The Future of Terraformation on the Planetary Ecology
Earth is the only known planet that can support life within its planetary, solar, and galactic neighborhood. As the closest solar system containing exoplanets, planets outside of our solar system, is tens of light-years away, the preservation and sustainability of Earth is imperative. Intrinsic interest in the exploration of outer space to find Earth-analogs, candidate exoplanets that may be able to support human life, has grown a great deal over the last century. The rate at which technological advances have been occurring at in recent decades supersedes the rate technology has advanced for centuries prior, allowing humanity to reach further into the depths of space than ever before. Humanity has intrinsic value in the exploration of outer space with an ultimate goal of finding an Earth-analog to terraform and call home.
Terraformation is defined as the modification of a candidate exoplanet’s atmosphere, terrain, and ecology to that similar of earth’s, with the hopes of inhabiting the then earth-like planet (Oxford Dictionary). The terraformation of candidate exoplanets must be regulated by ethical guidelines that promote harmonious living alongside extraterrestrial life. Examples of these ethical conditions are establishing the necessity to preserve possible extraterrestrial species and respecting indigenous territory and way of life. The possibility for terraformation to occur under these ethical conditions, whilst following ethical guidelines, is questionable. The preservation of extraterrestrial life must first involve the establishment of whether or not there is life and its importance to the candidate exoplanets environment. This must occur before terraformation can occur to avoid ethical conflicts. As these ethical conflicts are familiar in the history of humanity’s relations with indigenous peoples, the future for harmonious living alongside extraterrestrial life looks grim. As intrinsic value grows in the exploration of outer space, it also grows in the commercialization of outer space. Commercial spacefaring initiatives will inevitably encounter a question of ethics, as the temptation to terraform and commercialize a candidate exoplanet with existing indigenous life arises. The exploration of outer space is essentially the next frontier in human endeavors. Without universal guidelines, the ethical issues that arise through terraforming and commercializing planets with previously existing life will likely inhibit further exploration and cause widespread distress within the planetary ecology.
Ethical guidelines must be universally established to avoid future conflict with the terraformation and commercialization of outer space. The reshaping of policies to meet the needs of an ever-changing society is imperative because “more countries and private companies [are] expanding their activities in space” (Lal 63). Erik Persson, a doctor of practical philosophy, notes that reshaping policies is important because the “commercial exploitation of other worlds…is not a futuristic fantasy” (225) and the avoidance of conflicts that may arise due to the exploitation of an inhabited world are imperative to the future of maintaining a peaceful planetary ecology (ibid 226). Guidelines should be universally established in which national and private initiatives should follow to ensure the future of space exploration is peaceful and ethical (Bini 496). The intrinsic interests of mankind are further pursuing the possibility of new techniques to explore and commercialize outer space. In the 21st century, “we are at the threshold of a new era of space exploration” (ibid 498) where a variety of spacefaring players are increasingly “pressured by sectorial and national interests” to explore uncharted territories in outer space (ibid 496). Due to this increased interest, security and economic issues may arise, and “[the] commercialization and privatization of space activities [can] lead to new challenges” (ibid). Challenges have “vast potential” (ibid) that range from in-space conflict to conflict with indigenous life or territory. Through global cooperation (ibid 497), international spacefaring leaders must come together to establish specific measures that should be taken to avoid questionable ethics. Humanity must follow these measures to ensure the peaceful terraformation and commercialization of outer space.
