This is another essay I wrote during
University Writing, enjoy!
Space Colonization is an attempt to solve the problems humanity now faces. Garard K. O'Neill, space settlement expert and founder of the Space Studies Institute based his book, which now stands as the flagship argument for space habitation, in the previous idea. While considering the past violations and plunders by highly developed countries, O'Neill claimed that “[i]t is unlikely...that a large segment of the population in the advanced countries is going to reduce its standard of living by a substantial amount, voluntarily, in order to share the wealth of Earth with emerging nations. [But, there is] a way in which inexpensive, inexhaustible energy sources can be made available to the developing nations without [requiring] self-denial” (O'Neill, 16). O'Neill was troubled at thought that there where “areas of our world where the problems are most severe, almost no one can spare the effort to think beyond the next meal” (O'Neill, 24). He worried that “most people lived out their lives in heavy labor, many as slaves” (O'Neill, 15). He realized, after reading the work of Professor Robert Heilbroner who “studied the consequences...for human political and social development” when resources are dwindling, that on a draining Earth “even in the decades immediately ahead we will be forced to turn to increasingly authoritarian governments” (O'Neill,20-21). The static state that humanity would need to continue with Earth as it only home would be “forced[,] in self-defense[,] to suppress new ideas” and would eliminate “the freedom to order one's life as one pleases” (O'Neill, 22). At its heart, that's what space settlement, as with any scientific challenge, is, an attempt to further and protect the four freedoms. If we stay on Earth, our resources will dwindle. The chaos generated by lack of water will be orders of magnitude greater then the struggle over oil. We will increasingly live in fear as nations seek to invade each other for the necessities of life, not even what is required for human comfort, we will go to war over survival. The freedom to speech and religion will be threatened as dictators rise in a draining Earth.
However, we can't blast off into space, not as a united species. Very few countries have space programs or even the technical expertise to begin one. Still more nations do not have the resources to feed their people. As O'Neill pointed out, the United States has an obligation to ensure that 3rd world countries can enjoy the freedom granted by becoming a space faring nation. However, since the poorer nations do not have the capacity to utilize space, the age of space colonization will bring with it the same challenges and dilemmas, in regards to foreign policy, that faced the United States before it's involvement with World War Two.
When president Franklin D. Roosevelt gave his pre-Pearl Harbor address The Four Freedoms, he was seeking support for the Lend-Lease Act. He wanted the Unites States congress to aid other democratic nations in the protection of the Four Freedoms, which Roosevelt proclaimed were freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom from want and freedom from fear. The US congress needed to be convinced because they were still holding onto the ideas of isolationism. Because of this ideology, the US would not participate or give arms to nations struggling to deal with the Nazi threat. However, just like how nations were not prepared to deal with the Nazi threat, many nations of today are not prepared to compete in a space faring economy.
It would seem the US would aid in the technological advancement of these nations since the address by Roosevelt has been incorporated into our myths; his speech informs our decisions and should inform our actions as a nation active in space. It would seem that Roosevelt, whose word's are now incorporated in the culture of the United States, would ask us to remember “that the safety of our country and of democracy are overwhelmingly involved in events far beyond our borders” (Roosevelt, 2). It was these freedoms which O'Neill and his supporters sought to protect and secure for ourselves and other nations through the multinational settlement of space. However, this idea is not fully reflected in this nation's laws, especially those regarding space.
The International Trade Arms Regulations or ITAR is a Cold War era export control law which limits the sharing of technical information to foreign countries. The major effect of this law in the space community is that no one, even our allies, can discuss technical specifications with US space technology producers. Imagine buying a car without knowing whether or not it had power steering, just knowing that the car turned. It is designed to ensure that our technology is the best by making sure our technological advancements remain in the country. From this nation's perspective, the law is great, but a more global perspective gives a different idea.
