Planetary protection issues Earth > Mars and Mars > Earth

[Twark_Main]

It took a few close calls to make people realise that some locations on Earth are as un-Earthly as the soils of Mars. The bottom of Lake Vostok comes to mind. The scientists at Antarctica are being very careful with that, courtesy of the prior mentioned close calls.

Current planetary protection protocols are mainly aimed at protecting other planets from being infected with Earth life. Reason: when we go out there and start searching for life on those planets we might just discover life there, only to find out that we delivered it there on prior missions.

The bottom of lake Vostok is not remotely like Mars.

That's not what woods170 said. He said it was un-Earthly, and thus precautions are taken. Mars is also un-Earthly, therefore (so the argument goes) precautions should also be taken.

[su27k]

This is bad: Ethical Exploration and the Role of Planetary Protection in Disrupting Colonial Practices

We recommend that the planetary science and space exploration community engage in a robust reevaluation concerning the ethics of how future crewed and uncrewed missions to the Moon and Mars will interact with those planetary environments. This should occur through a process of community input, with emphasis on how such missions can resist colonial structures. Such discussions must be rooted in the historical context of the violent colonialism in the Americas and across the globe that has accompanied exploration of Earth. The structures created by settler colonialism are very much alive today, impact the scientific community, and are currently replicated in the space exploration communities' plans for human exploration and in-situ resource utilization. These discussions must lead to enforceable planetary protection policies that create a framework for ethical exploration of other worlds. Current policy does not adequately address questions related to in-situ resource utilization and environmental preservation and is without enforcement mechanisms. Further, interactions with potential extraterrestrial life have scientific and moral stakes. Decisions on these topics will be made in the coming decade as the Artemis program enables frequent missions to the Moon and crewed missions to Mars. Those first choices will have irreversible consequences for the future of human space exploration and must be extremely well considered, with input from those beyond the scientific community, including expertise from the humanities and members of the general public. Without planetary protection policy that actively resists colonial practices, they will be replicated in our interactions and exploration of other planetary bodies. The time is now to engage in these difficult conversations and disrupt colonial practices within our field so that they are not carried to other worlds.

Zubrin is leading the counter strike: Wokeists Assault Space Exploration

In October 2020, NASA’s Planetary Science and Astrobiology Decadal Survey committee received a manifesto from its Equity, Diversity and Inclusion Working Group (EDIWG). Written by NASA Ames Research Center public-communications specialist Frank Tavares — along with a group of eleven co-authors including noted activists drawn from the fields of anthropology, ethics, philosophy, decolonial theory, and women’s studies — and supported by a list of 109 signatories, “Ethical Exploration and the Role of Planetary Protection in Disrupting Colonial Practices” lacks technical merit. It is, nevertheless of great clinical interest, as it brilliantly demonstrates how the ideologies responsible for the destruction of university liberal-arts education can be put to work to abort space exploration as well.

[Frogstar_Robot]

Zubrin's polemic dropped in my inbox too, so I thought to look more into it.

It appears to be a debate between "Space Expansionists" vs "Wokeists", or perhaps STEM vs liberal arts.

The hell of humans in heaven – Debating the risks of space technology and habitation

Who will control what resources are old questions in the political universe, as Deudney rightly points out. Who gets to go to space in the first place, let alone benefit from it, is a thorny political and socioeconomic question. Human habitats on Mars will not escape that pressing political and material reality. Those questions in public discussion and commentary rarely feature on the latest round of navel-gazing about Martian ‘colonies’ from billionaires or dramatic visualisations of crewed space exploration from civil space agencies. The continuation of the term ‘colonies’ in describing the potential human future in space should raise political and moral alarm bells immediately given the last 500 years of international relations. Will billionaires run their ‘colonies’ the way they run their factory floors, and treat their citizens like they treat their lowest paid employees? Will executive boards on a Martian capital curb the authoritarian powers of CEOs as well or as poorly as they do in terrestrial corporate power struggles? It is these sorts of questions and how they remain unasked, let alone answered, that drives much of Deudney’s opposition to the Space Expansionists and their vision of the human future in space and on other worlds.

