Recently SpaceX brought back four tourists from space. In
this posting I want to examine what reasons could to given to support manned
space exploration. Let us accept that we have reason to explore space because
such exploration adds to human knowledge. However the information gained by
this exploration could be gathered by robots. If human beings are not required
to gather this information do we have other any reason for the manned
exploration of space? Such an exploration will be much more difficult than
envisioned some fifty years ago because human bodies find it hard to adapt to
space travel which makes answering the above question important. In spite of
these difficulties I will argue that we do have reason to pursue the manned
exploration of space based on inner space, based on the human psyche.
In what follows space exploration will refer to manned
space exploration unless stated otherwise, before I examine possible reasons
for space exploration I will examine some reasons why we shouldn’t.
First it might be suggested that any resources devoted to
exploring space would be better spent on projects on earth. I now want to
present two arguments rejecting this suggestion. I accept that if we were now
to devote a great number of resources to space exploration that it would be
better if these resources were devoted to reducing need on earth. However at
some time in the future it is feasible that science and technology will be able
to satisfy all of our most basic needs even if some other less basic needs
remain unsatisfied. In these circumstances In this situation I would argue that
there is no reason why we shouldn’t devote some of our resources to exploring
space. It follows that whilst we have
reason to delay exploring space that we don’t have reason to abandon it
forever. My second argument for rejecting the suggestion that we shouldn’t
explore space is based on personal autonomy. Let us assume that in the future
some entrepreneur such as Elon Musk wishes to explore Mars. If we accept the argument
above then we should delay her from doing so and redirect the resources
involved to projects on earth. Clearly the entrepreneur’s autonomy has been
overruled. Let us assume that instead she decides to buy a luxury yacht and private
jet rather than devote her resources to some project with which benefits others
more generally. If we accept the above there is no significant difference
between such purchases and exploring mars. It follows if we are to remain
consistent that we must either permit the exploration of Mars or prohibit the
purchase of luxury goods. Let us accept that we should choose the second
option. Let us also accept that morality is concerned with harm. If morality is
solely concerned with preventing harm then it considers us in the same way as
we consider our pets. Morality for human beings must treat us as the kind of
creatures who can decide their own future and this of necessity involves
respecting autonomy. It follows that our entrepreneur should be able to explore
Mars.
Let us now consider a
second suggestion as to why we shouldn’t explore space. Let us accept that the
exploration of space would lead to the colonisation of space. It might be
suggested that argues that the possibility of an intergalactic conflict with
weapons which can cause suffering to billions are sufficiently serious to
warrant caution when it comes to the colonisation of space. Perhaps scenarios
such as those depicted in Star Wars or War of the Worlds are possible. However
I will now argue that they are improbable. The source of most conflicts is a
scarcity of resources. Let us assume that the galaxy has enough resources for
our current human population even if we can’t exploit most of these resources.
These resources will only become scarce if we colonise space and our population
increases in some Malthusian manner. However it seems that as people become
more prosperous the birth rate falls and we have less need to fear population
increasing in this manner. It might then be argued that as we colonise space
the population becomes more thinly spread leading to less competition for
resources which lessens the probability of war. The colonisation of space far
from increasing the probability of war might actually decrease it. It would
seem we have little reason to accept the second suggestion
I have argued that whilst we might have reason to delay the
exploration of space but we don’t have good reasons for not doing so in the
long term. The question remains do we have any reasons to explore space? I will
present four arguments as to why we do.
Let us accept that the exploration of space will make the
colonisation of space possible. This possibility leads to an argument set out
by Nick Bostron
. He argues that from a utilitarian perspective that we should be concerned
with the maximisation of worthwhile sentient lives. It follows that if we fail
to colonise space that we fail to maximise these lives. Whether we should
accept Bostrom’s argument depends on whether we should maximise the number of
worthwhile sentient lives which in turn depend on which form of utilitarianism
we accept. Do we accept a hedonic account or some form of preference
satisfaction account. Preference satisfaction utilitarianism is about
satisfying preferences for actual people and not about creating preferences
which can be satisfied. If we accept a preference satisfaction account then
preference utilitarianism alone doesn’t give any reason to colonise space. Let
us accept a purely hedonic account of utilitarianism. If we do so we should
accept Bostrom’s argument. Unfortunately if we do so we must also accept the
repugnant conclusion. This means that we must accept that any reasonable degree
of happiness experienced by some can be outweighed by a marginal degree of
happiness experienced by a sufficiently large number of others. If we aren’t
prepared to accept the repugnant conclusion then we reject a hedonistic account
of utilitarianism and this means rejecting Bostrom’s reason to colonise space.
