Latest / Art of the Question / The Ethics of Mining the Moon - Dr. Erik Persson - #31

Transcript

The Ethics of Mining the Moon - Dr. Erik Persson - #31 · Art of the Question

• Julius Moorman: Space mining is something that I believe is getting more attention. A couple years ago it was mostly about mining asteroids, but now with Artemis ⁓ ramping up and the space race basically going full throttle, we're also discussing the moon more and more. So I think it's a very interesting topic that I would love to know more about. ⁓ yeah, but first of all, I thought it would be a logical starting point to understand when and how you first got interested in the topic of space mining and also of course, ethics and the philosophy of it. Yeah. I wrote my PhD in environmental ethics. So environmental ethics basically here on, on earth. ⁓ and. always been interested in space. I've actually studied some both astrobiology and astronomy and well, thought, well, environmental ethics can be applicable in space too. So that's why I started to look into this and that's the way it's been going. Yeah. And more and more so because Space mining is a very broad term. Maybe if we can define it before we enter into the discussion itself, because we have asteroid mining, then we also have ⁓ mining of certain planets or the moon, for example. What are some of the differences there with regards to the technicalities, the purpose of why we would mine ⁓ these asteroids or, or planets, ⁓ but maybe also ethically. Right. So, when it comes to the technicalities, of course, with, if we talk about the moon or eventually maybe Mars, it will be a matter of sustaining a human presence on that body. ⁓ when it comes to, to asteroids, it will be about taking stuff from the asteroids and using it either on Mars or the moon or in orbit. There have been some talks about bringing resources from asteroids to Earth, but that's considered really economically sustainable because it takes a lot of ⁓ energy to transport stuff. to Earth. So mostly it's about using these resources in space and to boost the space economy. And there are some ideas that this will benefit Earth economically, but also environmentally, because the idea is that we can move some environmentally damaging activities out in space. For instance, to the asteroids. If we talk about the moon and Mars, we don't want ⁓ environmentally destructive activities there either if we want to live there. So these are some of the differences. Now, ethically, it becomes a bit more complicated. One thing is we talk about moving environmentally disturbing activities from Earth out in space. Is that really going to be helpful? Something, I mean, the advocates of this kind of activities thinks, yeah, this will be a great environmental ⁓ help for Earth. Others argue that it will probably not, because even if we start mining on asteroids, that will not mean that we can or that we will stop mining on Earth. One reason is of course that most of this, well there's big costs to bringing materials from space to Earth. So as we said before, if we do mine asteroids the material will probably be used in the space economy, not on Earth. Another reason is that historically we know that When we increase access to something, it will not lead to like a substitute of let's say we move it out in space, we mine there and we stop mining on Earth. Historically what it means is increased consumption. So it may even worsen the situation. Yeah, and there are also things, are also issues with the distribution of the benefits because to mine in space, you need to have a lot of resources already. Money and ⁓ equipment and technical know-how, which means that it will be a pretty small part of the human population. that can actually benefit from this and there is a great risk that it will increase the gap between the rich and the poor. Yeah, and I think what you mentioned there about if we were to successfully mine asteroids in a way that makes economical sense as well and just in this scenario that we are able to send probes out to asteroids and mine for rare earth metals, example, ⁓ platinum or some other things that we need on earth to make electronics. It's very likely that it's going to be ⁓ extra rather than a substitute. And it's the same discussion that we've been hearing with these, I forgot the name of them, but they are these metal balls that are on the bottom of the ocean floor. ⁓ yeah. So I believe that's a similar, ⁓ argument that we hear there is like, okay, this may, this may be better because currently we're mining this in, Congo and there's, there's terrible things happening, but the reality will probably like that. We take these things from the bottom of the ocean floor and then that we will also keep. mining in Congo and keep, I don't know, the slavery going and keep the cutting of the forest going there as well. Yes. Historically, that seems like a quite plausible development. Yes. Yeah. So, maybe from an ethical perspective, we can at least for now, Be kind of Yeah, rest assured that because it doesn't make economical sense at this point in time to send probes out into space ⁓ Mine asteroids and then bring these resources back home that it's ⁓ Yeah, probably not something that we have to worry about for a very long time But I believe there are still companies that are active actively trying this correct. Well, there are companies working on Identifying asteroids, for instance, and developing technology, because there's no mining going on today. And there are investors who have invested in this. There have been cases, companies like this that gone out of business already before they started, but there's still some optimism. that it will make economic sense in the long run. We don't know about this and I'm not an economist, but from an ethics point of view, I think things are not as easy as the proponents sometimes argue. Yeah, because other than the fact that it is ⁓ probably going to be a substitution ⁓ rather than it's probably going to be an addition rather than a substitution. there other ethical grounds as to why we shouldn't mine asteroids and that we should leave those bodies untouched, even though they're just small barren rocks floating in space? No, if we talk about mining, for instance, the moon or Mars or other planets, then it's a different thing. Asteroids probably do not have life. There could be ⁓ chemical compounds of interest to astrobiology. There could be, for instance, amino acids and other compounds that could have been important for the development of life on Earth, for instance, during the heavy bombardment and so on. There could be some scientific interest, but that will probably not be threatened by mining them. So think it's a very different thing if we start mining ⁓ bigger bodies like the moon or Mars. Then we have issues of planetary protection. ⁓ Of course, the moon is, from a planetary protection perspective, the moon is considered