Beyond a small number of space-oriented scholars in the humanities, arts, and social sciences, as well as some writers of science fiction, Space Expansionist ideals from the likes of Konstantin Tsiolkovsky to Carl Sagan, from Gerard K. O’Neill to Michio Kaku, continue unchallenged by the more grounded perspectives of astropolitics from the geopolitical universe. To challenge the political excesses of STEM-derived (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) fantasies of Space Expansion, Deudney’s work should join the likes of Walter McDougall, Alice Gorman, Asif Siddiqi, Alexander Geppert, Michael Sheehan, and Deganit Paikowsky (to name only a few!) in any essential reading list. Anyone wishing to promote their preferred space technologies and habitat methods cannot in good conscience ignore their socio-political ramifications and the required structures of governance.

I admit that I didn't realise the field of study went so deep, since communities beyond Earth seem like a still distant eventuality. I am guessing for Space Expansionists, there is no conversation needed. We just go and do it, if we can.

[whitelancer64]

This is bad: Ethical Exploration and the Role of Planetary Protection in Disrupting Colonial Practices

We recommend that the planetary science and space exploration community engage in a robust reevaluation concerning the ethics of how future crewed and uncrewed missions to the Moon and Mars will interact with those planetary environments. This should occur through a process of community input, with emphasis on how such missions can resist colonial structures. Such discussions must be rooted in the historical context of the violent colonialism in the Americas and across the globe that has accompanied exploration of Earth. The structures created by settler colonialism are very much alive today, impact the scientific community, and are currently replicated in the space exploration communities' plans for human exploration and in-situ resource utilization. These discussions must lead to enforceable planetary protection policies that create a framework for ethical exploration of other worlds. Current policy does not adequately address questions related to in-situ resource utilization and environmental preservation and is without enforcement mechanisms. Further, interactions with potential extraterrestrial life have scientific and moral stakes. Decisions on these topics will be made in the coming decade as the Artemis program enables frequent missions to the Moon and crewed missions to Mars. Those first choices will have irreversible consequences for the future of human space exploration and must be extremely well considered, with input from those beyond the scientific community, including expertise from the humanities and members of the general public. Without planetary protection policy that actively resists colonial practices, they will be replicated in our interactions and exploration of other planetary bodies. The time is now to engage in these difficult conversations and disrupt colonial practices within our field so that they are not carried to other worlds.

Zubrin is leading the counter strike: Wokeists Assault Space Exploration

In October 2020, NASA’s Planetary Science and Astrobiology Decadal Survey committee received a manifesto from its Equity, Diversity and Inclusion Working Group (EDIWG). Written by NASA Ames Research Center public-communications specialist Frank Tavares — along with a group of eleven co-authors including noted activists drawn from the fields of anthropology, ethics, philosophy, decolonial theory, and women’s studies — and supported by a list of 109 signatories, “Ethical Exploration and the Role of Planetary Protection in Disrupting Colonial Practices” lacks technical merit. It is, nevertheless of great clinical interest, as it brilliantly demonstrates how the ideologies responsible for the destruction of university liberal-arts education can be put to work to abort space exploration as well.

I don't think it's bad.

Reading between the jargon, they basically want to make sure that future colonization, which historically has included the exploitation of resources in the colonized location without limits, to the detriment of both the environment and the people living there, has something to curb it. And they are saying that the time to have such discussions is now.

Zubrin, as always, views any sort of critical thinking about space exploration as an attempt to keep us permanently grounded on Earth, which is absurd.

The article posted by Frogstar_Robot raises good questions: "Will billionaires run their ‘colonies’ the way they run their factory floors, and treat their citizens like they treat their lowest paid employees? Will executive boards on a Martian capital curb the authoritarian powers of CEOs as well or as poorly as they do in terrestrial corporate power struggles?"

HOW we will colonize in the future is an important thing that is worth considering and debating, and - very important - hopefully we come to some sort of conclusion BEFORE we have colonized space.

[Frogstar_Robot]

With regard to the late Sean Connery, the movie Outland is a dystopian vision of space communities, but also a fun "High Noon in space". You can enjoy it either way.

