Who gets to inherit the stars? A space ethicist on what we’re not talking about

At a recent tech conference in Italy, Jeff Bezos, the founder of Amazon and Blue Origin, forecasted that millions of people could inhabit space within the next few decades. He suggested that this shift would largely be driven by human desire, as robots become the more cost-effective option for labor in space. However, during a panel at TechCrunch Disrupt in San Francisco, Will Bruey, CEO of space manufacturing company Varda Space Industries, made a striking counterpoint. He argued that it might actually be cheaper to send 'working-class humans' into orbit for a month than to invest in advanced robotics over the next 15 to 20 years. This statement raised significant concerns about the nature of work in space and the conditions under which these workers would operate. To delve deeper into these pressing issues, I spoke with Mary-Jane Rubenstein, an expert in religion and science technology studies at Wesleyan University, who has been exploring the ethics surrounding space expansion. Rubenstein’s insights highlight the fundamental power imbalances that could emerge as we venture into space. "Workers on Earth already struggle to make ends meet, and this dependence on employers will only intensify in space, where they will rely on them not just for wages but for essential needs like food, water, and even air," she explained. Her perspective challenges the romanticized view of space as a pristine new frontier, emphasizing that conditions in space are far from idyllic. "It’s not nice up there; it’s quite harsh," she stated explicitly. In addition to worker rights, Rubenstein raised the increasingly contentious issue of property rights in space—a legal gray area that is becoming more problematic as commercial space activities ramp up. The 1967 Outer Space Treaty states that no nation can claim sovereignty over celestial bodies, asserting that resources belong to all of humanity. However, the 2015 U.S. Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act introduced a loophole by allowing companies to own resources extracted from celestial bodies, which has led to concerns about commercial exploitation. Rubenstein likened this to a paradox: "It's like saying you can't own a house, but you can own everything inside it. In reality, it's worse—it's akin to saying you can’t own the house, but you can take the floorboards and beams since they are part of the house itself." As companies like AstroForge pursue asteroid mining and Interlune aims to extract Helium-3 from the moon, concerns grow about the sustainability of these resources. Rubenstein notes that once a resource is claimed by one country, others are effectively shut out, leading to international tensions. The 2016 UN Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space meeting saw Russia denounce the U.S. Act as a violation of international law, while Belgium raised alarms about the risks of global economic disparity. In response, the U.S. developed the Artemis Accords—bilateral agreements with allied nations that formalize the American interpretation of space law, particularly regarding resource extraction. However, notable absences like Russia and China from these accords raise questions about their legitimacy and inclusivity. Rubenstein suggests a radical solution: returning control of space governance to the United Nations. She also advocates for repealing the Wolf Amendment, which restricts NASA's collaboration with China without stringent approvals. While she acknowledges the complexities, she believes that if we can envision ambitious projects like space hotels or colonizing Mars, then dialogue with China could also be possible. As we ponder the future of space, Rubenstein warns against current trajectories that prioritize resource extraction and militarization. She categorizes science fiction into three genres: conquest narratives, dystopian warnings, and speculative fiction that envisions alternative societies. Unfortunately, many tech companies appear to be following the conquest narrative, missing the opportunity to shape a more equitable and thoughtful approach to space exploration. Although she doesn’t foresee immediate policy changes, she identifies potential paths forward, such as tightening environmental regulations and addressing the burgeoning issue of space debris. With over 40,000 trackable objects orbiting Earth, we risk reaching a critical tipping point. Rubenstein notes that the threat of space debris is a rare issue that unites all stakeholders. She is currently working on a proposal for an annual conference to bring together academics, industry leaders, and government representatives to explore how to approach space responsibly and collaboratively. However, with legislative moves to solidify restrictions on cooperation with China, the future of international collaboration in space remains uncertain. As discussions about the future of work in orbit and the commercialization of space continue, the need for ethical considerations has never been more pressing.