Scientist and advisor to the French space program, Jacques Blamont, commenting on the ITAR in his paper International Space Exploration: Cooperative or Competitive said “it is difficult to believe that a large-scale endeavor, which would require technical exchanges on many subjects where American superiority is overwhelming, could be successfully carried out on a day-to-day basis” in the current political environment (Blamont, 91). In effect, our isolation has frozen any possibilities for a large scale space project, such as space habitation. This freeze of international cooperation is demonstrated when we read about Blamont's horror to hear NASA employees exclaim “[i]t is unthinkable that equipment developed in a Federal Center might be used by a foreign agency” (Blamont, 91). Because of experiences like this, he felt that, because of the ITAR and the culture it promotes, there was a “suspicious atmosphere in the USA towards foreign relations” (Blamont, 91). Thus, ITAR is isolationism in space and this isolation has a negative effect.
This self serving isolation is not conductive to a peaceful future nor is it realistic in the vastness of space. Blamont pointed out that “[m]any in Europe believe that it is not a wise choice for [Europeans] to place any long-term strategic trust in the USA” (Blamont, 91).The US has, in the perspective of Blamont and many other Europeans, “shown...a disregard for anyone's interests but its own” , alienating all other nations (Blamont, 91). We are attempting to go forth into infinite nothing by ourselves and we are making enemies in the process.
Is this the correct direction for the United States? Maybe in the past, but the president of the American Historical Association and champion of the idea that American freedom was changed through its interactions with different types of freedoms, oppression and slavery, Eric Foner, would disagree. Foner claimed that the idea of freedom was challenged and modified because “the world we inhabit is getting smaller and more integrated and that formally autonomous nations are bound ever more by a complex web of economic and cultural connections” (Foner, 51). Our international activities have “helped to establish how freedom is understood within the United States” (Foner, 58). We are an international culture already, we have been effected already and we have modified our self image based on observations of other countries. We are, in effect, a product of globalization; what informs our ideals now is not internal.
But this web does not only challenge freedom, it creates a highway where every event or development interacts with other occurrences. Some would argue that a technical edge will ensure our rank on the world power ladder, but the truth is, our technological development is felt everywhere and we feel other countries technical development. We improve Japanese technology by having our developments, in the form of components, create a foundation for new developments. The United States bases our developments on foreign components too. Space activity is further complicated by the International Space Station. We bring up the equipment for Russian experiments and supplies, they bring up food and other parts. The question is are we willing to give up this peaceful cooperation with countries we dropped or threatened to drop nuclear bombs on for a technological edge? Are we willing subordinate other countries, like “Russia [who is not in fact] a cooperative partner, but a subcontractor” for the so called International Space Station (Blamont, 91).
Nussbaum is an American philosopher who wrote a paper exploring the ethical problems encountered when dealing with the problems of globalization. Her paper is of interest when studying the ITAR because of her discussion on American exceptionalism and the fear the drives us to isolate ourselves. She is frank when she points out that “compassion for our fellow Americans can all too easily slip over into a desire to make America out on top and to subordinate other nations” (Nussbaum, 13). In short, she struggles with how to control our compassion for international good.
The isolation imposed by the ITAR and the fear of technical disadvantage brings to mind the ideas discussed in Nussbaum's Compassion & Terror. The blind terror that made American spines tingle after hearing the radio transmission from the Sputnik spawned the ITAR. America was fearful because the Sputnik proved the USSR had the ability to drop a nuclear bomb anywhere when Americas did not have this ability. The USSR had a huge bargaining chip because the USSR managed to upset the balance that was the stalemate between the US and the USSR. The terror of being at a technical disadvantage and having one's military rendered obsolete with one development “could be a stimulus for blind rage and aggression against all the opposi[ng]” nations (Nussbaum, 26). In this environment of fear, the sharing of technical data becomes traitorous, on par with handing over a nation's fleet to its enemy. However, this is blind rage against all nations, an attempt to limit the scientific development of the targeted nation, just to eliminate all possibilities of technical disadvantage. It isolates nations from the scientific community whose insights who be enhanced with other perspectives.
To avoid permanent tension and stress, instead of joy, at every technical advance “we [need to do what Nussbaum suggests and] cultivate a culture of critical compassion...awaken a larger sense of the humanity of suffering, a patriotism constrained by respect for human dignity and by a vivid sense of the real losses and needs of other people” (Nussbaum, 26). Space is a common dream for not only this nation, but for all nations in the world. Everyday we are not space faring is a tragedy for all humans because it is a day we are not utilizing the resources of space. It is one more day we fail to find a permanent and reasonable solution to our energy needs. Not to mention the delaying of cancer treatments, the cure for AIDS, the solution to world hunger and other problems that could be tackled by a united, global scientific community even without the use of space.
