by some, it is itself ahuman value of sorts.The same applies to sentimentality, nicelydefined recently as, “the elevation offeelings, image, spontaneity over reason,reality and restraint. 36 ” A prime exampleof this is the ecocentrist notion ofecological harmony: that there exists anideal balance in nature that is perfect,unchanging, and which nurtures andsustains. Yet this is little more than a cosyillusion, based on out of date ecology.Nature is not static and unchanging and isbetter regarded as a continuous state offlux dominated by chaos anddisharmony 21,37 . The history of our planettells us in no uncertain terms that anyharmony that may appear as anepiphenomenon of this state of affairs istransient. Innovation, evolution andextinction—all processes of irreversiblechange—represent the true natural order oflife and, on differing timescales, they are apartial reality for inanimate existence too.And whilst it is reasonable to propose thatanimals with advanced nervous systemsmight have feelings, and therefore a pointof view, surely it is gross sentimentality topropose such a thing for rocks. After all, asentimental terraforming enthusiast mightpropose that, far from the rocks on Marsexisting in a state of “blissful satori” (as apreservationist would have it) they mightinstead be “crying out for life.” Botharguments are unedifying. Rocks don’tthink, don’t act and don’t care. Theycannot have values of their own.Consider two scenarios where life isbrought to a barren Mars and the differingreactions environmental philosophersmight have to each... For the purposes of7
Page 5: vegetarian groups 27 . Many of thes
Page 9 and 10: faring is a legitimate activity for

THE ETHICAL DIMENSIONS OF SPACE SETTLEMENT

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?