| Summary/Abstract |
I am sympathetic to the view that, given the likelihood of massive natural disasters, such as collisions between the Earth and large asteroids, we should engage in large-scale space exploration and colonization so as to hedge our bets against extinction. I will consider several criticisms of this view. For example, some philosophers may raise objections against the notion of long-term human survival as a value. How can we have obligations towards beings who have not even been conceived yet and thus cannot be properly said to have rights? On a different note, Wendell Berry argues that the abundance of resources in space will produce bad character, for good character requires the discipline of finitude. Others challenge the connection between space exploration and survival, for they fear that by entertaining the promise of new Earths in the heavens we are more likely to neglect our planet, thus leading to our downfall. Presumably, we should instead increase our efforts to restore and preserve the balance of nature. I will advance a variety of replies. For example, we do decide for posterity to a great extent. We may plant the trees from which “our” descendants will receive nourishment and shade, or we may destroy what could have given them a fighting chance against drought and famine. We have an obligation not to plant a bomb that will go off two years from now in a hospital nursery, and another to ensure that the buildup of chemicals in the hospital water tank will not reach critical mass and kill most of the newborns in ten years. The “balance of nature” involved in another objection is a myth that cannot be justified by natural history, whether astronomical or biological. Moreover, the inevitable changes in the environment, independent of asteroid impacts, will make the Earth uninhabitable in a few hundreds of millions and years. In addition, in order to act wisely we need an understanding of the Earth as a planet, and this requires the exploration of space.
|