I do feel the idealistic notions of early "space settlers" will quickly run into severe practical issues, and unlike on Earth where it is possible (with difficulty) to up sticks and move if you don't like the current polity, that may be impossible in an off-Earth settlement. Whoever controls transport and the habitable environment may be very tempted to abuse that control.

It might be argued that dictatorial polities have nothing to do with planetary protection, but such organisations are not well known for their respect of the natural environment either.

[Zed_Noir]

It was an interesting academic debate between STEM folks and the liberal arts folks on how to colonized space up to a few months ago. More specifically how to colonized the Moon and Mars. Academic since it is always 20 years in the future.

We are only having the more robust debate now between the "Space Expansionists" vs "Wokeists" because of the elephant in the room. Some eccentric Billionaire might have the means to actually attempt to colonized both places within a few years.

IMO. The debate is done. The liberal arts folks have lost. Said eccentric Billionaire have decided that his path is the way forward with multiple inhabited locations in the Sol system.

[Twark_Main]

IMO. The debate is done. The liberal arts folks have lost.

That's only true if you assume that the goal of the "liberal arts folks" was to prevent space habitation altogether. I see no evidence of that in this working paper.

You seem to have, intentionally or otherwise, adopted Zubrin's misconception:

Zubrin, as always, views any sort of critical thinking about space exploration as an attempt to keep us permanently grounded on Earth, which is absurd.

[whitelancer64]

It was an interesting academic debate between STEM folks and the liberal arts folks on how to colonized space up to a few months ago. More specifically how to colonized the Moon and Mars. Academic since it is always 20 years in the future.

We are only having the more robust debate now between the "Space Expansionists" vs "Wokeists" because of the elephant in the room. Some eccentric Billionaire might have the means to actually attempt to colonized both places within a few years.

IMO. The debate is done. The liberal arts folks have lost. Said eccentric Billionaire have decided that his path is the way forward with multiple inhabited locations in the Sol system.

The whole concept that there's a dichotomy between STEM "space expansionists" and the liberal arts "woke" is nonsense. That mindset is counter-productive.

Do away with that misconception and you'll arrive at a much more solid foundation on which to begin this discussion.

[Frogstar_Robot]

It was an interesting academic debate between STEM folks and the liberal arts folks on how to colonized space up to a few months ago. More specifically how to colonized the Moon and Mars. Academic since it is always 20 years in the future.

We are only having the more robust debate now between the "Space Expansionists" vs "Wokeists" because of the elephant in the room. Some eccentric Billionaire might have the means to actually attempt to colonized both places within a few years.

IMO. The debate is done. The liberal arts folks have lost. Said eccentric Billionaire have decided that his path is the way forward with multiple inhabited locations in the Sol system.

I don't think so. An actually permanently inhabited base even on Moon may still be 20 years away. As it stands, the OST obliges the US to manage activities of US companies in space. That will be done by Executive Orders or acts of Congress, and would apply to a base run by NASA or SpaceX. I don't think the Artemis Accords add anything regarding permanent settlements.

I don't know how much weight the EDIWG group carries within NASA. Under a new administration, it might get more consideration.

In general, laws lag new technology. Legislation that tries to anticipate future tech tends to be very broad brush, and existing law tends to be applied in the interim. It's only when specific problems are perceived with the new tech that laws are brought in to try to "fix" the problems.

For example, if workers in a Lunar base were denied constitutional rights, they then can sue under existing legislation. If Greenpeace were concerned about Lunar pollution by mining companies, they might also be able to sue, although I am not sure if they could establish standing.

I think the debate is far from over, it is hardly begun.

[su27k]

Seriously? Right of not only existing microbial life but future microbial life is not here to prevent colonization? How do you ensure the right of microbial life and keep Mars environment unchanged if you want to do colonization? I'd like to know.

I agree with Zubrin here, this is absolutely an attempt to prevent humanity from leaving Earth all together and must be treated as such. Hopefully the decadal survey will crush this paper like a bug, I'll certainly be paying more attention to the survey meeting from now on, this is an existential threat not only to Mars colonization efforts but to humanity as a whole.