These challenges call for a more specific framework by the Moon Agreement. The Moon Agreement, otherwise known as the Agreement Governing the Activities of the States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, was established in 1979. It analyzes the implications spacefaring missions have in the 21st century. The Moon Agreement provides “a legal framework for the exploration and future exploitation of the Moon and other celestial bodies” (ibid 496). Within this framework, there are guidelines in which national and private initiatives should follow to ensure the future of space exploration is ethical. The framework covers how “the Moon and other celestial bodies [should be] used exclusively for peaceful purposes” (ibid 497). It also covers how the agreement “should protect the right of all people to a share of the resources of outer space,” and is “designed to permit governmental as well as private entities to explore and use the Moon and other celestial bodies in an orderly manner…to support scientific missions” (ibid 498). Although the Moon Agreement exists within the global spacefaring society, it doesn’t necessarily mean the agreement is explicit in its ethical guidelines if humanity wishes to terraform a candidate exoplanet. Spacefaring nations in the 21st century have come to agree that increasing specificity of this agreement is proportional only with increasing knowledge and experience of the exploration and commercialization of outer space. When the time comes and humanity dives further into the unknown realms of outer space, more specific agreements and guidelines will come into play. The Moon Agreement is a step in the right direction in further exploring ethical policies and challenges regarding the commercialization of space. Therefore, it is essential to reexamine policies set forth by the Moon Agreement, and further create ethical guidelines humanity must follow as the exploration of outer space proceeds.
Commercial spacefaring initiatives will inevitably encounter a question of ethics as the temptation to terraform and commercialize a candidate exoplanet with existing indigenous life arises. The commercialization of space is and has been going on for decades. National and private entities are involved in these commercial aspects of space, including the building of parts of, or entire telecommunication satellites, launching capabilities, and informational commodity (Persson 225). Persson states that these commercialization aspects are “strongly encouraged by the U.S. government,” (ibid) most likely for economic gain. In the future, however, the commercialization of space will change from “space-related but earth-based” (ibid) to space-related and space-based. Persson also states that “private companies [are] running their own space operations with a purely commercial agenda” (ibid). It is inevitable that in time, national and private initiatives will be faced with conflict. Whether it be mining for geological commodities or the colonization of extraterrestrial planets, “commercial space exploration…will create…conflicts with indigenous life,” and there will be “far reaching consequences for the exploitation plans due to the strong ethical implications of exploiting an inhabited world” (ibid). The development of universal guidelines that correspond to the growth of the commercial space industry are essential for the future of the planetary ecology.
Space tourism is just one example of presumed early commercial spacefaring initiatives that will likely encounter issues. These issues may arise through the disrespectful uses of outer space and tourism of candidate exoplanets with possible indigenous life. Anel Ferreira-Snyman writes for the Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal and defines space tourism, a spacefaring initiative, as “any commercial activity offering customers direct or indirect experience with space travel” (5). This spacefaring initiative is regarded as a “recreational activity” (ibid), and Ferreira-Snyman believes these “activities must be undertaken in a legally regulated as well as an ethical manner” (8). Michael Grubbs, a Ph.D. Candidate in the Integrative STEM (Science Technology Engineering Mathematics) Education program, coincides with Ferreira-Snyman’s ideas by talking about Elon Musk’s SpaceX initiatives. Their “ultimate goal [is] enabling people to live on other planets” which may be hampered due to the existence of indigenous life and the need to follow specific ethical guidelines to preserve this life (Grubbs 26). The reality of spacefaring initiatives ultimately reaching an ethical conflict regarding the determination of life on other planets must be weighed and taken into consideration before terraformation can ensue. If ethical guidelines are universally followed within the global spacefaring community, it may be possible to avoid conflict.
The establishment of life is equally as important as the ensurance of no life on candidate exoplanets to avoid conflicts with possible indigenous life and questions of ethics. Persson notes that “what it takes to establish that there is…life on another world is very important but also very difficult” (225), and “what it takes to show that there is no life on another world…is nonetheless important, and…more urgent” (ibid). Establishing that no life exists on a candidate exoplanet is imperative as “space exploration is expected to turn more into space exploitation” and that the “commercial exploitation of a world that is already inhabited will both affect and be affected by the indigenous life,” essentially complicating and terminating further terraformation, commercialization, and exploration (ibid). Therefore, establishing that a candidate exoplanet is void of life prior to terraformation is imperative. Battaglia, et al., professors at Mount Holyoke College, the University of Minnesota, and University of California, Irvine, respectively, argue further that the goal of harmonious living alongside extraterrestrial life calls for a new set of ethical guidelines. They reimagined reality to be within an abstract planetary ecology where there are “peaceful and environmentally accountable approaches to extraterrestrial collaboration by spacefaring entities” (246). The “future for our disciplinary project and reach” (ibid 252) of human spaceflight initiatives, as well as provoking humanity to reimagine “the planet as embedded in a wider space ecology” (ibid 246), must be considered before the commercialization and terraformation of candidate exoplanets can ensue.
