Ethics of Colonization
One big reason given for not colonizing other planets is that it may be unethical. For example, mining asteroids for iron seems like it could be a great thing. But what about all the people that get put out of work here on Earth, or the impact on the economies of the developing nations that depends on mining exports?
Similarly, terraforming comes with its own ethical pitfalls. By messing with other planets, we may destroy yet undiscovered life or ruin the potential for future life. In a 2010 lecture research astronomer and Jesuit brother, Guy J. Consolmagno, voiced this concern saying, "What if there is no life on Mars or Titan or some other place we're going to go to, but all the ingredients are there, such that at some future time life could exist. The potentiality of life is there and, by terraforming it, we're aborting that possibility. Under what circumstances is that an ethical thing to do?" Some people think that it certainly isn't ethical, and that we should fix up the havoc we've wreaked on out own environment instead of destroying others. |
Consequences Aren't Always Good
There are also those who think that even if we can colonize other planets we shouldn't for a variety of reasons, either ethical, political, or social. Here we outline some of these perspectives.
"The potentiality of life is there and, by terraforming it, we're aborting that possibility." - Guy Consolmagno |
Political Consequences
|
Another potential issue raised by those opposed to space colonization is that it could lead to a space-based arms race, sowing the seeds for devastating conflict back home on Earth. If individual nations or companies establish colonies, this could lead to conflict or even war, as different groups try to stake claims. Particularly with regards to the moon, which would provide the ultimate high ground in any sort of war, there is a major risk associated with non-international colonization schemes.
In addition, a 1967 treaty, popularly known as the Outer Space Treaty, signed by major world powers including the United States, Russia, and China, states that, "Outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means.” Obviously, this doesn't bind private companies like SpaceX or Mars One, but if, for example, the United States violates this treaty, Russia and China would be likely to as well, potentially leading to armed conflict on the moon. |
Economic Viability
Contrary to the views espoused by proponents of space colonization, there are some who think that colonization isn't economically viable. Energy is expensive, and it takes a lot of it to get things off of Earth and into outer space. This is a costly project, and many people think that the indirect financial rewards we get from newly developed technology don't do nearly enough to offset this cost.
Science fiction author and space enthusiast Charles Stross gives this reasoning on his blog, citing a paper in The Space Review. "Whichever way you cut it, sending a single tourist to the moon is going to cost not less than $50,000," he says. "And a more realistic figure, for a mature reusable, cheap, rocket-based lunar transport cycle is more like $1M. And that's before you factor in the price of bringing them back." Mars is even more expensive, and we aren't likely to get the funds back directly. The distances between planets are huge, making any back and forth trading between a colony and Earth difficult, costly, and thus very unlikely. At best, a Martian or lunar colony will become self-sufficient without a constant influx of Earthly goods. |
Success Means Losing It All
Another potential consequence of the harshness of space is that to successfully colonize other planets we must adapt ourselves to become cyborgs. There is a certain appeal and perhaps a biological necessity to adapting our bodies with technology so that we can survive in the extremes of outer space.
However, one might question whether this actually meets the goal of preserving the species. What if to successfully establish permanent extraterrestrial settlements we must become more machine than man? For example, if in the future we are able to create "mind clones" and send them to colonize other planets, does that count as a preservation of humanity? Many people are uncomfortable with this idea, and would argue that it doesn't. Thus, if this is what it takes to be successful in this venture, they would argue against it.
However, one might question whether this actually meets the goal of preserving the species. What if to successfully establish permanent extraterrestrial settlements we must become more machine than man? For example, if in the future we are able to create "mind clones" and send them to colonize other planets, does that count as a preservation of humanity? Many people are uncomfortable with this idea, and would argue that it doesn't. Thus, if this is what it takes to be successful in this venture, they would argue against it.