Does Space Need Environmentalists? (noemamag.com) 59
Does space need environmentalists, asks the headline from a new article in Noema magazine. "As astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson notes, the first trillionaire will be made in space.
"But amid such promising developments are worries among some scientists and environmentalists who fear humans will repeat the errors that resource extraction has wrought on Earth..." If we have mining in space, do we need a preemptive anti-mining campaign to protect our solar system from rampant exploitation before it is too late? Earth-bound environmental advocates and astrobiologists alike have concluded that, indeed, we need an environmental movement in space... [Daniel Capper, an adjunct professor of philosophy at the Metropolitan State University of Denver] is part of a small but growing chorus of intellectuals who argue that we must carve out protections sooner rather than later — backed by a concrete theoretical and legal framework — for certain areas of the solar system. The United Nations has convened a working group on the use of space resources, and the International Astronomical Union has set up a different working group to delineate places of special scientific value on the moon.
Some researchers have proposed creating a planetary park system in space, while others advocate for a circular space economy that minimizes the need for additional resources. The nonprofit For All Moonkind is advocating for the protection of space sites of cultural importance, like the Apollo 11 landing site. And the Astra Carta, backed by Britain's King Charles, advocates for making sustainability a key component of space activities... [Martin Elvis, an astronomer with the Center for Astrophysics at Harvard University and the Smithsonian Institution] proposed setting aside 7/8ths of the solar system as wilderness, in a paper published in 2019 in Acta Astronautica that he coauthored with King's College London philosopher Tony Milligan...
[T]he lack of norms — clear rules and regulations around space — is one of the most pressing threats to the space environment, advocates say. What might happen, for example, if the United States simply began scooping up asteroids for platinum, or if Blue Origin established a mine at the lunar South Pole without securing consensus from others? "We do not have good answers to those questions right now," Hanlon said. "This is something that I'm really concerned about." Much of the legal basis for the space environmentalism movement is currently contained in just one article of the Outer Space Treaty (OST), said Christopher Johnson, the director of legal affairs and space law at the Secure World Foundation. Article 9 of the OST contains the harmful contamination language and says actors must pay "due regard" to the interests of others. It also stipulates that "harmful interference" with the activities of others must be avoided. Those phrases could be interpreted in multiple ways and have yet to be meaningfully tested.
The article cites two concrete proposals moving forward:
"But amid such promising developments are worries among some scientists and environmentalists who fear humans will repeat the errors that resource extraction has wrought on Earth..." If we have mining in space, do we need a preemptive anti-mining campaign to protect our solar system from rampant exploitation before it is too late? Earth-bound environmental advocates and astrobiologists alike have concluded that, indeed, we need an environmental movement in space... [Daniel Capper, an adjunct professor of philosophy at the Metropolitan State University of Denver] is part of a small but growing chorus of intellectuals who argue that we must carve out protections sooner rather than later — backed by a concrete theoretical and legal framework — for certain areas of the solar system. The United Nations has convened a working group on the use of space resources, and the International Astronomical Union has set up a different working group to delineate places of special scientific value on the moon.
Some researchers have proposed creating a planetary park system in space, while others advocate for a circular space economy that minimizes the need for additional resources. The nonprofit For All Moonkind is advocating for the protection of space sites of cultural importance, like the Apollo 11 landing site. And the Astra Carta, backed by Britain's King Charles, advocates for making sustainability a key component of space activities... [Martin Elvis, an astronomer with the Center for Astrophysics at Harvard University and the Smithsonian Institution] proposed setting aside 7/8ths of the solar system as wilderness, in a paper published in 2019 in Acta Astronautica that he coauthored with King's College London philosopher Tony Milligan...
[T]he lack of norms — clear rules and regulations around space — is one of the most pressing threats to the space environment, advocates say. What might happen, for example, if the United States simply began scooping up asteroids for platinum, or if Blue Origin established a mine at the lunar South Pole without securing consensus from others? "We do not have good answers to those questions right now," Hanlon said. "This is something that I'm really concerned about." Much of the legal basis for the space environmentalism movement is currently contained in just one article of the Outer Space Treaty (OST), said Christopher Johnson, the director of legal affairs and space law at the Secure World Foundation. Article 9 of the OST contains the harmful contamination language and says actors must pay "due regard" to the interests of others. It also stipulates that "harmful interference" with the activities of others must be avoided. Those phrases could be interpreted in multiple ways and have yet to be meaningfully tested.