In order to answer questions regarding what humanity will do if life in space is found, they must imagine themselves within an ecosystem where earth and candidate exoplanets with life live harmoniously. First, it is vital that new regulations and ethical guidelines should be created. Next, when human initiatives come across an inevitable conflict with the finding of life outside of earth, they must ethically handle the situation through “peaceful uses of outer space” and without exploiting resources that will detrimentally affect indigenous life (ibid 251). The most imminent initiatives are asteroid mining, the colonization of Mars, and space tourism, all of which call for ethical guidelines to follow if extraterrestrial life is found (ibid). Humanity has a “moral obligation” in which the safety of indigenous life must be considered (ibid 231). This also calls for further anthropological questions regarding the significance of indigenous life on a candidate exoplanet. For example, are microbes or biofilms that thrive versus larger extraterrestrial life significantly important to the candidate exoplanet’s environment, or will the extinction of these small or large entities leave the planet entirely unaffected?
Regarding the significance of native life, microorganisms and microbes on the candidate exoplanet should be subject to moral consideration before terraformation, or in other words, before the exploitation of native lands and resources. Anthropocentrism, the idea regarding humankind as the single most important element of existence (Oxford Dictionary), is the fundamental reason behind the perceived impossibility of peaceful terraformation. This philosophical viewpoint will likely degrade the significance of native life. James S.J. Schwartz, a professor in the Department of Philosophy, asks the question about whether or not terraforming is “morally problematic” (2), as terraforming could possibly entirely wipe out indigenous populations of the candidate exoplanet and destroy prevalent ecosystems (8). Although at the present time, this question can not be answered, it provides further means for mandatory conversation before terraformation can occur.
The thorough understanding of candidate exoplanets before transforming them into Earth-analogs is imperative. Lisa Messeri, a Doctor of Philosophy in History, Anthropology, and Science, Technology and Society, states that terraformation is essentially the transformation of massive gravitational objects into places the individual can understand and imagine themselves in (11). Messeri suggests that exoplanets, other possible worlds, “even those we do not inhabit, are dynamic” (13). The Exoplanet Task Force, an organization that specializes in the study and identification of habitable exoplanets, states that “the discovery of Earth analogs will change the way we humans view our place in the cosmos” (v) and would tempt us “with wild dreams of flight” (5). Humanity would “refocus our energies to hasten the day when our descendants might dare to try to bridge the gulf between two inhabited worlds” (ibid). Much of humanity is entirely for the habitation of an exoplanet, as long as it is understood and brings forth an advocacy for space exploration. Furthermore, the primary “motivation to search for habitable planets” is not only in the discovery of extraterrestrial life, but moreso if the habitable exoplanet is capable of sustaining human life (Messeri 92-93). Messeri’s argument further proves the philosophical belief of anthropocentrism. Finding a candidate exoplanet to terraform will primarily be to sustain human life beyond the boundaries of Earth. Without strict guidelines that prohibit the disrespectful treatment of indigenous life on candidate exoplanets, peaceful terraformation would be nearly impossible. The discovery of a habitable exoplanet that can sustain human life will be more important to humanity than the protection of indigenous life from that exoplanet.
Universal guidelines are absolutely necessary to avoid future conflicts over the ethics behind the terraformation and commercialization of outer space. The establishment of how important indigenous life is to a candidate exoplanet before its eventual exploitation is necessary to avoid similar conflicts humanity has faced with native life over sacred territory and way of life. As humans, it is in our nature to want to explore in the pursuit of personal gain. However, as we are now in a pivotal time period where collaborative work proves more beneficial to society, it should become in our nature to explore with the pursuit of universal gain under ethical conditions. Without universally understood, ethical guidelines, it will be impossible for humanity to pursue the terraformation and commercialization of candidate exoplanets, as the planetary ecology would be severely affected.