between greater or lesser worth, we should look for criteria within the scope of intrinsic value. Regardless of the answer, an astroethics of responsibility will enjoin us earthlings to care for off-Earth microbes and their respective biospheres.
2.3.3 Should Astroethicists Adopt the Precautionary Principle?
Earth’s ecologists are used to debating and embracing the precautionary principle. Might astroethicists borrow it? The astroethical principle might look like this: when in doubt, protect off-Earth life in its respective biosphere [2.65].
The so-called Wingspread definition of the precautionary principle was formulated at the 1998 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development: “When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically” [2.86]. In this context the proponent of the process or product, rather than the public, should bear the burden of proof.
When space scientists and ethicists met at Princeton for a COSPAR workshop in 2010, they embraced a variant formulation: “we define the precautionary principle as an axiom which calls for further investigation in cases of uncertainty before interference that is likely to be harmful to Earth and other extraterrestrial bodies, including life, ecosystems, and biotic and abiotic environments” [2.19]. In sum, employment of the precautionary principle for space exploration provides the kind of middle axiom that connects the larger value of life with practical policies that facilitate off-Earth explorations.
2.3.4 Who’s Responsible for Space Debris?
According to NASA’s count, 22,000 pieces of space junk in the form of defunct human made objects are orbiting Earth. We have turned our upper atmosphere into a trash dump for nonfunctioning space craft, abandoned launch vehicle stages, and fragments of unusable satellites. Do we want to pollute circumterrestrial space just as we have befouled our terrestrial nest? [2.45] [2.77].
The problem with our orbiting landfill is not merely that it is ugly. It is also dangerous. It risks danger to future space flights and future satellites. The Kessler Syndrome, named after NASA scientist Donald J. Kessler, proffers a scenario: debris in low Earth orbit (LEO) may become sufficiently dense that collisions between objects could cause a cascade where each collision would generate smaller particles in increased number; and the increased number of objects would then increase the number of collisions. The cascade would pulverize anything that comes within its region. The LEO region would become impassable for future launch vehicles.
To date, no one has been held financially responsible for space junk. Those who make profits or who otherwise gain from sending this material into space are not required to recycle or dispose of their waste. Space waste accumulates, but nobody is required to pay for cleaning it up. Nations or corporations treat the Greater Earth as their ashtray, as a public trash dump. Follow the money.
If we define Greater Earth as a part of the galactic commons, then we find ourselves already beset with a classic moral problem: those with power and influence utilize common space for their own profit while the population as a whole absorbs the cost of deterioration or degradation of what is publicly shared. If and when Earth’s planetary society consolidates its diversity into a single community of moral deliberation, then responsibility will need to be parsed and parceled according to a renewed principle of distributive justice.
The European Space Agency has set up a Space Debris Office to coordinate research activities in all major debris disciplines, including measurements, modeling, protection, and mitigation, and coordinates such activities with the national research efforts of space agencies in Italy, the United Kingdom, France and Germany. Together with ESA, these national agencies form the European Network of Competences on Space Debris. In parallel, the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) is testing to see if a tethering technique might begin the process of debris-gathering. What we are missing is a planetwide public policy regarding fiscal responsibility on the part of spacefaring parties.
2.3.5 How Should We Govern Satellite Surveillance?
Earth’s residents are losing their privacy faster than politicians lose their scruples. The telescopes on board reconnaissance satellites are pointed toward Earth, not toward the stars. Mission tasks include high-resolution photography; measurement and signature intelligence; communications eavesdropping; covert communications; monitoring of nuclear test ban compliance; and detection of missile launches. With the improvements in technology, today’s spy satellites have a resolution capacity down to objects as small as ten centimeters. Surveillance satellites also provide us with efficient communications, weather reporting, Google maps, and many more public services.
Satellite spying is international, not just national. The Echelon spy network coordinates satellite snooping by the governments of the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. The Echelon network spies, sorts, decrypts, archives, and processes three million telephone calls transmitted by satellite every minute. The United States government sells pictures taken by satellites; but it keeps certain subjects from public review. Sensitive facilities such as military installations are restricted, as are remote pictures taken over Israel. Similarly, private companies use satellites for remote sensing and sell their pictures.
“Can a State gather information about the natural riches and resources of another sovereign State without having obtained the latter’s prior agreement?” asks Arnould. “Is it not up to the remote sensing State to ask for the prior permission of the State [2.81] whose territory is being observed?” [2.3]. This sounds like a reasonable ethical question. Yet, it presupposes the present situation of sovereign nation states, a political system that may have made sense prior to the current thrust toward economic and technological globalization. Satellite surveillance and communication services, right along with other space activities, are playing into an emerging planetary consciousness.
Protecting national boundaries from foreign intelligence or even public transparency may soon be an artifact of history, an era we remember but no longer live in. Perhaps the way forward is to support an ethic of maximal “information without discrimination.” Rather than attempt to police information gathered from remote sensing, it would be healthier and easier to prevent such information from deleterious usage.
2.3.6 Should We Weaponize Space?
Should nations weaponize space? Should militaries establish orbital beachheads from which to launch attacks? No. At least according to the 1967 United Nations Outer Space Treaty, which stresses that celestial locations could be used “exclusively for peaceful purposes.” The treaty explicitly prohibits the “placing in orbit around the Earth any objects carrying nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction.”
In 2020, the United States formulated the doctrine to guide its new Space Force.
“Military space forces are the warfighters who protect, defend and project spacepower. They provide support, security, stability, and strategic effects by employing spacepower in, from, and to the space domain. This necessitates close collaboration and cooperation with the U.S. Government, Allies, and partners and in accordance with domestic and international law” [2.80] [2.70].
Because of the inability of the UN to enforce its rule, regulations of military equipment in space are today the responsibility of unilateral, bilateral and multilateral agreements, not the United Nations. No global community of moral deliberation exists. At least not yet.
“For modern warfare, space has become the ultimate high ground, with the U.S. as the undisputed king of the hill,” writes Lee Billings [2.7]. “China and Russia are both
