The Problems in Thinking about Humans and Space

spacedaily.com ^ | Mathew Faulk

[RightWhale]

A philosophy of space? Private property rights in space? Neo-confucianism in space?

[Support Free Republic]

Hi mom!

[BenLurkin]

Private property in space? HELL YES!

There is nothing about exploring space that should be any different than the exploration of earth. Space law is likely to be an extension of Martime Law.

Beyond that, there are two technologies that have to be developed before any significant move into space will occur:

1) Completely self-contained space envorinment. Once set up, no more water, air or nutrients required. Ideally there would be one unit for each person who goes up and that will stay with them until they decide to sell it and return to earth, or it otherwise passes into another space dweller's possession. Of course, more practical in the near term, easier to develop and thus more likely in the near term will be self contained multi-person units owned and operated by corporations, consortiums or (shudder)communes.

and 2)Cheap earth to orbit tranportation. This is coming soon I suspect.

[BenLurkin]

Speaking of private property in space: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1000282/posts 8^)

[RightWhale]

According to the UN Treaty on Outer Space we already have property rights to the stuff we launch. It is rights to celestial resources that we lack.

[BenLurkin]

Hmmm . . . could get interesting if ever there is a resource out there worth fighting over.

[RightWhale]

How about the assumed small pool of water at the lunar pole? The only water on the moon would be of incalculable value. How about a carbonaceous chondritic asteroid--mudball? How much is it worth? The maritime law will be less important than the law of the desert. Fights will occur over ownership of oases.

[BenLurkin]

bump

[Dan Cooper]

Space, so far as it is presenting itself today, is therefore a new form of human related phenomena, one specifically lacking in any serious philosophical contemplation or address by both philosophers and everyone else involved, as it stands in contemporary form.

Where has this guy been? There is a huge body of work dating from Jules Verne that explores the relation of humans and space. Perhaps because it doesn't appear in some philisophical journal it can't be taken seriously.

Therefore, philosophy is one of those basic areas that lies as the foundation to a successful project. ... It is therefore a good solid philosophical foundation, or the lack thereof, that stands as the basis for many of the problems within space exploration. This leaves those involved, the media, the industry, the government, in the need of create a place for philosophers at this table and at this time; this will take an active attempt to include philosophers and philosophy.

This sounds like a recipe for nothing ever happening. The expansion of humans into space will be messy, like any other human endeavor. We don't need a commitee to make it tidy beforehand. Let the Chinese establish communism on the moon, let the X-Prize entrepenuers make a buck selling space rides, let the military build space warships, let's strip mine the asteroids without filing an environmental impact statement!

Jeez, philosphers!

[LiteKeeper]

read later

[RightWhale]

I didn't note any pure philosophy in this article at first glance. Maybe one of the special practical philosophy disciplines such as ethics could get a lot of exercise during the development of space resources.

[Gorjus]

A philosophy of space?

Gee, what a coincidence! A philosopher decides we need a philosophy of space. Why didn't I think of that?

There are only two philosophies that matter, and they apply everywhere. One is that individuals should be responsible for their own lives, and the other is that all rights and responsibilities are collective. One can invent any number of shades and combinations of those two extremes, but in the end all those 'philosophies' only espouse a particular balance between them. If we want a 'new' philosophy for space, it should be to reduce the reliance on collective action and let the pendulum swing back toward indivldual initiative. If there had been a NASA when Wilbur and Orville were tinkering, we'd still be walking. Oh, silly me. There was a NASA-equivalent back then. Good ol' Langley and his government-subsidized approach notable for creating the first splashdown - in the Potomac.

I'm not holding my breath. The government bureaucrats 'own' space in a way that would prevent any meaningful commercial exploitation of it, except in the ways that have already been done (communications satellites, etc.). Can you imagine what would happen if an investor group got together to develop a mission to snag a nickel-iron asteroid and bring it back to earth? In real terms it wouldn't cost any more than developing the (first) Alaskan oilfields and pipeline, and the return on investment would be about 50:1 (neglecting the drop in steel prices that would result from that much ore hitting the market - a manageable problem, as the deBeers crowd has demonstrated). Yet if they tried, the UN would demand the value of the asteroid as 'the common heritage of all mankind' and the enviro-wackos would fill their panties at the idea of that massive rock moving toward the Earth. Only government can fight government, and only the U.S. government has a chance against the UN and the other one-world government sycophants.

And right now, the U.S. governemnt, at least on space matters, is so dominated by NASA that we'll never make the transition from money-sink (a fair definition of any government-bureacracy run project) to money-source.

[Dan Cooper]

I meant to say, let the Chinese try to establish communism on the moon ;}

[Bernard Marx]

Well, maybe neo-Confucianism or some modern Chinese variant.

If we let Beijing take the "high ground" as it has announced it plans to do, any high-falutin "philosophy of space" will be dictated by the guys with the weapons, strategic position and power as always. This reminds me of the mental masturbation indulged in by Carl Sagan and the Planetary Society. They were much more interested in creating planetary "human-free" zones than in getting us there. I confess I could only stomach about 3 paragraphs of the article before looking for a barf bag. Several generations of SF writers have devoted themselves to the "philosophy of space." Maybe Faulk should start there.

[RightWhale]

Philosophy is more than ethics, but the problem of development of our space resources would be resolved overnight if the 1967 UN Outer Space Treaty were withdrawn from and Congress or the President created a Land Office to register private claims to celestial resources. Wouldn't cost more than hiring a clerk to run the land office.

[RightWhale]

A philosopher decides we need a philosophy of space.

It won't be written by committee. A philosopher, if any are left at this late date, would entomb himself in his study with his logical investigations and emerge some time later with a finished work ready for publication.

[RightWhale]

maybe neo-Confucianism

Might be the ticket to conquering the stars. A galaxy of competent clerks and bureaucrats.

[Gorjus]

development of our space resources would be resolved overnight if the 1967 UN Outer Space Treaty were withdrawn from, and . . . register private claims to . . . resources.

Would that it were so! But I'm afraid you're wrong on both points. First off, a piece of paper (the UN Treaty), while certainly an impediment and something that should be torn up, is only a small part of the total problem. The whole concept that government must 'run' any space program will keep it from being profitable, regardless of the UN treaty.

And I have often stated that in our current society the most egregiously violated provision in the Bill of Rights is the 'takings' clause of the 5th Amendment. Title to private property means less than nothing to the bureaucrats. That's where they go hunting for money, not any sort of protection to one's own economic value.

[RightWhale]

That's where the land office comes in. Granted, it does not confer complete ownership rights, but it's way ahead of no rights.

[Gorjus]

. . . emerge some time later with a finished work ready for publication.

And this matters because . . . ?

The problem of man's role in space will not be resolved by an essay, no matter how scholarly it is written. There either needs to be a military advantage (or credible claim to one, as in the space race to the moon) or an economic advantage - or mankind will gradually withdraw, at least any manned involement. Unless you believe your philosopher will discover a military advantage to the use of space - one that's not already obvious - his/her essay won't really make any difference in what real people do. (Action based on economic advantage is even less likely to be swayed by a philosopher's essay. That takes credible return-on-investment calculations that are based on math, not philosophy.)