Humans Should Not Colonize Mars

Abstract

ABSTRACT:This article offers two arguments for the conclusion that we should refuse on moral grounds to establish a human presence on the surface of Mars. The first argument appeals to a principle constraining the use of invasive or destructive techniques of scientific investigation. The second appeals to a principle governing appropriate human behavior in wilderness. These arguments are prefaced by two preliminary sections. The first preliminary section argues that authors working in space ethics have good reason to shift their focus away from theory-based arguments in favor of arguments that develop in terms of pretheoretic beliefs. The second argues that of the popular justifications for sending humans to Mars only appeals to scientific curiosity can survive reflective scrutiny.

Ethical Challenges in Human Space Missions: A Space Refuge, Scientific Value, and Human Gene Editing for Space

“…However, this does not imply a particular mechanism. 2 Ian Stoner discusses the duty to preserve the human species in terms of a dilemma between the colonization of Mars and the protection of Earth, and he argues for the latter alternative (Stoner 2017). If one accepts that humans are obliged to settle space to increase the chances for our species' survival, this goal seems likely to trump other competing values including, for example, the scientific or aesthetic value of a pristine Mars.…”

“…However, the alternatives of shelters in space and on Earth remain. Advocates of Mars colonization are obliged to find strong reasons to show that space settlement offers extra value when compared with various alternatives of terrestrial shelters, and does not threaten other values such as the risk of contamination of Mars or relinquishing environmental protection of Earth (Stoner 2017).…”

“…There are good reasons to expect that the quality of life on Mars, at least for the foreseeable future, will be relatively low due to the requirements of living in a space outpost and the very substantial financial costs of providing infrastructure that does more than ensure survival (cf. Some authors, such as Charles Cockell (2002) and Stoner (2017) take for granted that living on Mars will be hard and challenging for daily human life. However, a Mars outpost may be an attractive place to live when compared with life on post-catastrophic Earth (as nuclear bunkers are better than the alternative).…”

“…One specific anti-colonization argument is that there is no economic rationale for the exploitation of Martian resources (Stoner 2017). While asteroid mining would be less expensive than a journey to Mars, a mining industry, once established on Mars, may be economically feasible in the long-term.…”

Space Colonization and Existential Risk

“…But a further question is whether we ought to do so. Ian Stoner (2017) argues that the answer is no. His argument chiefly turns on what he calls the principle of scientific conservation: Destructive or significantly invasive investigation of an object of scientific interest is only morally permissible when (a) significantly invasive investigation does not threaten the scientific or non-scientific values instantiated in that object and (b) no adequate alternatives to significantly invasive investigation are available.…”