to be dead and is considered to be a part of the Earth-Moon system. So there are no planetary protection restrictions when it comes to the moon. But if we will have people living there for longer periods of time, That will of course imply that there will be restrictions and there will probably be issues that we don't know yet. If we are going to have different activities and different groups of people trying to share the resources, we will have different countries, we will also have possible issues between the public and the private, the different purposes, mean, scientific versus commercial, for instance. And in some cases, like ⁓ when it comes to water, which is important for everything, we think of water being important for drinking, which it is, But it's also important for everything else. It's important for... Growing food is important for most industrial processes and so on. So water will be a huge issue and in the end, this may lead to conflicts, for instance. Yeah. currently, what is happening currently? Because ⁓ the space race is a term that's been thrown around a lot quite lately. And for a reason, right? I mean, the US is ramping up It's Artemis missions with NASA. I believe China is very serious about going back to the moon as well We are now targeting I believe the South Pole of the moon For that very reason that you mentioned there because they're supposed to be water there in in frozen form, but still water nonetheless ⁓ What is currently currently happening? And and and why is that? ⁓ Yeah, maybe both exciting, also might be a bit problematic and lead to some legal and perhaps ethical issues as well. Yeah. So you mentioned the term, the space race, which is original, of course, from the 1950s, 60s. Today, it's a bit more unclear. So at that time it was a clear race. were two contestants and the ultimate goal was the moon. Because the US had lost all the first steps to the Soviet Union. So they had to set a goal that they could reach first and they had to frame it as the ultimate goal because the space race couldn't continue after that because then maybe the Soviets could get back in the race. So it has to be the moon as the ultimate finish line. And the US were very good at framing it like this and they succeeded. So then the space race died out. Now it's, the situation is more unclear. You could say there's kind of a space race, but there is no clear goalpost. And there are also many more actors and it's not even clear which actors are part of the space race and which are not. And we have many more countries, but also private entities and the private entities are to a large part, like subcontractors to the countries, right? But they also have some goals of their own. So this Space race, if we want to call it this. Some people even say that there's more than one space race. We have the global space race between primarily the US and China, but there are also local space races like the Asian space race with the other Asian actors like Japan and South Korea and India, for instance, and the UAE. ⁓ So that's an interesting term in itself. When it comes to what's happening, like politically, legally, ethically. So right now we have the ⁓ outer space treaty that's from ⁓ the 1960s. it's, it's the world looked very different at that time. So today it's a matter of interpreting it. And there we, we comes to, we get to the, what's called the Artemis Accords. which is a series of bilateral agreements between US and all other countries who want to be part of the Artemis project. And that contains a lot of stuff, including some interpretations of the outer space treaty. So basically, if you want to be part of the Artemis project, you need to officially state that you agree with the US interpretations of some ⁓ clauses in the outer space treaty. And that includes, for instance, the first come first serve interpretation. the outer space treaty states that space belongs to humanity, which is, if you think about it, quite weird. This little species on this little planet has said that everything belongs to us. But even if we You know that for a moment. So the idea is that it belongs to all of humanity. And how that is to be interpreted is unclear, especially when it comes to things like mining, to get back to that. ⁓ But the US has stated very clearly that the best way of handling these resources for the best of humanity is to give access to those who can do something. with these resources. So, ⁓ and, and that is, one, one of the principles in the Artemisia courts. And that's obviously contested because it has ethical implications. It means that the late comers, those who don't already have the money and the resources, ⁓ they will be kind of, left behind and it will increase. probably the gap between the richest and the poorest. So there are implications of this that I think need to be discussed. So signing the Artemisia course, which many countries, including Sweden and Netherlands have done just in order to be allowed to be on board on this cool project has happened in the countries without any real ideological debate, even though it's It actually means that you take a stand in a ideological question. ⁓ Is first come first served the best way of distributing resources? Which is at the core of many ideological debates, right? And kind of sets the tone for the future of humanity in space. One would expect that This would lead to more of a discussion, but it hasn't, which is interesting. So that was one thing. What was the question? It was just a very broad, very open generic question to get a sense of what's currently happening in space and what's currently happening with the so-called space race, if you will. But I think it's a very interesting point that you raised there that There used to be a very clear end goal, which is getting humans to the moon first. Whereas now it just seems like we're entering into a new phase where if this all goes right or wrong, depending on who you ask, but if we succeed to build a permanent base on the moon, we are going to need resources from this moon. ⁓ And that's a starting point, right? Because I believe one of the reasons we're even trying to do this is not just because we want to be the first, it should actually serve as a research base, but potentially also as a gas station or a fueling station because it's currently very difficult to, one of the biggest problems as you know, with space exploration is getting rockets of earth because it takes so much energy to get something that heavy from earth is that you need more fuel, but fuel is super heavy as well. So it's just very inconvenient that we're what we're currently doing. So I believe if we ever want to go to Mars, for example, on a regular basis, we need some sort of petrol station. that is not earth, something that is in a much more lower gravity environment. ⁓ some place we can produce rocket fuel, which I believe is very feasible from, from, from water. ⁓ so that is part of the reason. it doesn't, it is not an end goal to just get there. It's going to be the start of a new phase, which is why it seems extra important to indeed take into account what happens to countries that currently do not have the resources to go to the moon. Because like you say, it's only for a very ⁓ small group of countries and currently even ⁓ people. Because if we realistically look at the person that is able to consistently launched rockets into space. It's one person. It's Elon Musk with SpaceX. And you saw Jeff Bezos is working on his own program, for example. But yeah, we all saw what happened just a few weeks ago when his rocket blew up. So it seems very difficult still to get into space. And ⁓ yeah, probably important to look at what should be happening to those resources. But if we go back to yeah, the, the, the Artemis Accords and, ⁓ Accords and the, the, the, outer space treaty. ⁓ did how many countries signed the, the, the, ⁓ the treaty for, for, for outer space? I believe it was quite a lot, right? Yes. ⁓ I don't have the number in my head, but it was most countries, ⁓ and it was all spacefaring countries. Yeah. But, but also. okay. So, most spacefaring countries, but that's still, implies the same problem that countries that aren't spacefaring aren't like really being included. Well, many non spacefaring countries have signed the outer space treaty, ⁓ because they feel that the things that happen in space concern them too. And there are an increasing number. of countries that are not traditionally spacefaring countries that have started to look into ⁓ how to make sure they're included. some countries who are not interested in the big space race, but still want to, for instance, be able to launch their own satellites because they don't trust the big players. They don't necessarily want to be. in the hands of the US or China or even in Europe or the private players. They want to be able to secure their own satellite data, for instance, which is important for military purposes, but also for civilian purposes, for navigation, communication, planning and so on. many countries, many more countries are involved with different aims. What are some of the dangers of not including all of the countries? like you say, ⁓ currently there's only ⁓ a handful of companies that are able to even go to space, let alone ⁓ build ⁓ perhaps a permanent base on the moon soon. ⁓ If we extrapolate, I know we can't look into the future, but If we think about what might happen when only a very select amount of countries and people has access to these resources, why could that be problematic? So to give a very, very concrete example that's already like on the table. So ⁓ satellite orbits, the most important orbits around earth are getting saturated with both live and dead satellites. So there are some initiatives to regulate this because eventually it will be dangerous for the satellites. If it's too crowded, they can collide and that can create more debris that in turn collide with more satellites which in the end will be a threat to our entire way of living, seriously, because We are so depending on satellites. So there will be regulations. Hopefully there are some initiatives to get this going, but how to do this? Well, if we go on a first come first serve principle, that means that first of all, there will be a race to actually saturate the orbit because everyone wants to be there before the orbits are full. It also means that those who don't have the resources to do it, to launch satellites at the moment, they will be left behind and there will not be much space left for them once they get started. That's a pretty concrete example. Yeah, no, it's, it's, it's a very, very concrete example. And if we, if we, ⁓ Apart from, if we, let me just say, we, one of the reasons we are going to space is of course to enhance our own economy, perhaps in the short term to build satellites, to have faster internet. ⁓ But Elon Musk famously says that his goal with SpaceX and pretty much all the companies that he's currently building. is to preserve consciousness in the universe because he argues that we are currently ⁓ the only planet that is known to have conscious beings ⁓ inhabiting that planet and currently we have all our eggs in one basket which is Earth. So if there would ever be an asteroid impact like with the dinosaurs or maybe ⁓ a terrible pandemic that wipes everyone out. It is in general pretty fragile to stay on on earth and not to say that living on Mars would be such a great experience. But from a surviving perspective, it is understandable that it would be smart to eventually have a permanent colony on Mars as well. And perhaps go even ⁓ further than that. I guess my question is, what is your initial reaction? Do you think it is ethical to spread out and move to two different planets or is that in principle wrong? Can we do this in an ethical manner or is that simply impossible? Sure. So yeah, I totally understand the motivation here. If you want humanity to survive, it's smart to not put all the eggs in one basket, so to speak. But of course, there are also issues with this. The principle is such, it's not necessarily wrong, but it's kind of a matter of how we do it. One thing is that not everyone can escape to Mars, right? So there will be, have to be some kind of selection process. How that will take place is very interesting question and there are different ways of doing it. If you assume that it's a good thing to be among those who get shipped off to Mars, or then maybe you want the distribution to be made in one way. If you assume that it's more or less a punishment to be shipped off to Mars and maybe, and we are the lucky ones who get to stay on Earth, then maybe you want the distribution to take place in a different way, And as it is right now, living on Mars, ⁓ well, it's not possible today. ⁓ we may be able to do it in the future with some, well, with a lot of technology. And that means that those who get to the lucky or unlucky ones to get to live on Mars, they will be 100 % dependent on the technology. Here on Earth, if we disagree with the society, we can... go and live in the forest and disconnect, right? At least in theory, it's pretty hard, it's theoretically possible at least for a while. But you cannot do that on Mars. You will be 100 % depending on the technology, which means you'll be 100 % depending on those who supply the technology. Those who own the technology, those who control the technology, which means that there will be, it would be very, not just a hard life, but a system that will be extremely ⁓ rigid and will not be allowed to, not be able to allow any deviance really. Any ⁓ antisocial behavior cannot be allowed. Being mentally unstable. cannot be allowed because it can threaten the existence of the whole colony. So there are these kinds of ethical issues that it's not just about technology, it's also about