that has evolved on Earth. Would it matter ethically if extraterrestrial life shares our genesis or derives from a second genesis?
Regardless of whether it is due to a shared genesis or a second genesis, astrobioethicists to date have been leaning toward ascribing intrinsic value to off-Earth biospheres. But they have not leaned far enough to tip completely. With the term “intrinsic value,” we intend “value that is truly independent of valuing agents” [2.43]. At work is a widespread assumption that intelligent life would warrant intrinsic value but non-intelligent life would not. Is this assumption sound?6
This is our quandary: Does life—even unintelligent life—have intrinsic value? Or, does the value of living organisms depend on the usefulness they have for us? Is worth inherent or instrumental? Do we terrestrial Homo sapiens have a responsibility toward extraterrestrial life based upon that life’s intrinsic worth or based strictly upon its usefulness to us? [2.64]. Almost no one to date has risen up to defend a brute instrumentalism. The predominant discussion takes place within the intrinsic value option.
Richard Randolph and Christopher McKay believe “that new operational policies for space exploration and astrobiology research must be developed within an ethical framework that values sustaining and expanding the richness and diversity” [2.49]. This applies to entire biospheres, not merely individual organisms. Even so we ask: Just how close to ascribing intrinsic value is this?
Taking a minimalist position, Charles Cockell acknowledges that extraterrestrial microbial life will make some level of demand on us earthlings: “Telorespect or teloempathy merely captures our recognition that extraterrestrial life, including life independently evolved from the biology that we know on Earth, placed demands on our behavior if we think it has intrinsic value” [2.16].
Kelly Smith moves one notch closer toward intrinsic value, distinguishing off-Earth species from what we know on our home planet. With the label “Mariophilia,” Smith posits that extraterrestrial “life would be extremely valuable and should be defended against petty demands of human beings, but also that human interests can in principle trump those of Martians” [2.79]. With this conditioned appeal to intrinsic value, terrestrial interests still trump extraterrestrial interests.
Octavio Chon-Torres goes beyond Smith. “The proposal that I have presented would include safeguarding the ‘rights’ of the Martian life to exist, that is, having an intrinsic value. And why not? Every form of life follows Darwinian mechanics and seeks to develop, insofar as it has that ‘interest’ has a value in itself. A separate question is whether the human being wants to respect it” [2.14].
We get some help from Oxford ecotheologian Celia Deane-Drummond, who would be satisfied with ranking value. “It is possible to hold to the notion of intrinsic value, while also being able to discriminate between different forms of life and non-life in terms of their worth” [2.24]. Or, to say it another way, even if we impute intrinsic value to all living things, within this broad category we may identify some living things to be of greater value or worth.
Even so, the astrobioethicist will ask: How do we decide? Without appealing to instrumental criteria for discriminating 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.