The first argument fails.
The second argument is based on our need for resources
which space can provide. Perhaps in the future earth runs short of some
essential resources such as minerals. For the sake of argument let us assume
this occurs. It might then be suggested that the exploration and colonisation
of other planets or asteroids could supply earth with these resources. I am
prepared to accept this suggestion. However it seems even if colonists could
provide these resources that this could be achieved by robotic means, it
follows that the second argument also fails.
Let us now consider an argument based on curiosity. I want
to argue that the desire to explore space is a natural one and that if we fail
to act upon that we are radically changing human nature. It might be objected
that there is nothing natural about space exploration. If we do so my objector
might point out that we are moving into a totally unnatural environment and one
to which we are totally unsuited. I am prepared to accept that the space
exploration would mean moving into an alien environment which is unnatural to
us. However, human beings are basically tropical animals which moved in the
past into hostile environments such as the artic even if these environments aren’t
quite as unnatural as space. Moreover when I refer to human nature I’m not
referring the nature we live in or our physiological features but to our
psychological characteristics. Human beings are naturally curious animals and a
failure to be curious would be contrary to our nature. Of course sometimes we
need to adapt our nature. For instance perhaps we needed to adapt our nature in
order to live in cities but I would suggest that if we lost our curiosity that
we would lose something which is fundamental to being a human being. My
objector might accept that curiosity is essential for human beings but proceed
to argue that we can satisfy our curiosity by exploring space remotely. In
response I would point out that we can have a natural curiosity about what it
would be like for us to explore and colonist space which cannot be satisfied by
remote exploration. I would suggest that this natural curiosity gives us a weak
reason to ex[lore space.
Let us now consider an argument is based on the value of playing games. It might be objected that space exploration is a serious matter and shouldn’t be trivialised by being considered as a game. What do we mean by a game? A game is a course of action aimed at an outcome, this outcome can only be achieved subject to some accepted rules. This is a very broad definition. It would include football, a billionaire building his own house when she could employ a builder and space exploration provided this could also be done robotically. In what follows I will accept this broad definition of a game. Are games valuable? According to John Danaher,
“Games will be arenas in which human autonomy and agency
can be nurtured and developed. They will provide opportunities for humans to
think, plan, and decide; to cultivate moral virtues such as courage,
generosity, and fair play; and to display ingenuity and creativity. This is not
an unusual or alien idea. People have long argued that the value of sports, for
example, lies in their capacity to develop such attributes and provide outlets
for human agency to flourish.” (1)
I have argued that sport, which is always a game as defined above fosters certain virtues because competition involves some limited suffering, see Nietzsche, sport and suffering . Clearly space exploration can be regarded as a game and if we accept the above has some value.
Lastly I want to argue that space exploration would have
essentialist value because it would be an achievement. Let us accept that
achievement isn’t limited to games. In what follows I will adopt Gwen
Bradford’s ideas of achievement. According to Bradford achievements are
difficult requiring the exercise of our will and cognitive abilities. Space
exploration would be difficult involving the exercise of these abilities and as
a result would be an achievement. Doing difficult things fosters certain
virtues such as perseverance and fortitude would giving space exploration some
limited value in the same manner games might do. Bradford also introduces the
idea of an essentialist value. If some capacity is essential to being a person
then the exercise of this capacity is of value to persons. In what follows I
will equate essentialist value with intrinsic value. Let us accept that the
exercise of our will and cognitive abilities are essential to human beings and
have intrinsic value. Someone with no will and incapable of some basic
reasoning couldn’t be regarded as a person even if they could still be regarded
as a human being. Moreover the more difficult a achievement is the greater the
exercise of these capacities. Space exploration would be difficult requiring
the exercise of these capacities and so be of intrinsic value.
What conclusions can be drawn from the above? Let us assume
that space exploration becomes possible. Perhaps we have short term reasons not
to explore space however in the long term we have real reasons to do so. Space exploration
would have value even if this value isn’t due to the knowledge gained by going
boldly forth to explore. These reasons might be summarised as follows,
- Not to explore space when we capable of doing so would to deny our natural curiosity, our nature, such a denial might damage us.
- Space exploration would foster certain instrumental virtues which are of value.
- Even if the achievement of exploring space has little value achieving it has value.
The value of space exploration might of course be
outweighed by other things. Perhaps even by sport but this possibility seems
unlikely due to the extreme difficulty space exploration would pose.
- Danaher John, 2019, Automation
and Utopia, Harvard University, page 231