living in a context where you are 100 % depending on whoever owns the technology creates a lot. I can see I'm digressing from your original question, but it's okay. No, it's a very interesting point you raised there. I had never really thought about it in that way because basically if I understand correct, Normally on earth, like you say, we could in theory move to some sort of forest and maybe go hunt there and be self-sufficient in some way and ⁓ nobody can really force you not to do that or prohibit you from doing that. But when we would colonize Mars, for example, and build some sort of ⁓ domes that shield us from the radiation or we built some sort of caves, we would need spacesuits, we would need energy. Like we are heavily dependent on technology because Mars is inhabitable for humans, at least right now. So therefore. If you don't listen or if you don't agree with the politics, Martian politics, so to say, they have a lot of power over you because they can basically say, Hey, if you don't listen to us or don't work for us, we can turn off your spacesuit, for example, and therefore you would be unable to breathe. the entire dependency that such an environment creates. ⁓ would open the door for potentially very inhumane situations and perhaps a Martian dictators even. Yes. And that also means that he will make a huge difference. Who gets to do this to get back a little bit to your original question. ⁓ who should, who, who should we send? Who should colonize Mars? ⁓ are we talking about, ⁓ particular country or different countries or something under the UN or are we talking about private mining companies for instance. One can imagine that the political system and the political landscape will be very different depending on whether we talk about ⁓ the European Union, China, UN or SpaceX for instance. Yeah, no, I think that would be very, very different, but it's difficult, right? Because if we also for this question, but also the question regarding the satellites, regarding the question, whether we should build a base on the moon, what makes this problem so unique is that it involves the entirety of humanity in principle, like all humans. are involved in one way or another, whether they're directly involved or whether they are excluded from the process, which means they are basically involved as well. So normally what we'll see on Earth is that, for example, that it's very difficult to have any sort of legislation, any sort of rules when it comes to even the EU. is terrible. Like it's a good what we're trying with the EU, but it's very difficult to actually make decisions because we have to agree with all the countries that are inside of the EU, which makes ⁓ creating fast legislation. And even though we're doing a very good job on some levels, we see that on very like basic problems, it can already cause huge issues because everyone has to agree. And I believe if we look at history, Probably the only time in history when we came to an agreement that involved everyone was with the nuclear ⁓ weapons of the Cold War. then because it meant the entire obliteration of earth potentially, that's when we were able to allow these very basic rules. But this is different because this is expanding to potentially a new environment ⁓ and not necessarily about destroying the only environment we have. ⁓ you think that's right? That's what makes it so difficult to create rules about it? That's one thing that's definitely important here, Yeah. are we currently, so if we look at the, go, what happens if we currently ⁓ can't figure something out regarding space? So from a legal perspective, what would happen if we have the first come first serve principle that the U S believes in, and then all of a sudden ⁓ they enter into the South pole of the moon and they see that China has already built the base. are currently the moon. is still like big enough and unexplored enough that they can both probably find a suitable spot to whatever they want to do there. But do we have any system in place to handle disputes like this? Well, the outer space treaty in a way, ⁓ because everyone involved has signed it and it has some principles. No country is allowed to a necked part of the moon, for instance. But as always with these big international treaties, they are deliberately vague in some senses to make it possible for everyone to agree. ⁓ Which means that there will be a lot of room for interpretation. And hopefully any conflicts can be settled in a peaceful way, but of course the records from Earth are not very optimistic in that regard. And one thing that some people say is that, well, if we move to Mars, have like a ⁓ clean slate, we can try out ⁓ new political systems and so on. But I don't think that's true because the people who settle ⁓ Mars or the moon or whatever come from Earth and have a culture that come from a particular political system and a particular economic system that is facilitating this colonization or whatever we want to call it. So no, I don't think it will be significantly different compared to the political and economical landscape on Earth. which is maybe not ground for optimism. Yeah. And apart from the question, let's say we ⁓ are able to go to Mars, we find a way to build caves or to build some sort of dome that shields us from the radiation. ⁓ we even find a way to... Yeah, to... to create a political system that doesn't end in tyranny. Let's just assume all of that for a second. ⁓ We succeed, if you will. Do you believe we should still do it? given that are putting all our bags eggs in one basket, because I believe when preparing for this episode, I read something that you wrote earlier about how even planets that don't have any forms of life, at least not that we're aware of even deserve to be protected in one way or another. No, well, so yeah, if we talk about, let's say Mars, just to have something to frame it on. So, we don't know if there is life on Mars and this uncertainty is interesting. How do we make a decision given this uncertainty? So now we have what is called planetary protection. And we have forward protection. Now, first of all, I don't know how much you know about this, or the listeners, but so let's take one step back. Planetary protection is a pretty misleading term because it's not just about planets and it's not It's not about all kinds of protection. it's a bit, both wider and more narrow than it sounds. So it's not just about planets. It's about all environments that can be of interest to astrobiology, to the search for extraterrestrial life, also understanding, life basically. ⁓ and also it's not about protection in general. It's only about protection against biocontamination. So. When it comes to forward contamination, is, leaving Earth, sending humans or material to, let's say, Mars, we need to make sure not to contaminate it with biological material from Earth. And why is that? The reason for that is that we want to