Recently, an article published on SpaceNews.com titled “One species, one planet: The moon is our ethical dress rehearsal for Mars” created an uproar and initiated a global discussion about the future of space law. The article argues that humanity must go to Mars as a planet and not as a nation. It also argues that we should not bring our terrestrial squabbles to an alien world. A call is made to arrive on Mars as one species guided by “ethics we have forged together on the dusty plains of the moon and around the cooperative conference tables of Earth.”
On the surface, all this sounds quite highfalutin, and it is quite true that the flaws of the society of Earth must not be exported to Mars. In one of my recent articles, titled “Don’t Export Earth’s Flaws to Mars”, I literally asked for the same thing that the SpaceNews article is asking for, but in a starkly different manner. My suggestion is not to form some kind of planetary council, but to start deliberations at individual levels and, with the help of technology, to ponder upon different models of governance that might suit Mars. We have to act as friends of future Martians and not as their rulers.
The methods that the author of the Spacenews article proposes are, however, quite questionable. In fact, they have been promptly and rightly rejected by none other than the head of NASA himself, Jared Isaacman. He categorically states that “bureaucracy has already throttled space exploration” and that the creation of any UN-affiliated ‘Planetary Stewardship Council’ is not going to serve any purpose. Isaacman argues that, as and when the opportunity appears, mankind will be duly represented in all the endeavours of NASA.
Similar concerns have also been voiced by Peter Hague, an astrophysicist and an engineer. He cautions the world against this palpable centralization of power by becoming answerable to a single authority. My own views are quite similar to the ones put forth by Isaacman and Hague. The futility of international law cannot be overstated. It has clearly outlived its utility. Just think that when international law is not able to solve the conflicts on Earth, how can it be expected to solve problems in outer space? It is okay to love your country, culture and heritage, but superimposing the same set of “ethics” on celestial bodies is a bit too much.
The rotten state of the United Nations is too evident to be ignored. The Outer Space Treaty and the Moon Treaty are a joke. Calling every celestial body the “common heritage of mankind” will not actually make it so. Each celestial body has to be judged on its merits, and as and when the times change, the contemporaneous realities have to be taken into account. The Spacenews article overemphasizes “ethics”, and it fails to explain what those ethics are. The only conclusion in this regard is that these “ethics” will be decided by the proposed UN-affiliated body. The real question to be asked is what gives the UN the ethical and moral authority to legislate and adjudicate on celestial affairs.
Today, with the help of AI, humanity is thinking of making endeavours to achieve Kardashev 2 in the future. Elon Musk has emphatically said that the only two currencies that will matter in the future will be tonnage and wattage. The traditional economic system run under the auspices of institutions like the World Economic Forum and UN agencies is on the verge of collapse. The rise of a new global order is imminent. In this light, it seems that the SpaceNews.com article is an attempt in vain to maintain the status quo of international law and international agencies.
Instead of the UN, I suggest that X is a great place to deliberate on all these issues. It is transparent, has a wide reach and everybody can access it. It is great that people like Jared Isaacman and Peter Hague are raising their concerns. More people should participate in these discussions so that a meaningful direction can be achieved.
I have consistently voiced this issue since a long time. Here are my other articles on related issues.