Asteroid and lunar mining are stock features of science fiction, but there are those who hope to make them a reality. While the idea of space mining might seem far-fetched, asteroids and the moon contain useful resources. While space mining probably brings to mind images of belters extracting gold from asteroids, one of the most valuable resources in space is water. Though cheap and plentiful on earth, it is obviously very expensive to transport it into space. While the most obvious use of space water is for human consumption, it also provides a raw material for fuels and has (as on earth) many uses in industry. Naturally, miners will presumably also seek minerals, metals and other resources.
Asteroid and lunar mining are stock features of science fiction, but there are those who hope to make them a reality. While the idea of space mining might seem far-fetched, asteroids and the moon contain useful resources. While space mining probably brings to mind images of belters extracting gold from asteroids, one of the most valuable resources in space is water. Though cheap and plentiful on earth, it is obviously very expensive to transport it into space. While the most obvious use of space water is for human consumption, it also provides a raw material for fuels and has (as on earth) many uses in industry. Naturally, miners will presumably also seek minerals, metals and other resources.
My love of science fiction, especially GDW’s classic RPG Traveller, makes me favorably inclined towards space mining. For me, that is part of the future we were promises. But, as a philosopher, I have some ethical concerns about mining in space.
When it comes to any sort of mining, two important moral concerns are the impact on the environment and the impact on humans. Terrestrial mining has generally been devastating to the environment. This includes the direct damage caused by extracting the resources and the secondary effects, such as lasting chemical contamination. These environmental impacts in turn impact human populations. These impacts can include directly killing people (a failed retaining wall that causes drowning deaths) and indirectly harming people (such as contamination of the water supply). As such, mining on earth generally involves serious moral concerns. In contrast, space mining would seem to avoid these problems.
Unlike the heavily populated planet earth, asteroids and the moon are lifeless rocks in space. As such, they do not seem to have any ecosystems to damage. While the asteroids that are mined will often be destroyed in the process, it is difficult to argue that destroying an asteroid to mine it would be wrong based on environmental concerns. While destroying the moon would obviously be bad, mining operations there would seem to be morally acceptable because there is no environment to worry about.
Since space mining takes place in space, the human population of earth will be safely away from any side effects of mining. It is worth noting that should humans colonize the moon or asteroids, then space mining could have an impact on these populations. But, for the foreseeable future, there will be no humans living near the mining areas. Because of the lack of harm, space mining is morally acceptable.
It might, however, be objected that asteroids and the moon be left unmined despite the absence of life and ecosystems. The challenge is providing a plausible reason as to why mining lifeless rocks would be wrong. One possible approach is to contend that the asteroids and the moon somehow have rights that would make mining them wrong. However, rocks do not seem to be the sort of things that can have rights. Another approach is to argue that people who really care about the asteroids and the moon would somehow be harmed by there being mined. While I am certainly open to arguments that would grant these rocks protection from mining, the burden of proof would seem to be on those who wish to make this claim.
Thus, it would seem there are not any reasonable moral arguments against the mining of the asteroids based on environmental concerns or potential harm to humans. That could, of course, change if ecosystems were found on asteroids or if it turned out that the asteroids performed an important role in the solar system that affected terrestrial ecosystems. While this result favors space mining, the moral concerns are not limited to environmental harms.
There are, as would be suspected, the usual moral concerns about the working conditions and pay of space miners. Of course, these concerns are not specific to space mining and going into labor ethics would take this short essay too far afield. However, the situation in space does make the ethics of ownership relevant.
From a moral standpoint, the ethics of who can justly claim ownership of asteroids and the moon is of great concern. From a practical standpoint, it is reasonable to expect that matters will play out as usual: those with the biggest guns and most money will decide who owns the rocks. If it follows the usual pattern, corporations will end up owning the rocks and will try to exploit them for significant profits. But how things will probably play out does not determine how they should play out. Fortunately, philosophers considered this sort of situation long ago,
While past philosophers probably did not give much thought to space mining, asteroids (and the moon) fit nicely into the state of nature scenarios envisioned by thinkers like Hobbes and Locke. There are resources in abundance with no effective authority over them. Naturally, the authorities can do things on earth to people involved with activities in space, but it will be quite some time before there are space police (though we have been promised a space force).
Since there are no rightful owners (or, alternatively, we are all potentially rightful owners), it is tempting to claim the resources are there for the taking. That is, the resources belong to whoever, in Locke’s terms, mixes their labor with it and makes it their own (or more likely their employer’s own). This does have a certain appeal. After all, if me and my fellows in Mike’s Mining construct a robot ship that flies out to asteroid and mines it, we seem to have earned the right to those resources through our efforts. Before our ship mined it for water and metal, these valuable resources were just drifting in space, surrounded by rock. It would thus seem to follow that we would have the right to grab as many asteroids as we can. As would our competitors. This would be a rock rush in space.