protect the science. So... It's not about protecting any mass organisms for their own sake. It's about protecting our abilities to continue to look for life and to study life. that, one can ask, is this really the only viable reason for planetary protection? To protect the science? Or Could it be that we also have some moral ⁓ reason to protect any possible math life independently of their value for science? It could be that these microbes have some other value. It could be that being a second ⁓ instance of life gives them ⁓ value as an end in itself. So we need to protect them even for that reason. Or it could be that they have value for other reasons, maybe, I don't know, as a tourist attraction or whatever. Could be all kinds of value, right? So there could be other values too, and maybe we need to think about how to include these values. It could also be that other forms of life has moral status in their own right. So it's not just about their value for us. It could be that they have their own interests that we need to consider. Now we don't believe that we will find any sentient life ⁓ in our own solar system. So maybe that's not really on the table when it comes to Mars, for instance. If we talk about other solar systems, other exoplanets, eventually in the future, then it will be a different... ball game because then we can find all kinds of life, even sentient conscious life. Right. But in our solar systems, we don't count on that. So it will not be a matter of they having their own interests that we need to consider, but at least they can have value to us in more than one way. So that's important. It could also be that if there is, if we have a world that We know how we know that. I don't know, but we know that there is no life. It could still be interesting to science ⁓ to study this ⁓ lifeless world and to understand how ⁓ does the geology work on a world where there is no life, for instance. So that could be a scientific reason to ⁓ protect a non-living world. So there could be many reasons for conserving a planet the way it is. But of course, there are many different values in play and there will always be a matter of prioritizing. I mean, it could be that mining is another value that we need to, that there will be some kind of conflict. And the question of how to resolve this conflict is interesting. Should we let just the money talk? Should we have the United Nations deciding or should it be a matter of compromising between ⁓ public and private or between different economic systems? Or how do we do this? Which is a super interesting question in itself. It is a very interesting question and what I love about it is that it forces us to make a distinction between, first of all, kinds of life. So I think many people would agree that if we were to discover a planet that has a technical civilization living on it, that we wouldn't really want to interfere with them without their permission. Prime direction. probably be extremely interesting to science, but also very obvious from a moral perspective that we can't just go to this planet and obliterate them to colonize the planet. mean, hopefully that's how most people would think about it. ⁓ So sentient life, basically. ⁓ at least not even sentient life. doesn't even have to be a technical civilization. But if, we discover a world that is, ⁓ like earth was, ⁓ with, in the dinosaur era, for example, I think that would be similar as well that we wouldn't directly want to, to interfere with him or, or contaminate that road, both again for science, but also from a moral obligation. then as we get to the more microbial scale of things. It starts to shift and I notice even in myself and what I have to think about this is I care a lot about preserving humanity and consciousness in the universe. think ⁓ many people don't like Elon Musk and I understand why people don't like him. But I think his mission of preserving consciousness in the universe is a very noble one. If that's actually his mission. I people, people may argue about that, but if that's truly the mission, I support that mission. And sometimes I had to think about this scenario where, you know, when you're driving in your car on the highway and while you're driving home, you're killing thousands of mosquitoes and flies and all these other small bugs and you're not intentionally trying to kill all these bugs. You're trying to get home, but we accepted as soon as we step into our car, that will probably hit a few bugs on our way to our destination. Now is that even have to talk about the car. Every time we wash our hands, we intentionally kill millions of microbes. Right, right. So even better example then. So that would That would point me into the direction that in case of microbial life, it would be okay to basically colonize such a world if that means that we allow ourselves to preserve consciousness in the universe. ⁓ But it somehow still feels different when we go out to a different world that isn't ours. What do you make of all of this? Yeah, this is super interesting. An interesting case here is that planetary protection is basically about ⁓ mass murder of Earth microbes to protect possible microbes on another world. That's what it's about. When we sterilize things that we send to Mars, we are mass murdering ⁓ microbes. But we do it to protect. And the reason for this is ⁓ of course, not that. So it kind of explains that it's not that we see these microbes as having moral standing on their own, because if we did, we would prefer to protect the earth microbes rather than possible mass microbes, right? So it's not, that's not it. So it is, as we said before, basically a matter of being able to find and study what might be on Mars. And as it is now, the guidelines, they're not laws, but there are international guidelines that all spacefaring nations accept at the moment anyway. It may be different with the private actors, but the national space agencies and the European space agencies accept these guidelines. ⁓ we do that to again, protect the science. They're based on some interesting assumptions. ⁓ and one assumption is that, well, we will not be able to kill off all microbes. There will always be some surviving and actually landing on Mars. Most of them will hopefully not be able to survive, but some might survive. And if we are going to, ⁓ study Mars, we have to accept that. have to accept that some of the microbes will eventually colonize Mars. So the question is, ⁓ how long? So the assumption is that given that we ⁓ actively look for ⁓ life on Mars and send a certain number of of spacecraft to Mars each year, then it would take about 50 years to find and completely study life on Mars. Now we know it's been actually 50 years since the first paper, so that didn't work. But the idea is that not to protect Mars life forever, but only as long as it takes to find it and study it. That also assumes, as we said before, that this life only has