Welcome to Counter Argument Thursday. This is where I write blog post the is opposite and critical of my position on space habitation and space habitation. I do not agree with the position in the blog post, but it is an argument I need to address.
People will not be careful in the way they use space. Space is lifeless, but the Earth, which is unique with its ability to support life, is not respected. Forget recycling, people will not put stuff in designated landfills which are sealed against leaking and somewhat environmentally friendly. Parks and uninhabited areas on Earth often turn into dumping yards. Illegal dumping area are not sealed and the waste will leak into drinking water. Trash is dumped into the sea, we even have the Great Pacific Ocean Garbage Patch. People do not recycle Aluminum, the holy grail of recyclables. How on Earth do you expect people to be green in space when there is not environment to protect.
The orbital debris argument is valid, but if we land on a plant, why should I care about the trash I leave behind. If there is a piece of failed equipment that cannot be serviced, why bother bringing it back to Earth. The waste will be organized and contained in a safe way, but I am not hauling my waste back to Earth. I can dump fuel in space if I need to without any short term dangers.
Look, space is about survival. Space is a harsh environment. Survival has a priority over conservation, the short term will always win over the long term in space. Thus, we cannot protect space. Combined with a lack of a market force to protect space, it cannot be done.
Reactions
-How do we develop a market force to convince people to protect space?
-Could legislation work?
In Case You Skimmed
- There is not enough market force or reason to force people to be considerate in their actions in space.
