Amber Walton
UNIV 112
Annotated Bibliography 4
4 November 2015
1. Research Question:
Should astronauts be allowed to go on a one-way mission to Mars?
2. MLA Source:
Slobodian, Rayna Elizabeth. "Selling Space Colonization and Immortality: A
Psychosocial, Anthropological Critique of the Rush to Colonize Mars." Acta
Astronautica 113 (2015): 89-104. Science Direct. Web. 2 Nov. 2015.
3. Qualifications of Source:
Rayna Elizabeth Slobodian works for York University in the Department of
Anthropology. She has been a researcher since 2010. Since then, she has had four articles
published, three of which are on the topic of space exploration.
4. Main Claim of Source:
The Mars One mission and other prospects of near future space colonization (within the
next decade) are motivated more by zeal than objective realities.
5. Sub-claims:
 The original missions to space by the United States and the USSR were motivated
by the drive to “win” the space race and, more broadly, the Cold War.
 Those who claim that humans have an inherent drive to explore in any way
possible are incorrect; it is a desire, not a necessity of human biology.
6. Evidence:
 Linda Billings was referenced as calling attention to the United States’ history of
idealizing “pioneering, progress, enterprise, freedom, and rugged
individualism…”
 Dennis Tito has stated that his motivation for his proposed Inspiration Mars
mission was to encourage Americans to get to Mars before the Chinese.
 Carl Sagan was quoted as saying that past pioneers are an indication of humans’
inherent drive to explore. Taylor Dark referenced as a counter-argument, who
says that there isn’t an inherent drive. There is simply the urge of individuals to
explore; individuals whom should not be taken as a general consensus.
 Steven Pyne was referenced as claiming that space travel is a cultural rather than
biological motive.

MIT research was quoted as saying that the proposed Mars One mission would
fail in merely months of its execution.
7. Quotes:
“American space agendas and stories were prominent through the 1960s and 70s, having
been popularized by President Kennedy's speech to “conquer space” against the soviets
[72:84]. Today, the nation versus nation space race continues, except that the threat to
American pride is not only from the Soviets, but also from the Chinese.” (90)
o This quote points out the possible flaw in the reasoning to explore space. In the
case of the United States, space colonization was first motivated by the space race
during the Cold War with the USSR. Today, the quote claims, this prideful
motivation continues and has expanded to include China. This motivation is
important to consider because it could blind future space missions from the
United States, Russia, and China to objective hazards to exploration for the sake
of egoism.
“He [Taylor Dark] is suggesting that maybe the biological motive is not as predetermined
as the current space colonization story suggests. Sexual drives and procreation are also
considered motivators, but we can cognitively choose to not act on those drives.” (91)
o This quote argues against the (American) idea that humans are natural trailblazers.
Instead, there are only individuals who have the desire to explore. The individuals
should not be used to define humanity as a whole. This thought is interesting,
considering a large driver for my research paper was exactly the reason Dark
refutes here. This reminded me to remain objective and to not let pure zeal drive
my ultimate conclusion.
“Researchers at MIT recently presented at the 65th International Astronautical Congress,
focusing on how technically feasible the Mars One plan is. They suggest, “…the first
crew fatality would occur approximately 68 days into the mission. This would be a result
of suffocation from too low an oxygen partial pressure within the environment. However,
Mars One founder Bas Lansdorp believes that the MIT researchers have come to
“incorrect conclusions.”” (91)
o This quote draw attention to the realistic implementation of the currently
proposed plan to send humans on a one way trip to Mars. If correct in their
assessment, it could be argued that zeal blinded the researchers for the Mars
missions. However, MIT could be wrong. More outside sources should be found
to see the general consensus of the science community on the proposed plan.
“The desire to survive as a species is told over and over, but do we need to survive? And
if so, to what end? Changing our consumption habits might be just as effective, and
potentially cheaper, than just going into space to survive and giving up on Earth.” (92)
o This quote provides an alternative for colonizing Mars; rather than abandon earth,
seek to prevent its rapid decay by controlling our energy consumption.
o It also begs a difficult question to argue for: “why attempt to continue the human
species at all?” It is difficult to argue in the sense that humans naturally do not
want to die.
“Eventually, the crew [of the Star Trek Enterprise] learned that their actions were harmful
to others because they did not spend the time to think about the consequences of their
actions.” (102)
o I won’t use this in the paper itself, but I will use it as a reminder that this source
doesn’t simply say that space colonization should not happen. It is largely a
criticism of the rush to colonize Mars within twenty years. It begs the important
question, “why now?” By rushing, the missions to Mars may do more harm than
good.
8. Use of the Source:
This article was used to serve as a critical view to my conclusion of a one-way trip to
Mars being beneficial. It provided more arguments then I initially expected; it includes
not only the possible misguidance in motivation for human space flight, but also provided
research on the feasibility of the proposed missions themselves. It looks at space flight
from multiple angles, including safety, motivation, and feasibility. This source allowed
me to step back from the baseless argument of “we must because we can.”