The article cites two concrete proposals moving forward:
- "The Artemis Accords, a set of principles for exploring and using resources in outer space established by the U.S. in 2020, argues that resource extraction does not constitute national appropriation, and is therefore allowed by the OST. It's an initial step toward securing a consensus on space regulations, and one that's to date received the signatures of 47 nations including Japan, the United Kingdom, France and Germany (though China and Russia are notably absent). Signing the Artemis Accords allows nations to participate in the Artemis program, and also play a role in shaping future norms in space, Johnson said, a potentially lucrative incentive... "
- "The UN's COPUOS, the same one responsible for the OST and the Moon Agreement, published a working paper in 2019 that laid out voluntary guidelines for the long-term sustainability of outer space activities. Recommendations from the committee's working group on principles for the use of space resources are due in 2027, and Johnson said draft guidelines are likely to emerge in early 2025."
"One day, our descendants might live among the stars," the article concludes. "But we must ask ourselves, what kind of place will they inherit?"
Elon Musk wants to die on Mars (Score:5, Funny)
And I for one don't see why we should stand in his way. If we all put in like $20 we could buy a Falcon Heavy trip to send him there next week.
Re: Elon Musk wants to die on Mars (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
You should go see a psychiatrist. Your post should have been downvoted and deleted immediately but I guess /. is a reddit style cesspit or echo chamber like blue sky where people live out their violent fantasies.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There's no need to verbally bash Trump, its redundant.
Re: (Score:2)
There's no need to verbally bash Trump, its redundant.
Sure there is. Trump verbally bashes everybody else with complete impunity and he needs to learn the simple lesson that: "He who dishes it out out needs to be able to take it." ... instead of constantly whining about what a victim he is every time somebody gets tired of his shit and bashes back.
Re: (Score:2)
Fantasy Land (Score:3)
Re: Fantasy Land (Score:3)
Exactly the right line of thought: calculate the effort we should expend protecting conditions of this small planet which sustains us and is unique in the universe and fragile, and calculate the effort we should spend protecting the cold dead vastness of space that will kill us in a second. As an environmentalist the whole idea is bizarre. Save the planet actually refers to life on the planet and conditions for it, nothing we can do will harm the stone of the earth. Thereâ(TM)s nothing to protect in sp
Re: Fantasy Land (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We already expend considerable effort to keep space somewhat pristine, at least when it comes to visiting other worlds. We sterilise as best we can, try to avoid crashing stuff we haven't cleaned there.
Even Earth orbit satellites are supposed to have extra fuel to dispose of themselves.
Saving weight and money aren't the be-all and end-all in space. Novelty stuff gets sent up regularly. Curious Marc on YouTube posted a video about the teletype on the Shuttle, a heavy and bulky item that ended up there becaus
So it is really about power (Score:4, Insightful)
The argument for terrestrial environmentalism, when you criticize the fact they have never once been right about anything and quickly jump from one shoddy scientific paper to another if it makes their case, is that even if they are wrong, someone has to do something because we only have one home, and if we screw it up, we are toast.
The argument for space mining is that you really donâ(TM)t have that problem. To quote Douglas Adams: Space is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space.
Now the fact they want environmentalists in space just in case you screw up an imaginary utopia that may or may not evolve there at some point in the future is just giving away the game: environmentalism is about power, the power to regulate what you do, how you make money and what they should impose you to pay them for imaginary damages.
Re: (Score:2)
Future generations are imaginary, and just as easily as you can imagine humanity losing the fight against nature you can also imagine it continuing to defeat nature like its been progressively doing since before writing. Even the many tales of epic civilization-ending floods also predate writing yet here we are. That happens with within a rapid catastrophe, not over a hundreds of years.
(will someone reply defending
Re: (Score:3)
Environmental science has been mostly right for decades, especially about pollution and climate change.
Where it's possibly needed in space is where it can cause problems, like filling LEO with crap that then pollutes the upper atmosphere when it gets dumped there. We are going to have thousands, maybe tens of thousands of these things de-orbiting every year. Some percentage will be uncontrolled too. Not enough is known about the effects, but what is known isn't promising.