[Zed_Noir]

<snip>
I think the debate is far from over, it is hardly begun.

The debate is over as far the said eccentric Billionaire is concern. The only one that matters in how quickly Humanity will become Multi-planetary. He have the technologies and the resources to started a long term sustained campaign to colonized the Moon and Mars. That includes legal and lobbying resources.

[Frogstar_Robot]

Seriously? Right of not only existing microbial life but future microbial life is not here to prevent colonization? How do you ensure the right of microbial life and keep Mars environment unchanged if you want to do colonization? I'd like to know.

I agree with Zubrin here, this is absolutely an attempt to prevent humanity from leaving Earth all together and must be treated as such. Hopefully the decadal survey will crush this paper like a bug, I'll certainly be paying more attention to the survey meeting from now on, this is an existential threat not only to Mars colonization efforts but to humanity as a whole.

"Crush like a bug"... demonstrates the level of respect humans give to other life forms. Which is the point being made by the manifesto.

[Frogstar_Robot]

<snip>
I think the debate is far from over, it is hardly begun.

The debate is over as far the said eccentric Billionaire is concern. The only one that matters in how quickly Humanity will become Multi-planetary. He have the technologies and the resources to started a long term sustained campaign to colonized the Moon and Mars. That includes legal and lobbying resources.

Sorry, I forgot that Musk now has God status.  He can do anything he likes

[whitelancer64]

Seriously? Right of not only existing microbial life but future microbial life is not here to prevent colonization? How do you ensure the right of microbial life and keep Mars environment unchanged if you want to do colonization? I'd like to know.

I agree with Zubrin here, this is absolutely an attempt to prevent humanity from leaving Earth all together and must be treated as such. Hopefully the decadal survey will crush this paper like a bug, I'll certainly be paying more attention to the survey meeting from now on, this is an existential threat not only to Mars colonization efforts but to humanity as a whole.

They would take its existence into consideration, and ideally, try not to disrupt it as much as possible. That's really all they are talking about. They don't want the home of a microbal ecosystem to be strip-mined without its being studied first, and they argue that it's unethical to allow economic concerns to run rampant over scientific concerns. That's the entire point of the white paper.

Zubrin is wrong, because his mindset is wrong. The argument that this dialogue is an "existential threat to Mars colonization" is wrong. Nobody is saying we should not establish colonies. Literally nowhere do they say we should not leave Earth. It is a strawman argument.

[whitelancer64]

<snip>
I think the debate is far from over, it is hardly begun.

The debate is over as far the said eccentric Billionaire is concern. The only one that matters in how quickly Humanity will become Multi-planetary. He have the technologies and the resources to started a long term sustained campaign to colonized the Moon and Mars. That includes legal and lobbying resources.

It's not a fait accompli, not yet. It's close enough that it's nearly real, but it hasn't yet happened, so we can still shape how it happens, so we don't repeat the mistakes of the past.

We have an opportunity to do things better, to start humanity's movement into living in space in a better, more sustainable way than we did on Earth, so I think we should.

[Frogstar_Robot]

Since practical colonization is still along way off, it's all a bit theoretical. But imagine we find a world that seems poised for life - it's similar to an early Earth, but has no signs of life at the microbe level. But we do detect areas with unusually high concentrations of organic compounds (perhaps in places analogous to hydrothermal vents). It may be in the process of creating life - which might take thousands or millions of years. Studying how life arises is one of the huge scientific questions. Would we reserve this new world to scientific research, or turn it over to colonists, or for exploitation by mining companies?

In a more immediate timeframe, it would be interesting to see what happens if strong evidence for life is detected on Mars, or even evidence of past life. At the very least, we would want to carefully study the impact of introducing human activities into a potentially viable, independent ecosystem. It would be a shame, to put it mildly, to discover a second site of life outside the Earth, and then find we destroyed it with a careless human presence.

If the Earth was in imminent threat of destruction, the balance might be different. Assuming we take care of the planet, it should be good for a few million years yet. We really don't need to rush to colonize other planets (or moons).

