The future of space exploration is a captivating yet controversial topic, and the question of who will inhabit and work in space is a pressing one. Who will inherit the cosmos?
At a tech conference, Jeff Bezos, the visionary behind Amazon and Blue Origin, boldly claimed that millions will call space home within decades, primarily due to the cost-effectiveness of robots. But a surprising twist emerged at TechCrunch Disrupt, where Will Bruey, founder of Varda Space Industries, made a startling prediction. Bruey suggested that sending blue-collar workers into space could be more economical than developing advanced robots, sparking curiosity and debate.
This revelation raises crucial questions about the future workforce in space. To delve deeper, I consulted with Mary-Jane Rubenstein, a renowned expert in space ethics. Rubenstein highlights a fundamental issue: the power imbalance between workers and employers. She argues that workers already face challenges on Earth, and these struggles could intensify in space, where employers control not only wages but also access to basic necessities like food, water, and air.
Space, often romanticized as a pristine frontier, is, in reality, a harsh environment. Rubenstein emphasizes that it's not a pleasant place, lacking the comforts and beauty of Earth. But her concerns extend beyond worker welfare. The legal status of space ownership is a growing controversy.
The 1967 Outer Space Treaty established that celestial bodies belong to all humanity, but the 2015 Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act in the U.S. introduced a loophole. While you can't own the moon, you can own what you extract from it. This has led to a legal gray area, with companies like AstroForge and Interlune positioning themselves to mine asteroids and the moon.
Rubenstein offers a compelling analogy: it's like saying you can't own a house but can own its contents. She argues that the resources extracted from celestial bodies are integral parts of those bodies, making ownership claims problematic. The international community has reacted strongly, with Russia calling the Act a violation of international law and Belgium warning of economic imbalances.
The U.S. responded with the Artemis Accords, bilateral agreements that interpret space law in favor of resource extraction. However, this move has created a divide, with some countries signing on while others, like Russia and China, remain hesitant. Rubenstein suggests returning control to the UN as a solution, or repealing the Wolf Amendment to ease restrictions on China collaboration.
She challenges the notion that collaboration with China is impossible, especially when compared to the ambitious space projects being proposed. Rubenstein's broader concern is the direction of space exploration, which she believes is misguided. She categorizes science fiction into three types: conquest, dystopian, and speculative fiction, each offering different visions of space.
Rubenstein laments that the current approach, focused on conquest and exploitation, misses an opportunity to extend Earth's values and priorities to space. She proposes tightening environmental regulations and addressing space debris as realistic steps forward. With the threat of the Kessler effect looming, where every stakeholder's interests align, there's a rare chance for collaboration.
Rubenstein's work aims to bring together diverse voices to discuss the ethical and collaborative future of space. But will anyone listen? With startup founders predicting major changes and companies gearing up for space mining, the fate of blue-collar workers in space remains uncertain. Are we heading towards a space-based industrial revolution, or is there a more sustainable path? The debate continues, and your thoughts are welcome.