But, Locke also has his famous proviso: those who take from the common resources must leave as much and as good for others. While this proviso has been grotesquely violated on earth, the asteroids provide us with a new opportunity to consider how to share (or not) resources.
It can be argued that there is no obligation to leave as much and as good for others in space and that things should be on a strict first grab, first get approach. After all, the people who get their equipment into space would have done the work (or put up the money) and hence (as argued above) be entitled to all they can grab and use or sell. Other people are free to grab what they can, if they have access to the resources needed to reach and mine the asteroids. Naturally, the folks who lack the resources to compete will end up, as they always do, out of luck and poor.
While this has a certain selfish appeal, a case can be made for sharing. One obvious reason is that the people who reach the asteroids first to mine them did not create the ability to do so out of nothing. After all, reaching the asteroids will be the result of centuries of human civilization that made such technology possible. As such, there would seem to be a general debt owed to humanity and paying this off would involve contributing to the general good of humanity. Naturally, this line of reasoning can be countered by arguing that the successful miners will benefit humanity when their profits “trickle down” from space. It could also be argued that the idea of a debt to past generations is absurd as is the notion of the general good of humanity. This is, of course, the view that the selfish and ungrateful would embrace.
Second, there is the concern for not only the people who are alive today but also for the people to be. To use an analogy, think of a buffet line at party: the mere fact that I am first in line does not give me the right to devour everything I can stuff into my snack port. If I did that at a party, I would be rightly regarded as a terrible person. It also does not give me the right to grab whatever I cannot eat so I can sell it to those who has the misfortune to be behind me in line. Again, if I did that, I would be rightly regarded as a horrible person who should be stopped. As such, these resources should be treated in a similar manner, namely fairly and with some concern for those who are behind the first people in line. As such, the mining of space resources should include limits aimed at benefiting those who do not happen to get there first to grab the goodies.
In closing, it should be noted that space is really big. Because of this, it could be argued that there are plenty of resources out there, so it is morally acceptable for the people who get there first to grab as much as they can. After all, no matter how much they grab, there will be plenty left somewhere. While this does have some appeal, there is an obvious problem: it is not just a matter of how much is out there, but how much can be reached at this time. Going back to the buffet analogy, if I stuffed myself with as much as I could grab and started trying to sell the rest to others behind me in line, then simply yelling “there are other buffets out there” would hardly get me off the moral hook.
My love of science fiction, especially GDW’s classic RPG Traveller, makes me favorably inclined towards space mining. For me, that is part of the future we were promises. But, as a philosopher, I have some ethical concerns about mining in space.
When it comes to any sort of mining, two important moral concerns are the impact on the environment and the impact on humans. Terrestrial mining has generally been devastating to the environment. This includes the direct damage caused by extracting the resources and the secondary effects, such as lasting chemical contamination. These environmental impacts in turn impact human populations. These impacts can include directly killing people (a failed retaining wall that causes drowning deaths) and indirectly harming people (such as contamination of the water supply). As such, mining on earth generally involves serious moral concerns. In contrast, space mining would seem to avoid these problems.
Unlike the heavily populated planet earth, asteroids and the moon are lifeless rocks in space. As such, they do not seem to have any ecosystems to damage. While the asteroids that are mined will often be destroyed in the process, it is difficult to argue that destroying an asteroid to mine it would be wrong based on environmental concerns. While destroying the moon would obviously be bad, mining operations there would seem to be morally acceptable because there is no environment to worry about.
Since space mining takes place in space, the human population of earth will be safely away from any side effects of mining. It is worth noting that should humans colonize the moon or asteroids, then space mining could have an impact on these populations. But, for the foreseeable future, there will be no humans living near the mining areas. Because of the lack of harm, space mining is morally acceptable.
It might, however, be objected that asteroids and the moon be left unmined despite the absence of life and ecosystems. The challenge is providing a plausible reason as to why mining lifeless rocks would be wrong. One possible approach is to contend that the asteroids and the moon somehow have rights that would make mining them wrong. However, rocks do not seem to be the sort of things that can have rights. Another approach is to argue that people who really care about the asteroids and the moon would somehow be harmed by there being mined. While I am certainly open to arguments that would grant these rocks protection from mining, the burden of proof would seem to be on those who wish to make this claim.