Of course, planetary protection wouldn't apply to space based habitats, so expansion into space can still take place. We just need to be careful how we do it.

[su27k]

Since practical colonization is still along way off, it's all a bit theoretical. But imagine we find a world that seems poised for life - it's similar to an early Earth, but has no signs of life at the microbe level. But we do detect areas with unusually high concentrations of organic compounds (perhaps in places analogous to hydrothermal vents). It may be in the process of creating life - which might take thousands or millions of years. Studying how life arises is one of the huge scientific questions. Would we reserve this new world to scientific research, or turn it over to colonists, or for exploitation by mining companies?

In a more immediate timeframe, it would be interesting to see what happens if strong evidence for life is detected on Mars, or even evidence of past life. At the very least, we would want to carefully study the impact of introducing human activities into a potentially viable, independent ecosystem. It would be a shame, to put it mildly, to discover a second site of life outside the Earth, and then find we destroyed it with a careless human presence.

If the Earth was in imminent threat of destruction, the balance might be different. Assuming we take care of the planet, it should be good for a few million years yet. We really don't need to rush to colonize other planets (or moons).

Of course, planetary protection wouldn't apply to space based habitats, so expansion into space can still take place. We just need to be careful how we do it.

This is a stupid argument, you can argue the same for places on Earth. If we remove humans from Australia or New Zealand, there may be new life forms arise from there too (in fact they already have some unique life forms), why don't we do that?

Because we give human interests a far higher value than lower life forms, this is encoded in our laws and customs, this should be no different when it comes to other planets. We introduce human activities into potentially viable, independent ecosystem all the time here on Earth, nobody bats an eye about it.

And one can very much argue human civilization on Earth is in imminent threat of destruction, I mean isn't this the argument behind climate change mitigation? You can't have it both ways (arguing there's no danger so we don't need to colonize, at the same time saying climate change is an existential threat). Besides, a Mars colony will take a long time to establish itself, we needed to start right now because if we wait until there is an imminent threat it would be way too late.

And a space habitat doesn't get you out of this, since it needs resources, where do you get the material to build your space habitat? It has to come from planets or asteroids, then you're back to where you started, you need to change the environment on planets or asteroids (i.e. mining) in order to build your space habitat.

Fundamentally, anything we do will change the environment, either on Earth or on other bodies in the solar system. The only way to preserve the environment is to do nothing, which is why Zubrin is correct when he says the goal of this paper is prevent us from leaving Earth all together.

[su27k]

Seriously? Right of not only existing microbial life but future microbial life is not here to prevent colonization? How do you ensure the right of microbial life and keep Mars environment unchanged if you want to do colonization? I'd like to know.

I agree with Zubrin here, this is absolutely an attempt to prevent humanity from leaving Earth all together and must be treated as such. Hopefully the decadal survey will crush this paper like a bug, I'll certainly be paying more attention to the survey meeting from now on, this is an existential threat not only to Mars colonization efforts but to humanity as a whole.

"Crush like a bug"... demonstrates the level of respect humans give to other life forms. Which is the point being made by the manifesto.

Which is exactly why this manifesto is naive at best, disingenuous and dangerous at worst.

You do realize we're trying to crush a microbe right now, right? Well it's a virus, some don't consider it alive, but it's not dead either, and it's very much part of the environment. We're waging wars against Mosquito all over the world because they're a vector for Malaria which itself is a parasite, did anybody ask us to consider the "Agency and moral consideration" when trying to kill these microbes? Did anybody ask us to consider "Responsibility towards the potential for future life" that maybe evolved from these microbes we're killing?

[su27k]

Seriously? Right of not only existing microbial life but future microbial life is not here to prevent colonization? How do you ensure the right of microbial life and keep Mars environment unchanged if you want to do colonization? I'd like to know.

I agree with Zubrin here, this is absolutely an attempt to prevent humanity from leaving Earth all together and must be treated as such. Hopefully the decadal survey will crush this paper like a bug, I'll certainly be paying more attention to the survey meeting from now on, this is an existential threat not only to Mars colonization efforts but to humanity as a whole.