Re: So it is really about power (Score:1)
No, it has been proven wrong on both counts. Remember the hole in the ozone layer was going to kill us all with radiation from space. Acid rain was going to eat our houses, burn our skin and salt the land. Global cooling was going to freeze us all to death. The global reduction in emissions has caused earth to warm faster because less emission changes the albedo of the planet. Ice at the arctic should be mostly gone, instead it has regrown, air should be unbreathable by now, we had until 1980, 1990, 2000,
Seriously? (Score:2)
Given the infinite number of astral bodies out there, even in our relative proximity, do you really think we'll have any moral dilemmas regarding their exploitation?
Scope, timing, and shared wealth (Score:1)
Space ain't the backwoods. Nobody goes there and builds an industry solo. Getting to space is a such a monumental achievement that I will never accept any claim that it shouldn't be considered a shared achievement of almost our entire species.
So nobody should be able to profit from exploiting space to the point that all its resources end up under the control of a few of us. That's the scope and shared wealth issue.
As for timing - there's so much out there it'll be a thousand years before even the 'low ha
Re: (Score:2)
Its simple logistics. Earth cannot logistically receive the entire industrial output of an overpopulated solar system. Earth will in fact hardly matter at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Well fuck, that'd be an awesome point if it was at all related to my post.
I was talking about my descendants not living in a Solar System owned by Musk Corp.
Send Greenpeace to Mars (Score:2)
At least they won't be causing disruption here on Earth.
Betteridge's Law? [Re:Does anybody?] (Score:2)
Re: Betteridge's Law? [Re:Does anybody?] (Score:2)
No, environmentalists protect life, not rocks (Score:4, Informative)
Does Space Need Environmentalists?
From the dictionary: "Environment - the surroundings or conditions in which a person, animal, or plant lives or operates."
So the answer is overwhelmingly no, environmentalists protect life, not rocks. We will encounter almost exclusively, if not in our entirety, lifeless rocks.
Now consider the number of rocks in the asteroid belt or ort cloud. Mining would be insignificant. Having less of an impact than the normal bumping and grinding these lifeless rocks are engaged in.
However if we find life, or the potential to support life, environmentalism would be needed.
what about claim rights to that mining? (Score:2)
what about claim rights to that mining?
First to "dig" on site (Score:3)
what about claim rights to that mining?
First to "dig" on site. Claim ends a certain time period after "digging" ceases. Time period somehow proportional to amount of material removed.
Rage-bait title (Score:2)
Re: Rage-bait title (Score:2)
Cart before Horse - Kessler Syndrone (Score:5, Insightful)
The article doesn't mention the Kessler Syndrome, which is when orbital debris collisions cascade resulting in limited ability to use satellites and/or leave the planet safely.
That's the biggest risk if you ask me.
The articles concerns are irrelevant at this time. Space debris is an active ticking time bomb.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Most Active Risks:
* Number of satellites is increasing very quickly mostly due to Starlink.
* Space is being weaponized - I believe an event of aggression will cause Kessler Syndrome in not too many years.
Last I checked (Score:2)
7/8ths of the solar system (Score:2)
You could strip-mine every planet down to the bedrock and still have 3/8ths of the Sun itself you could siphon off and sell off to any passing Class II Civilizations that somehow managed to survive the Great Filter.
Environmentalists: why we can't have nice things (Score:1)
Don't build that.
Don't drive that.
Don't water your lawn.
Don't live in that house.
Don't eat meat.
Don't Don't Don't.
Space is hard enough as it is without adding another layer of anti-intellectual, anti-technology, anti-prosperity parasites into the critical path.
Charge them all with sabotage and/or treason, as appropriate. And hang the convicted from the tallest redwood.
Re: Environmentalists: why we can't have nice thin (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ãont know if "environmentalists" is the right (Score:2)
Stop pollution like the SLS (Score:2)
only about the door handle of the SLS capsule could be re-used in the next flight.
The rest is all space junk, as far as it doesn't come back to earth.
That is a lot of waste considering SpaceX can reuse their rockets over and over again.
Very much yes (Score:2)
First trillionare (Score:2)
Re: First trillionare (Score:2)
Prevent space mining before it even started? (Score:1)
The problem is billionaires (Score:2)
Bounty (Score:2)