After decades of stagnation, the emergence of private space companies such as Elon Musk’s Space X and Jeff Bezos’ Blue Origin brought a new dynamic to the space industry. What sounded like a fairy tale yesterday could be reality the day after tomorrow. Konstantin Tsiolkovsky, the founder of modern cosmonautics, wrote as early as 1911: “The earth is the cradle of humanity, but one cannot forever live in the cradle.”
However, as plans to transport humans to Mars and then establish permanent settlements on the Moon and Mars develop, so does opposition to the colonization of space.
Kelly and Zach Weinersmith recently published a book called Can We Settle Space, Should We Settle Space, and Have We Really Thought This Through? (Penguin Books). For these two authors, there are simply too many uncertainties. They argue that we might be able to think about space settlement sometime in the distant future, but we are nowhere near that point yet.
Some of the concerns they raise are worth considering, including unresolved questions as to whether humans can reproduce safely in low-gravity conditions and whether babies can develop normally in such environments. They do write, however, that the Chinese are already planning experiments in which monkeys will mate on their space station – so perhaps we will get our first answers then.
However, many of the questions are contrived and it is clear that the authors have adopted the typical approach of intellectual doubters, who first want a definitive and final plan that answers all conceivable questions before they will even begin to act. This contrasts with the mindset of the entrepreneur, who takes action and continuously solves new challenges as they arise.
Some concerns are absurd, such as the idea of states bombarding each other with asteroids. Others are contradictory, for example when they write such as the argument that space settlement is without obvious economic benefits while also highlighting the potential for nuclear powers to engage in conflict over prime plots of land on the moon or Mars.
The book is full of misgivings, which on the one hand is not such a bad thing, because having a devil's advocate on this and other topics can be beneficial as it forces the advocates of space settlement to sharpen their arguments. The authors also happen to be right about some things: we do not need to seek a replacement planet because the climate catastrophe will soon destroy our planet – and even if we did, it would already be too late. No, the colonization of other celestial bodies will not eliminate wars on Earth nor will it lead to the creation of perfect utopian societies.
But many of the concerns raised seem to have been included simply because the authors wanted to catalog every single possible reason why we shouldn’t go into space right now.
For instance, they ask how operations can be carried out safely under microgravity conditions; whether couples would have to tether themselves to each other during sex in low gravity; how psychiatric care could be provided for people suffering from mental illness on Mars; whether a permanent stay on Mars would have a negative effect on the psyche; whether medication for mental disorders would be negatively affected by space radiation; and how the profits from asteroid mining could be distributed “fairly.”
The authors declare themselves to be supporters of the so-called “1979 Moon Agreement” (UN Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies). This international agreement, which, fortunately, has only been signed by a total of 18 countries (not including any space-faring nations), declares the solar system to be a particularly communal form of res communis, known in international law as “common heritage of mankind” (CHM). The authors explain what that would mean: “If the Moon were under a CHM framework and you wanted to use Moon water, you would have to compensate all of humanity by some means.” Such an approach could also be described as space socialism. And under such conditions, what company would want to fund space missions or get involved in asteroid mining? Socialism has never worked on earth and it won’t work in space either.
In response to the assertion that “space exploration is a natural urge,” the Weinersmiths argue that: “Most of us are not in fact famous explorers. Most of us prefer to vacation in places that have pastries and air-conditioning, not Mount Everest or the Amazon basin … If exploration is a natural human urge that must be satisfied, why are so many of us happy to sit on our couches…” To this I would counter: Progress has never been achieved by the kinds of people who prefer to sit on their couches, but by those who refuse to settle for an average existence, those who stand out from the crowd, who are more curious, and who are perhaps also more adventurous.
An entrepreneur who, before setting up a business, thoroughly considered every one of the hundreds of potential problems that could occur, as the Weinersmiths do when they raise myriad concerns against the colonization of space, would end up doing exactly what the authors recommend: “What we do think is that space settlements probably are, and ought to be, a project of centuries, not decades ... Wait for big developments in science, technology, and international law, then move many settlers at once.” They would dawdle and delay – and never do anything at all. Just imagine: If the Weinersmiths had been around when our first human ancestors learned to make fire, they would have said: “Hold on! We need to wait until we’ve got a perfectly functioning fire brigade and precise plans on what to do if a fire gets out of control. You should wait until we’ve got every eventuality covered.”