value for science, which can be debated. Right. But even if it only has value for science, it also assumes that we will eventually come to a point where we know everything there is to know about life on life on Mars, which is also a bit doubtful. Will science ever gets to a point where they say, now we know everything about this subject. It has never happened. for any subject. So it's also a matter of ⁓ like intergenerational ethics among us human beings. So should we preserve this world for future scientists to continue studying it or should we accept that eventually, again, we make a trade off, say that ⁓ Astrobiologists from Earth has a certain time window where you get to learn everything you can about life or conditions of life on Mars. And then we hand it over to the colonizers for instance. And where do we draw this line? ⁓ Which is also super interesting question that needs to be discussed much more. Yeah. And what about the most extreme way of interfering with another planet? Because obviously we've discussed space mining and altering the planet by potentially ⁓ mining the resources, melting ice and then turning it into fuel, all sorts of things contaminating another world with our microbes. But of course, the most intrusive way of interacting with another world is terraforming, which for people who don't know what it is, is we can nuke another planet or we can ⁓ do all sorts of things to a planet like we're doing to earth currently by ⁓ putting all sorts of CO2 in the atmosphere that changes what happens to the temperature on earth. We're trying to ⁓ Yeah, basically limit the effects, but it can also be done on purpose to ⁓ perhaps return the atmosphere to Mars and it may even so that it holds a whole temperature better. And then a second step would perhaps be to make the atmosphere even breathable. Whether that's possible, it's still it doesn't have a magnetic field anymore. Like we don't have to get into the specifics. ⁓ I'm more interested in the ethics. Would it be ⁓ ethical to terraform a planet that currently doesn't have any life? ⁓ At least not that we're aware of such as Mars, for example, if that then allows the planet to thrive again and allows many organisms to live there and not just humans, but other animals. Would that be? is that something that's been discussed in, in, in, ⁓ philosophy and, what are some of the opinions people can have there? ⁓ yes. So basically terraforming is about making an inhospitable planet more hospitable for human life, for earth life, really. And I would say, yes, obviously that's discussed and you can, you can again, go, go back to the question of, ⁓ Should we preserve Mars or whatever planet in its pristine state for different reasons or should we do something with it? For instance, terraform it. And I would say that what's important from an ethical perspective is what are the interests of any sentient being that has interests because a planet cannot have any interest of its own. So it's, still ultimately a matter of how, how do we sentient beings on earth value Mars? Do we value it more as a pristine world or as a second earth? And to me, the answer to that is not obvious. I, I'm not sure myself. I look at that, but, and there are, are arguments on both sides as you have. have described. And maybe it could be a matter of, as I said before, of giving a certain time window to say that we have a hundred years to more. mean, terraforming takes a long time. but let's say one century to study and document Mars the way it is today. And then ⁓ maybe say give green lights to terraforming. I'm again, I'm not sure whether it's really possible to turn Mars into a second earth. There are many, many technical aspects of this, but that could be one way of doing it. Others say that no, it's important to preserve it the way it is. While many say as you that if we could use it for something, if we could maybe make it possible for humans to spread out and not put all eggs in the same basket. That's a valid reason. And then you could ask, would life be, would it be good life for the people who live there? Or are we only doing it to preserve something abstract like humanity? And if that case, is it worth it if we have to sacrifice the wellbeing of every individual in this world. It's like a zoo that you use to preserve the species, but the individuals of the species that you keep in the zoo live a terrible life. There is also this potential conflict between the individual and the future of the species, for instance. Yeah. And also I think there's a huge conflict between generations, right? Because if there are people on earth, I believe there are people who've signed up to be on the first ship to Mars, even though the date isn't planned yet, but I believe there's hundreds of thousands of people who've signed up to be the guinea pigs basically to be sent off to Mars. ⁓ So, okay. That's people who made their own decision to go there. ⁓ even though we don't exactly know what that would be like. They have a pretty, you can probably assume that it's going to suck. At least it's going to be a worse life than, than on earth. ⁓ and We don't even know whether it is possible for humans to reproduce in ⁓ on Mars, for example, right? Because if we stay in low gravity for such a long time, Mars still has gravity, of course, but I believe it's a third of Earth's gravity. So we don't know what happens, for example, when giving birth. So a woman becomes pregnant and she has to give birth to the child, but her bones are much weaker than if you were to still live on earth because if we live in low gravity, our bones deteriorate and they adjust to what is needed for this for this new environment. So maybe it would maybe you would break every bone in your body if you try to give a birth on Mars. But let's assume that's all no problem whatsoever. We can perfectly ⁓ we can bear children on on different worlds as well. What happens to the children of of those people? What happens to the next generation? Because obviously they won't know any better, but there is also no way for them to go ever. I wouldn't say back to Earth, but they wouldn't be able to visit Earth because if you are born in an environment like Mars, There's no way, even if you're breathing the artificial oxygen, but there's no way your body could ever survive going to earth, which has like three times the gravity that you were born in. and yeah, let alone like raising a child in such an environment in an artificial cave or, or in a glass dome or whatever. think that's the more ethical, interesting problem because the first generation, they chose to be there, but the second generation. They didn't choose to be the first born species on this, on this new world. Have people thought about this as well? I'm sure they have. yes. Before I go on, you raised a lot of interesting points here. Before I go on, my computer is about to run out of charge. We can continue, but I need to go