Simply worded by President Roosevelt, there are “basic things expected by our people of their political and economic systems”. The lack of these basic needs, jobs, food, opportunity, increasing standards of living and freedom is “the root cause of... social revolution” good or bad. In a world where people are dying of lack, there will be, as predicted by Roosevelt in his speech, “[t]hose who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety”. Thus, the long term goal of the acquisition and use of the resources in space is an attempt to protect freedom because it is an attempt to ensure these basic needs are met. Anything that slows down progress towards the goal of becoming a space faring species is a threat to freedom. American selfishness is one of those roadblocks.
However, international, globalized efforts bring their own problems which we must deal with before moving as species into space. Currently, we are dealing with the death of cultures, sweatshops, increased economic disparity and other social ills brought on by globalization. But why does this matter? Are we not heading into an age of infinite resources, a rebirth of humanity where all our problems will melt with each rocket launch?
The paper The Ethical Commercialization of Outer Space by Dr. David M. Livingston explains why the current state of the world will indicate the how the first stages, and all subsequent stages, of space habitation will look. The paper continues to show the rhetoric and ethic-less thought surrounding the colonial period that is mirrored in the space community with quotes from leaders in the space field. After reviewing the troubling state of the space community, Livingston considers the following quote from “Paul L. Csonka['s]... 'Space Colonization—Yes, But Not Now':
'If space colonization were to be undertaken today at the maximum rate permitted by technology, it is likely that instead of increasing the chances of human survival, it would drastically reduce it. Preliminary studies ought to be undertaken, but large scale colonization should be postponed until such a time when (and if) social and political conditions reach the prerequisite state of sophistication'”(Livingston, 3).
This paints the obstacles to space settlement not as engineering problems, but as social and ethical problems. The social and ethic problems are of increased concern when we release that “initially our voyage to space and the first phases of our expanded space commerce will resemble the business and management models that are exported from Earth”(Livingston, 2). That statement should strike fear in the hearts of humans because it means we will end up fighting over the nearly infinite energy produced by the sun, we will kill despite the plenty that exists in space. The fight will start because we will ignore the plenty and quibble over our share, always ensuring that we have some type of edge, just like we do now as demonstrated by the ITAR.
Csonka's idea is also highlighted by our history as presented in Foner's work, American Freedom in A Global Age. To Americans, as Foner explains when exploring the myths around freedom, “territorial growth meant 'extending the area of freedom...' [.] Those who stood in the way...were by definition obstacles to the progress of liberty. In the outlook of most white Americans, the West was not a battleground of peoples and governments but an 'empty' space ready to be occupied as part of the divine mission of the United States” (Foner, 61). This idea is now part of our myths. When, not if, we look at these myths to inform our choices on how to go forth into this vast nothingness, these stories will be with us. There are also other nations with their own stores of the glory of planting a flag or stories of how it is useless to plant a flag. Their myths of conquering other lands or the founding of their nation will inform their decisions on the use of space. These myths could easily lead to war.
Even attempting to discuss our international efforts in space will bring chaos since each participant's self view will conflict. This is best understood by Devdutt Pattanaik, the Chief Belief Officer at Future Group in Mumbai, whose job is to help companies interact with customers in foreign environments. Through his work, he has concluded that most nations think that “[their] world [view] is always better than [the foreign view], because [their] world [view]...is[, in their minds,] rational and [foreign views are] superstition...”(Pattanaik, 1) . “This is the root of the clash of civilizations” (Pattanaik, 1). This will cause war once we are able to access space because each nation's myths are going to conflict.
