Maverick Research: It’s High Time We Discuss the
Ethics of Space Industrialization
Published 18 April 2023 - ID G00789241 - 16 min read
By Analyst(s): Frank Buytendijk, Jorge Lopez
Initiatives: Executive Leadership: Innovation and Disruption Management; Digital Future
Really? Space travel is decades out, and we need to discuss the
ethics of it? Yes, we must. Because the choices we will make have
implications on our actions today, and how we want to live on
planet Earth.
Overview
Specific Maverick Caution
This Maverick research breaks new ground by starting a conversation on the ethics of
space industrialization. Still, this is an important topic, which, although years into the
future, has implications for the decisions we make today. Its findings and advice should
therefore be treated with caution.
Maverick Findings
■
Technology shapes human evolution. We are at the greatest crossroads of our
evolutionary path: how we evolve on planet Earth, and how we start exploring space.
■
Discussing the ramifications of either path touches on no less than what it means to
be human, and whether we move from Homo sapiens to Homo exteriores spatius.
■
The emerging ethics of space guides this discussion, and teaches us valuable
lessons about our life in space, but equally about life on Earth as well.
Maverick Implications
Executive leaders should:
■
Discuss the fundamental principles of space ethics to feed their perspective on how
to create a better world today. In particular, consider the topics of collaboration, the
role of business in society, and the rights and obligations of nonhumans.
Gartner, Inc. | G00789241
Page 1 of 11
Maverick Research
Gartner Maverick* research delivers breakthrough, disruptive and sometimes contradictory
ideas that challenge conventional thinking. Formed in our research incubator, it is
designed to explore alternative opportunities and risks that could influence your strategy.
Analysis
In 2017, Gartner analysts Kelsie Marian, Miriam Burt and Joanne Joliet wrote Maverick*
Research: Space Business — Not So Far Out. The Maverick leadership team thought that,
even for Maverick report purposes, this was a bit over the top. Look at where we are now.
As of November 2022, there are over 8,200 satellites in orbit, 1 and the U.S. expressed
concerns about China claiming ownership over the moon and preventing other countries
from exploring it. 2
The industrialization of space is starting to gain attention (see Brave New Worlds:
Tapestry of Trends 2022 by Gartner Futures Lab). So it is becoming important to have a
conversation about space ethics. How do we make sure we do space industrialization for
the good of all and not do harm?
Ethics is the philosophical discipline that concerns itself with what is morally good and
bad.
3
Space ethics is an applied ethics in the field of space. It draws from general ethics, but
also from bioethics and digital ethics. Questions in space ethics range from rights and
obligations in outer space to, ultimately, what it means to be human.
Ethics is dynamic. It evolves over time and is the product of its time.
Space ethics has the potential to become the biggest topic in ethics in centuries, as there
are many fundamental and new questions to consider.
This research serves more than to satisfy intellectual curiosity on a new topic, or to simply
build awareness. Space ethics is a necessary conversation to have today:
■
SpaceX is aiming for a mission to Mars in 2030. 4 NASA is shooting for late 2030s, 5
and China is planning for 2033. 6 Ten to 15 years may seem like a long time, but an
ethics discussion requires exploring multiple perspectives, and fundamental
questions take time to explore. Moreover, recent unmanned missions from the U.S.
and China have taken place already.
Gartner, Inc. | G00789241
Page 2 of 11
■
Space ethics is an extreme topic. Exploring extreme topics often uncovers new
perspectives for current topics as well. What can we learn from space ethics that will
help us create a better world on Earth tomorrow?
7
Here is the bottom line about the space ethics conversation. Human beings are full of
contradictions and competing perspectives. The humanist might point out that, by nature,
human beings are explorers. We seek to learn, to grow, to move forward, and in that sense,
going into space is inevitable. We will create the technology to travel, and we will figure
out ways to terraform other planets. We will thrive throughout the universe and take
humanity to the next level.
The risk and cost of this will be enormous, with a substantial loss of life. Spaceships may
be destroyed, life support systems compromised, and every imaginable type of failure
experienced that comes with conquering a fundamentally hostile environment without any
protection other than the technology that we bring. Our space technology, for the time
being, will be at a massive level of fragility, which will limit our more ambitious goals for a
while. Moon base habitats need to be hardened from accidents as well as from design
flaws and deliberate sabotage. All these will happen. As a society, we need to overcome
the inherent fragility of our space technology, as part of the process of space
industrialization.
But technological and social fragility hasn’t stopped humanity before from discovering
new continents, climbing the highest mountains and exploring the deep seas.
