Welcome to the Sunday Paper Club. Every Sunday, this blog will offer an analysis of a paper on space habitation and other related topics. These are my opinions on a weekly scientific paper; basically, I read the paper and write down my thoughts while I read it. They are subject to my perspectives and believes. I am open to debate, so if any reader believes I have misinterpreted something in a paper, please point it out. I'm only a student and I'm still learning how to read these papers and interpret them. All quotes and ideas are from the paper, unless otherwise noted.
This week we are reviewing the paper The Ethical Dimensions of Space Settlement. I am using a new format based on the Lifehacker article Back to School: Keep an Academic Reading Journal.
Article Information
Title: The Ethical Dimensions of Space Settlement
Author(s): Martyn J. Fogg
Date: April 2002
Journal: Space Policy
Volume: 16
Issue: 3
Pages: 205-211
Article Overview
This paper gives an overview of 4 ethical system and how Mars settlement fits within the system. It is focused on terraforming due to its massive impact on Mars’ environment. The article concludes claiming Preservationism is the only system our of the four studied that will not allow terraforming.
Key/Interesting Quotes
“…the challenge of space settlement involves the creation of artificial and autonomous biospheres which can resist or adapt to local barren conditions. Here we have the reason why settlement lags at least four decades behind travel and still remains to happen: the science of life-support systems is much more complicated and poorly understood than rocket science.” Page 1
“While generating considerable interest at the time, the fashion for O'Neill's ideas has declined to be replaced by an enthusiasm for Mars.” Page 1-2
“Haynes was the first to turn his attention to these questions and to commend the concept of terraforming Mars as an ideal arena within which to develop future, cosmocentric, environmental ethics” Page 2
“Anthropocentric morality would therefore hold that, although our obligation toward nature is indirect, it is nonetheless real.” Page 3
“Mars must surely surrender its scientific secrets first before it is exploited and if there is life there, then it must be studied in its natural environment. If the expense of space settlement could be shown to incur a net detriment to human well-being, then this would also rule out the enterprise.” Page 3
“To the ecocentrist, terraforming Mars is only moral if it is truly a barren world.” Page 4
“The cosmos has its own values, [preservationism claims], and its mere existence gives it not only the right to exist, but the right to be preserved from any human intent.” Page 4
“Would Mars be a better place transformed into a living world? Preservationism would say no, but its movement from what is descriptively true of Mars to a prescriptive claim is arbitrary and unconvincing.” Page 6
“Yet if spacefaring is a legitimate activity for microbes, why should it not be so for humans?” Page 6
Personal Response to the Article
I think preservationism does lead to a good idea. Yes, it would be hard to function if a rock had rights, but the idea of leaving things alone could be useful. For example, it could be useful to leave geologically active areas of Mars untouched for studies (and safety). I also think we have no choice to use a ecocentrict view while settling space because that world view will force us to avoid microbes which do not have rights under anthropocentrism or zoocentrism.
Questions Raised by the Paper
How would someone with a zoocentrist view feel about terraforming Mars if it had life on it?
Photo Credit: Miss K ★
