From Morality-Tale Science Fiction to Fantasy-Infused Settler Colonialism
In the Star Trek: Enterprise episode, “Strange New World,” (2001) T’Pol attempts to caution Captain Archer and his crew about visiting the uninhabited planet they discover. She wants to take a number of days, just over a week, to complete scans from orbit and with probes. The lone Vulcan on the ship, T’Pol, will later see her warning was justified when several of the landing party is severely disoriented by a type of pollen that is swept in from the mountains when a storm blows through their camp. They become delusional and are so intoxicated by the pollen there is even the risk of death. T’Pol’s warning can be seen on a larger scale: no matter how tempting let other planets, let space, be its own thing, for it may be prepared to try to kill you even when habitability appears the most likely outcome out of all possible outcomes.
That is what author Isobel Cockerell cites from Kim Stanley Robinson in her article, “Silicon Valley’s sci-fi dreams of colonizing Mars,” in which she re-empathizes, “Why, they say, can’t we let Mars be Mars? A place that has been unravaged by human exploitation. A place where the rocks, the ice, the sky, have their own value.” Cockerell interviewed Robinson who states that his work is that of science fiction and what is being practiced, what is planned on being practiced, lies more in the realm of fantasy.
Cockerell’s article strongly condemns Elon Musk’s blind ambition to colonize Mars, the Starlink network of satellites, which I have written here are projected to count as high as 100,000 in the coming 10 years. Cockerell’s July 2024 .code article, may have sparked the context for The Conversation’s August 2024 article written by Vivan Lam, “Astronomers have warned against colonial practices in the space industry – a philosopher of science explains how the industry couple explore other planets without exploiting them.” In other words, to take T’Pol’s measured and cautious approach.
Lam starts her article by most interestingly pointing to a white paper, “Ethical Exploration of the Role of Planetary Protection in Disrupting Colonial Practices” compiled by those from NASA, JPL-CalTech, Blue Space Marble, Johns Hopkins, The JustSpace Alliance, Howard University, and others. The paper serves as a type of amendment to the Outer Space Treaty, which to note, is unenforceable, as of now. The paper is only 6 ½ pages long and well worth your time; to briefly quote, “Enabling those with the wealth to privately engage in space exploration efforts could exacerbate already existing wealth inequality in the immediate future” (6). Lan continues with space ethicists’s concerns of polluting space, and by extension, certainly, planets, and possible microbial life. Lam also raises concerns about labor practices in a post-colonized world. Yes, there are those inventing the technology to do these things, and are handsomely rewarded, but what of those who will be housed on this planet, serving as laborers, and, as we have seen in the science fiction series For All Mankind, may very well become second class citizens.
Patrick Stewart* once spoke at a conference in which he was asked questions by the audience. He was asked about his feelings about the current state of space exploration. To paraphrase from memory, he said that is asked this question often and that he tries to stay away from it, but his general feeling is that if we cannot take care of our fellow humans here on Earth, if we cannot take care of planet Earth, perhaps we have no business out on other planets.
*(This Patrick Stewart comment was the late 2010s, I do not recall which convention or interview it was from, but it was captured on video.)