into the other room and get my, my charger. Yeah, sure. Yeah. No, that's no problem at all. I think if we're nearing the end anyway, but if you, yeah, if we can finish this part up, yeah, please, if you can get the charger, then we can finish it off in style. Okay. Yeah. No worries. I'll cut this out. It's no problem. Okay. Thanks. Right. I'm back. Yes. Thanks a lot. Yeah. Yeah, of course. Yeah. The last thing I mentioned was the ethics of the second generation. Yes. ⁓ So I think you raised a lot of interesting issues here. I think again, let's take one step back because as you mentioned, we don't know if it's at all possible for humans to, or for ⁓ other mammals or other species ⁓ of animals to replicate in ⁓ low gravity, for instance. So if it's not possible, that also creates some interesting questions. Should we still, I mean, is that the deal breaker for colonizing Mars? Or should we do it anyway and have to continuously repopulate Mars from Earth? If we see Mars as a basis for I don't know, research base or refueling base or something. Yeah, maybe we can do that. People go to Mars and, but then again, if we send people to Mars and they stay there for an extended period of time, even if they're not born there, they may not be able to go back to Earth. So it could be... a one-way trip and they know that, ⁓ well, that's it. Which will be a really weird situation. And is that okay? To send people on a one-way trip to Mars, to man a research base or whatever, ⁓ or to just keep Mars populated if that's what we want, just to put our boots on the ground or something. And knowing that That's the end of them and their bloodline, right? Is that something that you do? Is it okay if people agree to it? ⁓ Or is it still not okay? So that's the first question. If we want to use Mars as like plan B, then it will not work because We still need some people on earth to keep repopulating Mars. So that will cut out that possibility. So there will be some interesting aspects of, if it's not working, but if it is working, as you say, then there will be other issues, including maybe the most interesting one that the people born on Mars may not be able to go back on earth. So that again creates the issue. Is it okay for us to give birth to children who we never be able to go back to to Mars? Well, we could say that we are doing this on earth. We are giving birth to children on earth in this environment, in this world, in this political economical system. We're doing that all the time. So will it be different if we do it on Mars? mean, people on Earth today, at least for this generation, will be stuck on Earth. Maybe you can go to the International Space Station or a new version of the International Space Station. Maybe you can go to the moon and back. But basically we are confined to Earth. Is that any different than giving birth? to children on Mars that will be confined to Mars? Basically, I would say no. What may make a difference is if life on Mars is significantly worse than life on Earth. Then it's opening up this question that many people actually ask even today on earth, many people today, I know people here on earth today who say, no, I don't want to have kids because I don't want any kids to be born into this world with the situation we are having. And if you have that attitude, you will probably say that, no, it's not okay to do the same on Mars. But I would say that the Well, the situation will be different, but the ethical issues may not be entirely new ⁓ in that respect. Then we have other issues like if this, if we do this and this basically the new generations evolve into a new species. ⁓ What implications does that have? You could say, cool, then we have two humanoid species in the solar system. That sounds really cool. That's beginning of the Star Trek. ⁓ Really cool. On the other hand, you could say, what does it mean for the relationship between these two species? Our species has historically not been very good at... ⁓ interacting with even strangers of our own species and definitely not with other species on Earth. It has always ended in tragedy. So could we eventually, if we have another species of humanoids that are kind of like ourselves, but not really and we will not really be able to reproduce with them and so on. So there will be different species. Will this result in the same problems that we have already experienced on earth? Or will it be an opportunity for us to learn to be better at coexisting with other species? Maybe a lesson to learn before we encounter extraterrestrial intelligent beings from another world. Personally, I think Creating a new species of humans, that would not be an ethical problem in itself. It would be pretty cool. But if the aim is to preserve humanity, then that aim would not be fulfilled, of course, if we create another species. If the aim is to preserve intelligence or consciousness, then yeah, maybe that could be a good way of doing it. Yeah. Yeah. It's so interesting. And the point you raised there about people that don't want to have children because of the political climate or the actual climate is always such an interesting one to me because I get where people are coming from. I'm not discrediting their opinions whatsoever, but I think like life is objectively better than it was. 50 or years ago, 100 years ago. But if you were born in the dark ages or something, like there was no hospitals, everyone would die of diseases, work was very hard. So I think even though we are much more aware of all the problems that are currently happening in the world, I do think that overall life has gotten objectively better. If we look at ethics, perspective, a human rights perspective, a medicine perspective. but I do understand why people would say that and it's everyone's own decision, ⁓ whether they have children or, or, or not to have children. Right. But I think an interest. ⁓ sorry. There is one more issue, I may, with medical ethics issue, namely that the first people who go to Mars and try to procreate, they would. essentially be a guinea pigs. Yes. Yes. That's what I was saying. That's an interesting issue. Is that okay to put human through this kind of experiment that is, as you pointed out, probably lethal. Yeah. For both the features and the adult. Should we even try that experiment? Is it okay to do it if people say, cool, I want to do it, or is it still wrong? Is that on earth doing that kind of experiment? We would never get ethical approval for that. Even if the test subjects would, if we could somehow convince the test subject to do it, we would never be able to convince the ethical ⁓ review. ⁓ agencies to accept it. Yeah, no, but that's exactly my point because I think on earth, if you want to have children, it's your choice. Like they will grow up in an environment, even though there's a lot of wars going on. We have climate change going on. There's a lot of problems happening on earth, but at least the