The posthumanist would question this perspective and point out that we are part of a
system called “Earth” and we cannot see ourselves independent from that system. Space
is an exceptionally hostile place to be, and it would be a serious lack of judgment to think
that we could engineer a system so complex as planet Earth (see Figure 1).
Gartner, Inc. | G00789241
Page 3 of 11
Figure 1: Humanist and Posthumanist Perspectives of Humans and the World
If we go the humanist way, there is a good chance that we will take climate change and
depletion of natural resources for granted. We’re leaving after all, so we don’t have to care
anymore. If the posthumanist perspective prevails, then we need to invest all our
innovative capabilities in making sure planet Earth remains a healthy place to live.
(Obviously, there is a third, more realistic and relevant scenario, where we explore space
and live on our home planet. We will leave out this scenario for a specific reason. Taking
extreme positions helps when discussing the implications of scenarios and gaining new
insights, hence our discussion on either staying on planet Earth or industrializing space.)
This Maverick research explores a number of questions about how to conquer space in
the future and, in doing so, how to create a better world today.
First and foremost, we need to be clear about what our purposes are in striving to
industrialize space. For each of those purposes, different ethical questions arise:
■
Exploration — Where we expand our knowledge of the universe, and explore our
humanity. The focus will be on science and continued discovery.
■
Expansion — Where we look for more people settling in multiple places. The focus
will be on evolution.
Gartner, Inc. | G00789241
Page 4 of 11
■
Exploitation — Where we look for natural resources to sustain human life. The focus
will be on economics.
Regardless of the progress to plan trips to Mars, or even further, this discussion cannot
wait. The implications of whatever choices we will make start today.
Exploration Helps Us Understand More About Humanity Itself
Key consideration: How does space travel affect humanity itself?
Through space exploration, we learn more about the laws of the universe, understand
different phenomena and expand our scientific knowledge. We may create a deeper
understanding of the origin of the universe and — who knows — find ways to travel
through wormholes, as we have seen in so many science fiction stories. But there is an
even deeper level of understanding when we start to explore space and thus new
evolutionary paths of humanity itself. The moment humans go into space, we tamper with
ourselves as well.
Even limited exposure in orbit is known to permanently affect astronauts on a molecular
level. After about a year in the International Space Station, astronaut Scott Kelly had an
immune system, metabolic function and protein production that differed significantly
from that of his twin brother, former NASA astronaut and retired U.S. Navy captain Mark
Kelly, who remained on Earth. 8
Children born in space may not even be able to return to Earth — or, better said, in turn, as
they are born in space, they have never been on Earth. 9 Conditions on Earth, like its
gravity, composition of the air, or all the bacteria and viruses there may make Earth a
hostile environment. From human, we would become transhuman. Transhumanists
believe that the human race can evolve beyond its current physical and mental limitations,
particularly through science and technology. 10
Transhumanism may be inevitable, as our evolutionary advantage is that we are
technological beings. We improve ourselves through the use of science and technology.
We are not the fastest, strongest or most resilient species, but through the technologies we
created, we have become so. And evolution usually isn’t reversed.
Question: Is it still evolution if we transform into beings that cannot live on planet Earth
anymore, or have we become a different species? Do we feel this path of evolution is
desirable?
Gartner, Inc. | G00789241
Page 5 of 11
Lessons learned for today’s world: The question of how technology shapes our evolution
is not new. Agricultural equipment shaped evolution, too. But the invasiveness is
increasing. Scientists are in the process of creating brain-machine interfaces that alter the
brain, 11 and the brain cannot function without the technology. Are we then also still
human? Is that the nature of transhumanism, or are we taking it too far?
Expansion Helps to Improve the Human Race
Key consideration: How do we collaborate as humanity?
Imagine multiple moon bases on a moon that is divided among various countries. There
is the Chinese part of the moon, the European part of the moon and the U.S. part of the
moon.
Would there be border control? If there is an emergency in one base, would people on
other bases help, even if their governments on earth are divided? For a very long time, it is
fair to assume, we will not have hundreds of thousands or millions of people on the moon,
and moon bases may not be entirely self-sufficient.
We’ve seen this can work. There is wide international agreement about the status of
Antarctica. 12 No country claims parts of Antarctica. It is a common heritage, and it is not
exploited for commercial purposes. This agreement is largely obeyed, and as a result,
Antarctica is treated with care. If it can happen there, it can happen in space as well.
The International Space Station (ISS), a collaboration between the U.S., Russia, Europe,
Canada and Japan, also started out as a joint initiative, overcoming political differences.
