J.S. Johnson-Schwartz

This chapter highlights pushes to commercialize space exploration as foils for raising questions about which fundamental values and goals spaceflight serves, emphasizing the interdisciplinary nature of these issues. It also provides a summary of the book. Intended to contribute to professional philosophical discourse, this book is also intended to be accessible, meaningful, and relevant to individuals from a wide range of disciplinary and vocational backgrounds—from planetary scientists to political scientists; from astrobiologists to anthropologists; from space program employees to lawyers and legal scholars. The reasons why we should reject most basic tenets of space advocacy, and the reasons the book offers in their place, should be persuasive to a wide audience, including philosophers as well as anyone with serious interests in space exploration and space policy.

This chapter provides a detailed and epistemologically informed defense of the intrinsic value of scientific knowledge and understanding. It responds to Lars Bergström’s criticisms of the value of scientific knowledge. It then devises a naturalistic approach to intrinsic value that is used to argue that true belief (and, in turn, knowledge) is intrinsically valuable because true beliefs are valued for their own sake, and such acts of valuation help to explain the overall scientific worldview. It next considers and rejects Duncan Pritchard’s attempt to show that understanding is more epistemically valuable than true belief, arguing that Pritchard’s view of understanding as a cognitive achievement fails to include anything of epistemic value other than the epistemic value of the true beliefs which are compresent with understanding. Finally, it uses virtue-theoretic approaches to epistemic value to generate _prima facie_ obligations to acquire scientific knowledge and understanding.

This chapter considers and rejects traditional spaceflight rationales, accenting the insubstantial evidence that is usually offered in their support. It uses regression analyses and public opinion data to show that spaceflight activities do not have a clear impact on either STEM degree conferral rates or overall scientific literacy within the United States. Next, it uses public opinion data to show that the general public is not especially interested in astrobiology or in the scientific search for extraterrestrial life. It also uses genetics and anthropological research to show that there is no innate human biological compulsion to explore space. Finally, it describes and criticizes the “space frontier” metaphor as well as basic arguments for space resource exploitation and space settlement.

This chapter argues that the scope of planetary protection policies should be expanded to include all potential sites of interest to space science. It begins by providing an overview of planetary protection policies and their history. This is followed by discussions of Charles Cockell’s views on the ethics of microbial life, Holmes Rolston’s views on the preservation of natural value in the solar system, and Tony Milligan’s views on respecting natural integrity in space. It argues that each view unnecessarily understates the scope of science’s interest in the protection of space environments. Since every space environment is virtually unexplored, as a precautionary default it should be assumed that a space environment is of interest to science (and thus worth protecting) until otherwise proven.

This chapter argues that there is not an urgent need for humans to establish space settlements. It defends the existence of an in-principle obligation to settle space to ensure long-term human survival, and shows that such an obligation is not defeated by various forms of skepticism about duties to future generations, including the “Non-Identity” problem. However, it argues that for the foreseeable future, space settlements will not be effective tools for ensuring long-term human survival, and that for the time being, the scientific exploration of space should be prioritized over space settlement. It also argues that space settlements would risk the wrongful exploitation of settlers and their descendants, and that space settlement would be impermissible if it led to diminution of reproductive autonomy.

This chapter argues that space resource exploitation should not be encouraged through enabling legislation. It discusses the legal context of space exploitation, rejecting oft-repeated promises that space exploitation will yield tangible benefits for the majority of humanity. Surveying recent planetary science research, it argues that most of the easily accessible space resources are scarce, and so do not exist in quantities capable of ameliorating terrestrial resource depletion. It also identifies a need to regulate the use of space resources to prevent especially scarce resources such as lunar and asteroidal water from being wasted on projects that benefit only the already fortunate. It argues that scientific uses of space and its resources should be prioritized.

This chapter provides a defense of the instrumental value of scientific knowledge and understanding as well as a defense of the use of public funds in support of scientific research, including space science. It motivates a more sophisticated understanding of the “spinoff” justification for space exploration by drawing on research in philosophy of science which connects social progress to scientific progress, and scientific progress to scientific exploration. This establishes the instrumental value of scientific (including space) exploration. It then uses a framework derived from Mark Brown and David Guston to argue that democratic states have obligations to provide wide-ranging and substantial support for scientific research, including space research. Finally, it provides an overview of various space research projects, identifying the ways they contribute to democratic governance. It also contains a discussion of the crewed vs. robotic exploration debate.