Thus, it would seem there are not any reasonable moral arguments against the mining of the asteroids based on environmental concerns or potential harm to humans. That could, of course, change if ecosystems were found on asteroids or if it turned out that the asteroids performed an important role in the solar system that affected terrestrial ecosystems. While this result favors space mining, the moral concerns are not limited to environmental harms.
There are, as would be suspected, the usual moral concerns about the working conditions and pay of space miners. Of course, these concerns are not specific to space mining and going into labor ethics would take this short essay too far afield. However, the situation in space does make the ethics of ownership relevant.
From a moral standpoint, the ethics of who can justly claim ownership of asteroids and the moon is of great concern. From a practical standpoint, it is reasonable to expect that matters will play out as usual: those with the biggest guns and most money will decide who owns the rocks. If it follows the usual pattern, corporations will end up owning the rocks and will try to exploit them for significant profits. But how things will probably play out does not determine how they should play out. Fortunately, philosophers considered this sort of situation long ago,
While past philosophers probably did not give much thought to space mining, asteroids (and the moon) fit nicely into the state of nature scenarios envisioned by thinkers like Hobbes and Locke. There are resources in abundance with no effective authority over them. Naturally, the authorities can do things on earth to people involved with activities in space, but it will be quite some time before there are space police (though we have been promised a space force).
Since there are no rightful owners (or, alternatively, we are all potentially rightful owners), it is tempting to claim the resources are there for the taking. That is, the resources belong to whoever, in Locke’s terms, mixes their labor with it and makes it their own (or more likely their employer’s own). This does have a certain appeal. After all, if me and my fellows in Mike’s Mining construct a robot ship that flies out to asteroid and mines it, we seem to have earned the right to those resources through our efforts. Before our ship mined it for water and metal, these valuable resources were just drifting in space, surrounded by rock. It would thus seem to follow that we would have the right to grab as many asteroids as we can. As would our competitors. This would be a rock rush in space.
But, Locke also has his famous proviso: those who take from the common resources must leave as much and as good for others. While this proviso has been grotesquely violated on earth, the asteroids provide us with a new opportunity to consider how to share (or not) resources.
It can be argued that there is no obligation to leave as much and as good for others in space and that things should be on a strict first grab, first get approach. After all, the people who get their equipment into space would have done the work (or put up the money) and hence (as argued above) be entitled to all they can grab and use or sell. Other people are free to grab what they can, if they have access to the resources needed to reach and mine the asteroids. Naturally, the folks who lack the resources to compete will end up, as they always do, out of luck and poor.
While this has a certain selfish appeal, a case can be made for sharing. One obvious reason is that the people who reach the asteroids first to mine them did not create the ability to do so out of nothing. After all, reaching the asteroids will be the result of centuries of human civilization that made such technology possible. As such, there would seem to be a general debt owed to humanity and paying this off would involve contributing to the general good of humanity. Naturally, this line of reasoning can be countered by arguing that the successful miners will benefit humanity when their profits “trickle down” from space. It could also be argued that the idea of a debt to past generations is absurd as is the notion of the general good of humanity. This is, of course, the view that the selfish and ungrateful would embrace.
Second, there is the concern for not only the people who are alive today but also for the people to be. To use an analogy, think of a buffet line at party: the mere fact that I am first in line does not give me the right to devour everything I can stuff into my snack port. If I did that at a party, I would be rightly regarded as a terrible person. It also does not give me the right to grab whatever I cannot eat so I can sell it to those who has the misfortune to be behind me in line. Again, if I did that, I would be rightly regarded as a horrible person who should be stopped. As such, these resources should be treated in a similar manner, namely fairly and with some concern for those who are behind the first people in line. As such, the mining of space resources should include limits aimed at benefiting those who do not happen to get there first to grab the goodies.
In closing, it should be noted that space is really big. Because of this, it could be argued that there are plenty of resources out there, so it is morally acceptable for the people who get there first to grab as much as they can. After all, no matter how much they grab, there will be plenty left somewhere. While this does have some appeal, there is an obvious problem: it is not just a matter of how much is out there, but how much can be reached at this time. Going back to the buffet analogy, if I stuffed myself with as much as I could grab and started trying to sell the rest to others behind me in line, then simply yelling “there are other buffets out there” would hardly get me off the moral hook.
steroid mining is the hypothetical exploitation of materials from asteroids and other minor planets, including near-Earth objects.It’s wonderful that people are shooting for the stars — but those who declined to fund the expansive plans of the nascent space mining industry were right about the fundamentals. Space mining won’t get off the ground in any foreseeable future — and you only have to look at the history of civilization to see why.
One factor rules out most space mining at the outset: gravity. On one hand, it guarantees that most of the solar system’s best mineral resources are to be found under our feet. Earth is the largest rocky planet orbiting the sun.