James S. J. Schwartz

Fairness as a Moral Grounding for Space Policy

This chapter takes seriously the prospects for applying Rawlsian ideas of fairness to various aspects of space policy. I argue that Rawlsian ideas of fairness are naturally suited to underwrite orbital access regulations, debris mitigation recommendations, and planetary protection policies. I also explore some of the obstacles to applying fairness to more speculative aspects of space policy, including asteroid mining and space colonization.

Chapter 10 -- Some Ethical Constraints on Near-Earth Resource Exploitation

One of the most common and enduring justifications for space exploration is that resources are limited here but plentiful elsewhere. Exploration has the potential to enable humanity to access the vast store of resources throughout our solar system. Recent discussion (driven to some extent by U.S. legislation and by speculation about the future role of the private sector in space) has tended to focus on what we shall call “near-Earth resources” (NERs), which include those of the Moon and near-Earth asteroids (NEAs). They include: potentially vast stores of water, iron, and platinum-group metals among the NEA population; so-called ‘peaks of eternal light’, i.e. places of uninterrupted sunlight (for solar energy collection) and crater areas in more or less permanent darkness (able to harbour water ice) on the Moon; Helium-3 (He3) in the lunar regolith; and the relatively banal resource of terrestrial orbital niches. What is often lost in the enthusiasm concerning such NERs is that, in spite of the immensity of space, only a small percentage of the NEA population is profitably accessible in the absence of distant, futuristic technology; only so much of the lunar surface (or elevated areas just above it) is permanently illuminated (or shadowed); the He3 concentration in the lunar regolith is very low, geographically differentiated and reduces with depth (the regolith on asteroids is also likely to be less mature and so He3 concentration levels are likely to be even lower); and, as is already well-known, there are only so many available orbital allocations. These practical realities suggest that issues of sustainability will not vanish during at least the early stages of space exploitation, and perhaps at all stages for the foreseeable future. They do not support unrelenting and unregulated utilisation and consumption. In fact, quite the opposite.

Myth-Free Space Advocacy Part II: The Myth of the Space Frontier

ABSTRACT Space advocates commonly compare the settling of the “space frontier” to the settling of the “western frontier” in the United States, arguing that space settlement will realize the same benefits purportedly realized by the western expansion of the United States: the generation of new cultures; the development of new technologies; and the empowerment of democratic governance. However, much of the reasoning here is based on a faulty understanding of history and on an overly optimistic view of what it will be like to live in a space settlement. Thus, I argue that ardent faith in the promises of settling the space frontier is a mythological belief, rather than a well-confirmed one.

On the Methodology of Space Ethics

This chapter addresses space’s impact on the methods of normative and applied ethics. My primary contention, by way of the dispute between value monism and pluralism in environmental ethics , is that our knowledge of the space environment has not advanced to the point where we can say decisively what is or is not intrinsically valuable in space. Thus we do not have adequate grounds for claiming that all that is of value can be accommodated by a single underlying value. We should therefore remain open to the possibility that a pluralist account of value may best suit the ethics of space. More positively, since space is studied in fractured and piecemeal ways, the pluralist outlook may be more conducive to novel reasons for environmental protection—protection that could facilitate broader opportunities for scientific discovery than under the current planetary protection regime. I also argue that our relative ignorance about the space environment raises related difficulties for virtue-based accounts of ethics.

Introduction: The Scope and Content of Space Ethics

The contributions to the volume are accessible and state-of-the-art overviews of several of the major “theoretical” and “practical” issues in space ethics. Ranging from matters of inherent value and theory construction, through to the risks associated with nuclear powered space probes. Multiple disciplines, from astrobiology and space law through to philosophy and aesthetics are drawn upon. The volume introduction address both the scope and history of the ethics of space exploration, and goes on to provide a summary of the individual contributions to the volume.

Rendezvous with Research: Government Support of Science in a Space Society

Mark Brown and David Guston have outlined a framework for addressing state protection of scientific freedom in the contemporary United States, arguing that a limited freedom of scientific research improves democratic governance. I show how this reasoning, with modification, can be applied to protection of scientific freedom in a democratic lunar society, and I argue that lunar society will experience a comparatively greater need to ensure scientific freedom.

Lunar Labor Relations

This chapter defends the claim that at least some essential service strikes will be morally permissible in lunar societies. I argue by analogy with essential service strikes in medicine. The duty to provide medical care is not borne exclusively by nurses and physicians but rather is borne by a wider healthcare community, which includes hospital administrators, insurance companies, etc. If it is permissible for hospital administrators and insurance companies to compete for their interests by making decisions which might negatively affect patient care, then nurses and physicians should have at least a limited right to bargain for their interests (and the interests of their patients), which should include, in extreme circumstances, a right to withhold their labor. Similarly, lunar essential service workers, such as low-level employees in the air production industry, ought to retain the right to strike . The duty to provide breathable air is borne by a large “air production” community that includes air production staff, administrators, and corporations, as well as regulators and the voting public. If other members of this community were to make decisions which resulted in especially egregious working conditions for air production staff, then these employees would have the right to strike to improve their working conditions.