However, in this case, the collaboration didn’t hold. Recently, Russia decided to pull out of
the ISS collaboration. The former head of Russia’s space agency Dmitry Rogozin
commented that the U.S. would have to use broomsticks to fly to space after Russia said
it would stop supplying rocket engines to U.S. companies. 13
So the jury is still out on how collaborative we will be in conquering space. We’ve seen
examples of both collaboration and division.
Question: Space is a hostile environment. Can we afford to be territorial?
Gartner, Inc. | G00789241
Page 6 of 11
Lessons learned for today’s world: If the answer to this question is, “No, we cannot afford
to be territorial,” then this answer also applies to current global issues, such as climate
change. We cannot afford to be territorial about climate change, as combating climate
change is of the same magnitude and impact as space exploration. If the answer is, “Yes,
we can afford to be territorial,” nothing changes in today’s situation.
Exploitation Raises Questions About the Role of Business
Key consideration: Who should take the lead in conquering space?
Let’s take our moon base example one step further. Imagine there are multiple moon
bases, but each is run by a different company. There is the SpaceX base, run by Elon
Musk. There is the Blue Origin base, run by Jeff Bezos. And there are a few others. Each
has its own commercial agenda, based on, for instance, tourism and mining.
Would the people on the moon bases working for these companies help one another in
case of an emergency, or would it not be possible to help out the competition? How would
territorial disputes be settled over areas with interesting natural resources to be mined, or
with the best views for tourists?
The 1967 Outer Space Treaty, drafted in the middle of the Cold War, stipulates that space
should not be used for commercial exploitation. 14 What does this mean for today’s
situation, where space exploration is led by commercial companies such as SpaceX?
What if someone finds a good business model for retrieving rare resources from close-by
asteroids? Recently, an asteroid passed between the Earth and the moon. 15 Or what if
someone finds a way to exploit the current “space junk” in orbit?
16
There is a long history of exploration being led by commercial companies. Think, for
instance, of the development of railroads in the U.S. in the early 20th century. Commercial
companies often are more efficient in their operations and can scale quickly, compared
with the public sector. Also, for global problems such as climate change, it is often
positioned as a business opportunity for innovation (see What Is Climate-Centered
Innovation, and Why Focus on It Now?).
At the same time, commercial enterprises often aren’t very good at combining different
stakeholder needs. Despite the visionary leadership, the railroad barons came under
intense scrutiny for their ruthless nature and disregard for public safety in the name of
greater profits. 17
Gartner, Inc. | G00789241
Page 7 of 11
Goal maximization leads to consequences elsewhere. The proliferation of low Earth orbit
(LEO) satellites, for example, raises ethical questions. LEO satellites can improve
communications and internet access, especially in remote areas, and enhance weatherand climate-tracking capabilities. At the same time, LEO satellites are rapidly cluttering the
skies, making professional and amateur stargazing more challenging and intensifying the
economic and safety risks associated with space debris. 18 Launching satellites at the
current pace is also negatively affecting weather forecast accuracy. 19
Moreover, there are tasks that we believe belong to the public sector — police and defense,
for instance. And in many countries, tasks are performed by commercial companies, but
are considered critical infrastructure and couldn’t be acquired by companies in other
nations. Examples include utility companies and telecoms. Space industrialization could
be another area that belongs to the public sector.
Key questions: Is the Outer Space Treaty out of date? Should space exploration be led by
commercial companies?
Lessons learned for today’s world: If the answer is, “Yes, commercial enterprise should
play a leading role,” we should double down on commercial activity for Earth’s main
problems as well. Companies should be more encouraged to focus on sustainability, for
instance, and we should closely track the innovation results coming out of these
companies. If the answer is, “No,” then the public sector needs to take the lead on
sustaining planet Earth through heavy regulations and public investments.
One More Thing … Whose Planet Is It Anyway?
One more key consideration should be discussed for all purposes of exploration,
expansion and exploitation.
For the moment, let’s put aside concerns about being visited by highly intelligent aliens or
running into intelligent extraterrestrial life during our space endeavors. We do need a plan
for that and to be ready for whenever that happens, NASA says. 20 Perhaps equally
fundamental questions are how we should deal with finding bacterial, microscopic life,
and whether we should build bases on Mars or on other planets.
Gartner, Inc. | G00789241
Page 8 of 11
As the original inhabitants of other planets, should bacterial life be considered owners of
that planet? After all, we see ourselves as the owners of planet Earth. Or is the right to
ownership a human concept, instead of a universal concept? Do beings have to be
sentient before they deserve any protection or consideration of rights at all? What if
bacterial life manifests itself through infection? Do we have the right to destroy those
bacteria on another planet?
