The Case Against Mars | Boston Review
Contrary to the boosterism of billionaires, the need for space colonization must be argued for, not assumed. And the arguments aren’t good.
Tomorrow a manned orbital rocket will launch from U.S. soil for the first time since the Space Shuttle Program was cancelled in 2011. The astronauts are NASA boys, but the rocket belongs to SpaceX, Elon Musk’s most dazzling corporate brainchild. Though the objectives of this particular mission are modest, the company’s ultimate goal, Mars colonization, is anything but. Musk himself—along with those other ultra-rich space enthusiasts Jeff Bezos and Richard Branson—clearly believes this goal wears its merits on its sleeve. But does it? You might be disappointed if you visit SpaceX’s website seeking to understand the point of these otherworldly ventures. Apart from a will-o’-the-wisp video clip misleadingly titled “The Case for Mars,” there’s nothing there that might count as a sustained justification of this monumental project.
... There have been three broad patterns of attempted justification. The first appeals to evolution, the second to long-term human security, and the last to the expansion of human freedom.
Evolution - a sort of "Manifest Destiny" argument, that here are new places to expand into. But such expansion depends on the feasibility of doing so, and spaceflight continues to be enormously difficult.
Long-term human security - The Sun is slowly brightening, and about 500 - 1000 million years from now, the Earth will become too hot to be easily habitable by us. Its temperature has been maintained by a carbonate-silicate geochemical effect, but that is slowly running out as CO2 levels decline to compensate for the Sun's increased luminosity.
But that's a heck of a long way in the future, and there's plenty of time to devise the necessary technologies for getting off of our planet.
What about freedom? There’s a strong strain of libertarianism among recent space expansionists (as well as among many Silicon Valley types, especially when it comes to the regulation of technology), but it is not obvious that the project will enhance human freedom overall, whether for remaining Terrans or in space. This is in large measure a product of the perpetual war footing on which such adventurism will place us all. Each world in the space archipelago can legitimize steep political hierarchies as a necessary means for dealing with perceived external threats. And such security-based political hierarchies inevitably bring more or less severe restrictions of individual liberties, at least for those on the bottom of the heap.
...
The association of space expansion with the preservation and expansion of individual freedom is probably extremely dubious. Space expansion, far from being a form of freedom insurance, is more likely to produce the perfection of despotism and the complete subordination of the individual to the collective. Those who value individual liberty should be strong skeptics and opponents of space expansion, not enthusiastic supporters.
I like this response also:
Space Cadets - Charlie's Diary - it would be everybody living close together in a tin can, rather than spread out. Sea voyaging isn't nearly as culturally salient now as it was for before half a century ago, but living aboard a ship is the closest approximation to living in a spacecraft that is readily accessible. Air vehicles are typically airborne for only a few hours, and submarines are usually inhabited only by military crews or by researchers.
My own position: it's not worth the trouble to try to colonize Mars, because it would be easier to build free-flying space colonies. But it is definitely worth exploring with remote-controlled spacecraft. They have proven their worth by an enormous amount, so we should do more, more, more of that kind of exploration, even if it means no human space travelers anywhere in sight.
