ASTROENVIRONMENTALISM? Some more eco opposition to space exploration: Astroenvironmentalism: The Case for Space Exploration As An Environmental Issue

While the article does make a number of interesting arguments (for example the need to keep near-Earth space clear of debris...which is ultimately a purely practical concern rather than the typical stuff of environmentalist crusades), it is as a whole imbued with an anti-development philosophy, and in places even an anti-Man sentiment, and is little more than an ill-concealed attempt to preclude human settlement of space.

Slipped in among the article's 'apple pie' points -- environmental proposals with which most space advocates would agree, to greater or lesser extent -- is the call to designate all planets beyond Earth as 'wilderness areas':

"...treating the Moon, Mars, and the rest of the planetary bodies in the universe as wildernesses that need to be protected"...

One wonders how aliens on some as-yet uknown planet in, say, Andromeda would regard this wilderness designation. The trouble with this idea is that the designation of an area as wilderness at minimum precludes it from any sort of commercial development, and in the strictest interpretation could be used to prohibit any mission -- robotic or manned -- to any planet, regardless of purpose.

Creating safeguards to insure there is no contamination of celestial bodies, that is, safeguarding against the introduction of non-terrestrial [sic] life to and from celestial bodies

Bacteria found in the camera from the Surveyor III mission prove that even robotic missions could potentially 'contaminate' such "pristine wildernesses", after all. This provision combined with our existing body of experience could conceivably be used to terminate all direct exploration of celestial bodies via landers or manned missions.

Key to economic development is the institution of private property. Astroenvironmentalism would ban this outright:

Prohibiting national, international, and private agencies from owning property in space, in the interest of avoiding military conflicts. There is a need for more people to be involved in the efforts to see that space does not become another battleground.

While the ban is rationalized as a dovish means to prevent space militarization, the ultimate effect would be to prohibit ownership of any territory in space. Note that this provision, unlike others in the article, is not specifically directed at planets or other celestial bodies, and thus could equally apply to wholly artifical installations such as O'Neill colonies (or communications satellites and the ISS, for that matter). And while one might argue that it still allows private ownership of property by individuals, the fact that individuals do not possess the means to take advantage of this allowance renders it irrelevant. Space will be opened at first in much the same way that the Western Hemisphere was, by government-sponsored exploration missions and by large commercial enterprises. Individuals will follow. Precluding governments, NGOs, and corporations from owning property in space in practice means that space will not and cannot be developed.

Another ban sought by astroenvironmentalism is, predictably enough, a total ban on the use of nuclear energy in space. At the beginning of the article, Miller calls for a reasonable-sounding reduction in the amount of plutonium, in particular, for fear that it could reenter the Earth's atmosphere. However, later in the article he goes beyond this to recommend complete prohibition:

The most important related efforts are those involved in trying to stop the militarization of space and the use of nuclear power in space.

A prohibition on private property in space would preclude economic development there, but a prohibition on all nuclear power in space would make that a moot point as we would have no practical means to get to and operate on any of the planets. Solar power (which, pedantically, is itself a form of nuclear power) is just too diffuse and unreliable to be of much practical use in manned missions. Simpler forms of nuclear power, such as the tiny plutonium heaters for spacecraft bearings, are critical to robotic probes (whether they land on a planet or not), eliminating the need for heavy and less-reliable active heating systems...which, of course, would require a great deal more power to operate, driving up the size, weight, and cost of such missions. Without nuclear power in its various forms, the exploration and settlement of space becomes impractical, if not impossible.

Which I suspect is the point.

The anti-Man aspect is surprisingly overt.

Since mankind made such a mess of this planet and is now paying the environmental price for the damage, this topic is of extreme importance because we must avoid making the same mistakes in space as we have on earth.

It's funny how on the one hand, they themselves claim that Earth is an environmental basket-case despite their efforts, but on the other hand they want to extend these (failed?) efforts to other planets. The essence of this argument is that Man is too wicked or too stupid to benefit from the lessons learned from his past or from technologies he has developed over the years to make more efficient use of available resources, and we will toss all that out the window and revert to 1492 at the first opportunity.

Nowhere in the article, not even once, is there any discussion of the great opportunity that space settlement provides in regards to building on and enhancing the environmental lessons we have learned, or the knowledge that building biospheres-in-miniature or even full-scale terraforming would provide us about our own biosphere here on Earth. Of course, such knowledge being human-derived and technology-based, is would have for those who value "nature" above Man a moral aspect akin to unethical biological experimentation, and thus the knowledge gained could not be accepted or applied.

Of course, the inconvenient lack of a biosphere does not stand in the way of whacking Man with a big green stick for his past "crimes against nature":

But the argument of protecting space from exploitation is not solely about protecting rocks; it is also about making a statement about human behavior.

That statement apparently being that all nature is intrinsically valuable just as it is, Man and all his works are not natural, and therefore Man has no business poking around on any other celestial body lest he diminish the intrinsic value of those "pristine" lands.

Predictably, the self-appointed Guardians of Gaia to resort to force rather than persuasion to get their way:

The first goal of astroenvironmentalism should be to lobby the United Nations and NASA to require SpaceDev, The Artemis Society, The Mars Society, and the Astrobiology Institute to agree to ethical guidelines. What leaves the Earth reflects the whole species. These agencies should be required to agree to principles of preservation or astroenvironmentalism established by the United Nations and NASA. For the meantime they should publish environmental impact statements on the Internet for the world to read.

Why does it always come down to coercion with these people? Have they even considered joining up and working from within to get their concerns incorporated in the ethos of these organziations? Maybe I'm wrong on this, but an organization faced with self-important and scientifically illiterate functionaries is more likely to implement rules and regulations in a grudging, minimal, and literal fashion. An organization whose charter and membership embody such concerns, albeit in some form palatable to the majority, will be more likely to reflect them as a matter of course, without elaborate and nitpicking rules and regulations.

And if that doesn't work, there's always the use of a religious test to determine the suitability of astronaut candidates:

If we only allow astroenvironmentalists into space then maybe we will not have environmental battles on other celestial bodies.

Posted by T.L. James on September 22, 2002 04:34 PM