Let’s say we believe that bacterial or other types of nonsentient life have no rights on the
planet where we find them. Then, do we believe this gives human beings the right to mine
for resources or to terraform, drastically intervening with the natural development of that
planet?
Have we learned anything from colonialism in the human past and, in some cases, in the
present?
In popular culture, this idea is elaborately explored in the “Star Trek” television series. It is
called the “Prime Directive,” which forbids interfering with the normal development of alien
life and culture. 21 The Prime Directive takes precedence over all other considerations. The
two “Avatar” movies paint a world where humans conquer another planet to obtain rare
natural resources, and show the effects of the industrialization of space and other planets
if humans disregard ownership of the original inhabitants.
Key question: Are ownership and other rights a human concept or a universal concept?
Lessons learned for today’s world: We need to answer the question of whether ownership
and rights go beyond human beings to other species on earth. Do other species have
rights? As a logical consequence, animals should also have ownership rights in the places
they inhabit.
The Maverick research program is part of Gartner Futures Lab — Gartner’s home for
unconventional, speculative and futuristic research.
Evidence
1
How Many Satellites Are Orbiting Around Earth in 2022? Geospatial World.
2
NASA’s Head Warned That China May Try to Claim the Moon — Two Space Scholars
Explain Why That’s Unlikely to Happen, Space.com.
3
Ethics, Encyclopedia Britannica.
Gartner, Inc. | G00789241
Page 9 of 11
4
Elon Musk’s SpaceX COO Says Manned Missions Will Reach Mars by 2030. NASA Says
Otherwise, Euronews Next.
5
NASA Shows Off Early Plans to Send Astronauts to Mars for 30 Days, Space.com.
6
China Plans Its First Crewed Mission to Mars in 2033, Reuters.
7
‘Space Ethics’ According to Space Ethicists, The Space Review.
8
To Boldly Go ... Responsibly, Politico.
9
M. Balistreri and S. Umbrello. “Should the Colonisation of Space Be Based on
Reproduction? Critical Considerations on the Choice of Having a Child in Space.” Journal
of Responsible Technology. October 2022.
10
What Is Transhumanism?
11
Neuralink
12
Who Owns the Space? Good and Evil on the Other Side of the Atmosphere, De
Correspondent.
13
Rogozin: The U.S. Will Have to Use Broomsticks to Fly to Space. NASA Head: We Have
Cooperation With Russian Colleagues, Fortune.
14
2222 (XXI). Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration
and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, U.N. Office for
Outer Space Affairs.
15
An Airplane-Sized Asteroid Will Pass Between the Earth and Moon’s Orbits Saturday,
NPR.
16
Space Junk: The Cluttered Frontier, MIT News Office.
17
Railroad Tycoons of the 19th Century, American-Rails.com.
1 8
If Humanity Is to Succeed in Space, Our Ethics Must Evolve, Centre for International
Governance Innovation.
Gartner, Inc. | G00789241
Page 10 of 11
19
Dutch Meteorologists Say Musk’s Starlink Network Disrupts Weather Forecasting, NL
Times.
20
NASA Says We Need a Plan for When We Discover Alien Life, Futurism.com.
21
Starfleet Orders & Directives, StarTrek.nl.
Recommended by the Authors
Some documents may not be available as part of your current Gartner subscription.
Find Growth Opportunities on Earth Inspired by the Industrialization of Space
Maverick* Research: Space Business — Not So Far Out
Maverick Stories: Brave New Worlds Episode 1 — A Multiversal Organization
Brave New Worlds: Tapestry of Trends 2022 by Gartner Futures Lab
© 2023 Gartner, Inc. and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved. Gartner is a registered trademark of
Gartner, Inc. and its affiliates. This publication may not be reproduced or distributed in any form
without Gartner's prior written permission. It consists of the opinions of Gartner's research
organization, which should not be construed as statements of fact. While the information contained in
this publication has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable, Gartner disclaims all warranties
as to the accuracy, completeness or adequacy of such information. Although Gartner research may
address legal and financial issues, Gartner does not provide legal or investment advice and its research
should not be construed or used as such. Your access and use of this publication are governed by
Gartner’s Usage Policy. Gartner prides itself on its reputation for independence and objectivity. Its
research is produced independently by its research organization without input or influence from any
third party. For further information, see "Guiding Principles on Independence and Objectivity."
Gartner, Inc. | G00789241
Page 11 of 11