They would take its existence into consideration, and ideally, try not to disrupt it as much as possible. That's really all they are talking about. They don't want the home of a microbal ecosystem to be strip-mined without its being studied first, and they argue that it's unethical to allow economic concerns to run rampant over scientific concerns. That's the entire point of the white paper.

Zubrin is wrong, because his mindset is wrong. The argument that this dialogue is an "existential threat to Mars colonization" is wrong. Nobody is saying we should not establish colonies. Literally nowhere do they say we should not leave Earth. It is a strawman argument.

No, that is not at all what the paper is talking about, did you even read it? It goes well beyond scientific rationale for preserving microbes:

Moral Consideration of Extraterrestrial Microbial Life: There must be further discussion of what moral consideration microbial life on other worlds should have, beyond their scientific significance, as others have considered previously.

I mean just read the damn thing before you say we're wrong.

[su27k]

Since nobody seems to be actually reading this paper, here's some quotes:

We must actively work to prevent capitalist extraction on other worlds, respect and preserve their environmental systems, and acknowledge the sovereignty and interconnectivity of all life. The urgency of finding a second home on Mars in the shadow of looming environmental catastrophe on Earth is not only a questionable endeavor 2 but scientifically impossible with present technology, 3 and is often used as a justification for human exploration and to suggest that these ethical questions may be antiquated in the face of that reality.

So yeah, your space habitat? Not going to happen because it needs "capitalist extraction on other worlds", which will be prevented. And "Nobody is saying we should not establish colonies"? What does the sentence "The urgency of finding a second home on Mars in the shadow of looming environmental catastrophe on Earth is not only a questionable endeavor 2 but scientifically impossible with present technology" looks like to you?

Public-Private Partnerships as a Colonial Structure

So yeah, no public-private partnership either because it's a colonial, we need to be anti-colonial so let's give cost-plus contracts to Boeing and LM, that's the way to go. Of course anybody with any knowledge about current state of space industry would realize by removing PPP this effectively kills any attempt at doing anything meaningful beyond LEO

Also I find it curious that this stands is exactly what Kendra Horn - the head of democrat controlled house space subcommittee - takes, coincidence? I think not.

Moral Consideration of Extraterrestrial Microbial Life: There must be further discussion of what moral consideration microbial life on other worlds should have, beyond their scientific significance,as others have considered previously. 29 Considerations of “intelligence” or “non-intelligence” should not be used as the framework for this discussion. Not only do biological distinctions of intelligence have a racist history, they do not hold scientific merit.

So we can't call microbes non-intelligent because it's racist, and if we treat microbes as intelligent then the treatment they receive can't just be "try not to disrupt it as much as possible", surely we'll have to treat them as equals, after all they're "intelligent" aliens, no?

Obligations to Potential Future Life: Even if there is no extant microbial life on Mars or beyond, we must consider the impacts of our actions on geologic timescales. A human presence on an astrobiologically significant world could disrupt evolutionary processes already in place.

So basically we can't do anything in space, that asteroid you're trying to mine? Who knows what life form could evolve on it in 10 billion years. How do you prove to various government agencies and committees that there won't be life evolving on this asteroid until the end of the universe? Good luck with that, you think any investor is going to fund your mining expedition knowing you need to prove this?

Preservation of Environments on Non-Habitable Worlds: Current plans for the Moon place in-situ resource utilization as a fundamental component of a long-term presence. Current policy does not adequately address questions relevant to preservation beyond sites of scientific value, and ignores questions of whether certain environments should be preserved for historical or environmental reasons, or even their intrinsic value. Aesthetics should also be considered.

"scientific concerns" you were saying? Nope, it goes way way beyond that, this is the ultimate NIMBY, again good luck getting anything done when you need to consider intrinsic aesthetics values of planetary bodies.

In addition, the Moon and other planetary bodies are sacred to some cultures. Is it possible for those beliefs to be respected if we engage in resource utilization on those worlds? Lunar exploration must be prepared to adjust its practices and plans if the answer is no

So yeah, that mining site on the Moon, you can't do it if some tribe says it's sacred ground for them.