This concluding chapter argues that scientific exploration of the space environment should remain a priority even if space settlements are established, and even if technological breakthroughs decrease the cost of spaceflight enough to increase spaceflight activities by orders of magnitude. It addresses the enduring need to engage in scientific examination in order to establish the viability of space environments for human habitation. It also reaffirms the value of scientific exploration, knowledge, and understanding—which will only become more significant in space societies, if they are ever established. The Epilogue concludes by addressing the possible development of revolutionary technologies, the opportunity costs associated with prioritizing scientific exploration, and the future value of scientific exploration, knowledge, and understanding in space.

We only see Mars from Earth's perspective in the first season of The Expanse, but Season 2 changes that by introducing Gunnery Sergeant Bobbie Draper, a Martian Congressional Republic Navy (MCRN) marine. Mars as seen by Martians resembles our Mars: ruddy, rocky, dusty, inhospitable, and cold. This chapter focuses on Draper and the Mars Congressional Republic (MCR). What is striking about the culture of the MCR is how naturally it flows from contemporary visions of space exploration, especially those from the Apollo era forward. For somewhat more specific examples, the chapter considers the “Statement of Philosophy” of the National Space Society, another well‐known space advocacy organization in the US. The MCR's commitment to terraforming Mars demonstrates that its future depends “upon the progress of science and technology.”

"The Value of Space Science provides a rigorous assessment of the value of scientific knowledge and understanding in the context of contemporary space exploration. It argues that traditional spaceflight rationales are deficient, and that the strongest defense of spaceflight comes from its potential to produce intrinsically and instrumentally valuable knowledge and understanding. It engages with contemporary epistemology to articulate an account of the intrinsic value of scientific knowledge and understanding. It also parleys with recent work in science policy and social philosophy of science to characterize the instrumental value of scientific research, identifying space research as an effective generator of new knowledge and understanding. These values found an ethical obligation to engage in scientific examination of the space environment. This obligation has important implications for major space policy discussions, including debates surrounding planetary protection policies, space resource exploitation, and human space settlement. Whereas planetary protection policies are currently employed to prevent biological contamination only of sites of interest in the search for extraterrestrial life, it contends that all sites of interest to space science ought to be protected. Meanwhile, space resource exploitation and human space settlement would result in extensive disruption or destruction of pristine space environments. The overall ethical value of these environments in the production of new knowledge and understanding is greater than their value as commercial or real commodities, and thus, exploitation and settlement of space should be avoided until the scientific community adequately understands these environments"--

Terraforming is a process of planetary engineering by which the extant environment of a planetary body is transformed into an environment capable of supporting human inhabitants. The question I would like to consider in this paper is whether there is any reason to believe that the terraforming of another planet—for instance, the terraforming of Mars—is morally problematic. Topics related to the human exploration of space are not often discussed in philosophical circles. Nevertheless, there exists a growing body of philosophical literature dedicated to sorting out the moral implications of the use of resources from (and in) space. Most of this literature is produced as environmental philosophy. Questions of ..

This book aims to contribute significantly to the understanding of issues of value which repeatedly emerge in interdisciplinary discussions on space and society. Although a recurring feature of discussions about space in the humanities, the treatment of value questions has tended to be patchy, of uneven quality and even, on occasion, idiosyncratic rather than drawing upon a close familiarity with state-of-the-art ethical theory. One of the volume's aims is to promote a more robust and theoretically informed approach to the ethical dimension of discussions on space and society. While the contributions are written in a manner which is accessible across disciplines, the book still withstands scrutiny by those whose work is primarily on ethics. At the same time it allows academics across a range of disciplines an insight into current approaches toward how the work of ethics gets done. The issues of value raised could be used to inform debates about regulation, space law and protocols for microbial discovery as well as longer-range policy debates about funding.

The moral obligation to support space exploration follows from our obligations to protect the environment and to survive as a species. It can be justified through three related arguments: one supporting space exploration as necessary for acquiring resources, and two illustrating the need for space technology in order to combat extraterrestrial threats such as meteorite impacts. Three sorts of objections have been raised against this obligation. The first are objections alleging that supporting space exploration is impractical. The second is the widely held notion that space exploration and environmentalism are at odds with one another. Finally, there are two objections to using space resources that Robert Sparrow has raised on the topic of terraforming. The obligation to support space exploration can be defended in at least three ways: (1) the "argument from resources," that space exploration is useful for amplifying our available resources; (2) the "argument from asteroids," that space exploration is necessary for protecting the environment and its inhabitants from extraterrestrial threats such as meteorite impacts; and (3) the "argument from solar burnout," that we are obligated to pursue interstellar colonization in order to ensure long-term human survival.