At first glance it seems that war will always be it the cards for us, however, it is possible that space it self eliminates the problems of our modern world. People who travel to space experience something called the overview effect. Saudi-Arabian Prince Sultan Bin Salman al-Saud described this as “an opportunity to prove that there is no conflict...Looking at it from here, the troubles all over the world, and not just the Middle East, look very strange as you see the boundaries and border lines disappearing” (Livingston, 7). Once the borders are gone, our compassion for our homeland bleeds into compassion for a land on the other side of the globe. Without boarders, our narcissism becomes silly and we will no longer look for some form of an edge because of the overview effect.
Narcissism will dissolve because the overview effect may be the answer to the problem of death within life presented in Nussbaum's work. This particular problem came up in her paper when she attempted to solve the social issue of the sweatshop by asking “all [people] to care equally for all other [people]”. This doesn't work in the modern day because the only reason that makes people “care for something [is] the though that it is all theirs...and the thought that it is the only one they have”. This is why it is very hard to have people care for others jointly. However, the thought that we live on a fragile planet will instill the idea that the Earth and all life on it is all ours and it is the only place we have. Astronomer and science advocate Carl Segan explains...
The Earth is a very small stage in a vast cosmic arena. Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that, in glory and triumph, they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot....Our posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the Universe, are challenged by this point of pale light...[thus, t]here is perhaps no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our tiny world. ...[The pale blue dot] underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another...(Segan, 7-8)
This is furthered by Dr. Livingston's point “the heavens are already taken and they are not our home” (Livingston, 9). This is the only place where we can live without millions of dollars of delicate, sensitive equipment and we can only visit space with our current technology. Our astronauts, over time, lose muscle function and bone mass and must retreat to this rare paradise we live on. We have yet to master the problems of cosmic radiation, forcing us to stand behind the magnetic shield formed by the Earth. Yet, we are concerned about a technical edge on something so insignificant. Something whose light is made obscure by the light from the billions of stars in our galaxy which is indistinguishable from the billions of galaxy. Something that doesn't matter in the pure, infinity nothingness that separates each planet, each star and each galaxy. It seems we are willing to destroy this life giving pale blue dot in lust for the none substantive things such as financial, technological and social power. 
Furthermore, space may interact with the American myths in the same way that Foner thought freedom interacted with outside events. “American's relationship to the outside world... help[ed] to establish how freedom is understood within the United States” (Foner, 58). Just as the “struggle against Nazi tyranny and its theory of a master race discredited ideas of inborn ethnic”, experiencing the limits of our technology and our bodies may humble this nation (Foner, 66-67). If we realize what Prince Sultan Bin Salman al-Saud realized, will we end up pledging allegiance not to the American flag, but to a flag of humanity. Will we change vastly when American exceptionalism, “the delusion that we have some privileged position in the Universe, [is] challenged by [a] point of pale light” (Segan, 8).
Works Cited
The Ethical Commercialization of Outer Space. David M. Livingston, ASCE Conf. Proc. 204, 16 (2000), DOI:10.1061/40479(204)16
Nussbaum, Martha C. “Compassion and Terror.” Daedalus. 132 (Winter 2003): 10-26. (On UWP list: 06-07; 07-08)
Foner, Eric. “American Freedom in a Global Age.” Who Owns History? Rethinking the Past in a Changing World. New York: Hill and Want, 2002. 49-74
Roosevelt, Franklin Delano. "The Four Freedoms." American Rhetoric. N.p., n.d.. Web. 9 Apr 2010. <http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/fdrthefourfreedoms.htm>.
Segan, Carl. Pale Blue Dot. New York: Random House, 1997. Print.
Pattanaik, Devdutt. "East vs. West -- the myths that mystify" November 2009. Online video clip. TED. Accessed on 12 March 2010.
Jacques Blamont, International space exploration: Cooperative or competitive?, Space Policy, Volume 21, Issue 2, May 2005, Pages 89-92, ISSN 0265-9646, DOI: 10.1016/j.spacepol.2005.03.003
ITAR photo by http://www.pennwellblogs.com/
Thinkers like Gerard O'Neill, Ted Taylor, G. Harry Stine, Edward Gilfillan and many others have warned that a space faring society can destroy themselves. This idea is presented as a solution to the Fermi paradox. But, such a society will be presented with challenges like war, disease and pollution long before they are tested on their ability not to hit the big red button.