environment, the general environment, we've had millions of years of evolution that makes us thrive in on earth. Basically we can breathe the air, we can drink the water. And like you mentioned earlier, we don't need any special technology to survive here in principle. But on Mars, for example, that is completely different. So I think the very fact that we were not evolved ⁓ for that planet makes it very makes it very different. And especially in the first few generations where probably a lot of people are going to die. ⁓ if we, if it's possible at all, but then it also raises an interesting point. Like if, if that's, if that's the conclusion that it's always wrong and that we shouldn't pursue it, then that's it. Right. Then that means we can never try this experiment. And that means that we are keeping all of our eggs in one basket and That means that one day, which will happen, we will get struck by an asteroid and, and there'll be that or some other disaster will happen. The sun, ⁓ will eventually die down. So, so, so that's it. That's, that's where it ends. And that's also doesn't really seem like a, a very, yeah, good ending, if you will. it's, it's a difficult problem. alternative could be to keep looking. for a planet that is sufficiently similar to Earth, where we can be pretty sure it would work. Yes, yes. And that's the final point ⁓ I wanted to ask you for today. had this... Obviously we know that currently like Mars is very far away, but it's achievable within a human lifetime. It takes around eight months to get there. But if we want to go outside of our own solar system, it would take... We don't even have the technology yet to really get a spacecraft there. So we would either need to go very fast or come up with some other way to distribute life across the universe. So something that I recently thought of, and apparently there's more people who came up with this idea, but was that we would now with humanoid robots, that we would basically create a spacecraft. that has humanoid robots on board and it carries sperm cells and egg cells and some sort of artificial womb technology that doesn't exist yet, the artificial womb. And then we would scout for exoplanets that are super similar to Earth, an environment that we would actually be able to thrive in without doing much to the other planet. But that would basically mean that the first generation of these human children would be raised by humanoid robots basically. And that is pretty much the only way that I see us solving the distance problem in space because it sometimes would literally take 80,000 years to go to the nearest star system. But yeah, finally, I thought maybe ⁓ I did see that there were a couple like one or two papers. written about this idea. But what would that mean? that we are able to have like biologically the environment, the gravity would be the same. They could potentially breathe the air, but they would still be raised by not humans, humanoid robots. anything within philosophy or ethics that has been discussed and some interesting opinions there? Yeah. mean, okay. Being raised by humanoid robots, that's a discussion we have today because there are back in Japan, for instance, there are ideas of using robot manis and so on. But if we look at the big picture here, it's interesting. It could be where if our aim is to like preserve consciousness or consciousness in the universe or something like that. That could be a way of doing it. We could, but we could also ask what's in it for us. It will not help any now living human being on earth. and if it works, we will probably never know about it. Right. So, ⁓ does it really matter to, to us? there any, any. Can we really have any moral ⁓ duty to do something like that to preserve intelligence or consciousness if it will not affect us in any way whatsoever? Yeah, I mean, we used to like, for example, the Sagrada Familia, it took like a couple hundred years to build and the people who laid the first bricks. knew they weren't going to see the finished project, which isn't exactly the same, but if you're dead, you're dead, right? So it would still be the next generation or the generation after, but the very first people starting that project weren't going to see the end of it. So we used to do stuff like that, but now that everything needs capital and money and people need to profit from it because otherwise they won't invest. from it, now we don't really see these ⁓ larger projects as much anymore. That's true. We seem to have changed. Going towards more immediate gratification rather than thinking across generations. So yeah, you get the point there. There is another issue too, and that is if this spacecraft or whatever happened to land on a world that is already populated. What will that mean? Will that mean that we will maybe cause the extinction of some life that is already there, maybe already conscious? Or will it mean that we will just piss off some existing high tech civilization that we say, hey, the Earthlings are sending robots towards us and want to take over our planet, we better go and exterminate them now. Yeah, that doesn't, that doesn't sound like, ⁓ like, like, yeah, it sounds like a possibility. that people have pointed out. Yeah. No, it's, it's a, it's it's a, I understand the risk, especially given, ⁓ given our history. Yeah. But Eric, this is, this was so incredible. think I could. ⁓ speak about this for, for, for, for many, ⁓ many hours, but, maybe, ⁓ maybe we should run it back sometime ⁓ in the future. ⁓ what is, what is some, some place people can, can go if they, if they want to keep up with your work on, these super interesting topics. Yeah. there are, we have, we have a seminar series, although that's, that's aimed at. professionals, other researchers discussing Isardas work. There is, we had a conference recently. I was one of the organizers, but I wasn't at the conference for different reasons. Well, it took place in the U.S. which meant that there were not that many non-U.S. people because of the political situation right now. This is a... conference series that happens every other year. The next time will be ⁓ in two years in Padua in Italy. But this one took place at Carnegie Mellon, a university in the US. And there is the presentations on YouTube. So I can send you the link. ⁓ Some of the presentations, we also wrote like popular versions of them. ⁓ for, I think it's called Pittsburgh's review of books. I can send you the link to that too, where people can see discussions about these issues if you want something kind of aimed at a more general audience. Yeah, perfect. Yeah, I'll make sure to put those in the show notes, but again, ⁓ I really want to thank you for this conversation today. It was so interesting and ⁓ Yeah, a lot to think about and yeah, let's run it back someday. ⁓ I had a great time. Sure, me too. Thanks a lot for inviting me. You can see why I think this is a fun research area.