The ethics of space colonies

[Immoren]

No independence whatsoever.Autonomy yes.Independence no, we must stick together, we homo sapiens.I'm a social democrat, but if it were to be space colonies and other races in space, I would turn nazi day 1.We would need a inter-planetary federation between mother earth and the colonised planets to placate the mongrel races.We must stick together, so that no one can tread on us.

Speciation is probably inevitably for a space faring beings.

[Reploid Productions]

This may be somewhat difficult to talk about considering it is hypothetical, but lets say history happens just like we predict it to. Let's say in the distant future humanity colonizes other moons and planets. Whether they be in this solar system or another is irrelevant. Let's say that in decades, to hundreds of years, the colonies have developed industry and infrastructure. They are self-sufficient to the point of not completely relaying on other colonies. They develop their own culture and identity. Just like on Earth, now these colonies want independence.

Should we give it to them? In modern society colonies are considered unethical, but that largely comes from European colonization of other peoples. No one saw anything wrong with the European colonies that were founded by Europeans (like the US or Brazil.) Furthermore what if these colonies are necessary? What if their resources are necessary to maintain civilization on Earth? What if Earth is so uninhabitable that humanity on it would dies without the colonies. Is there some philosophical need to keep humanity united as it spreads through the stars?

Personally I think these colonies would win independence eventually, just like in the real world. So they should be given independence when they want it.

The genesis of the One Year War in Mobile Suit Gundam in a nutshell, ladies and gentlemen! Granted, especially in the novels, the politics and such are a tad more complex, but it still boils down to a bunch of people who were forced to migrate to space wanting independence from a lumbering Earth-based bureaucracy.

And looking at that particular piece of science-fiction as an example of what could happen if we reach a similar point in the real world, transitioning whatever colonies we create to being one or more independent political entities peacefully should be a priority built into the colonization program, rather than trying to maintain a forceful hold causing the inevitable cultural differences to fester until something blows up. Barring some really absurd advances in faster-than-light travel AND communication, it is just impractical for a central Earth-based government to effectively govern people living spread out over such distances- like the issues the British had trying to govern the American colonies an ocean away only on a much bigger scale.

[Tzorsland]

You don't understand that other planets could be colonized purely for resources? Manufacturing doesn't have to exist on them.

Distances are far too vast. The cost to ship equipment is far too great. Even proposed lunar settlements are basically built on the moon from lunar resources.

More importantly, if you can't fix / rebuild the air purification system ... YOU DIE. END OF SETTLEMENT. Off world survival requires manufacturing, while most colonies only required farming to survive.

[Inzijard]

Colonizing a planet for resources would be counter productive. If they were looking for resources they would mine asteroids seeing as they are resource rich.

Not necessarily. Asteroids appear to be more limited in the resources they contain. Comets, for example, are rich in volatiles (water especially), but asteroids in general tend to consist of packed rubble and seldom contain the heavier metals that consolidate in the cores and mantles of large planets. Asteroids relatively distant from the sun are primarily carbon-based, while those closest are silicon-based. It is believed that asteroids around Mars contain a great deal of iron [source][source]. All of these materials are readily available on earth and the solar system as a whole [source], so there's not much reason to go out of your way for them in that respect.

That said, the negligible gravity of asteroids does make them appealing if it's worth the additional delta-v expense required to reach them. The low gravity would certainly ease manufacturing and logistics, and make possible some industrial processes that would otherwise not be feasible on a large planet. Interplanetary vehicles and routes may become the norm, but specialized vehicles will be required to reach the lesser asteroids. I would exclude Ceres and Vesta in this case, as their size and relative accessibility appear to make them candidates for practical exploitation, though I haven't researched much in that regard. They're also dwarf planets, and not asteroids in the traditional sense. Either could turn out rather insignificant, but I can only guess.

Further reading:
Ceres
Vesta

You don't understand that other planets could be colonized purely for resources? Manufacturing doesn't have to exist on them.

Extensive refining will be necessary in situ. When every ounce of cargo translates to three ounces of fuel, it is in your best interest to maximize the value density of the payload before rocketing it into space. Colonies capable of a wide range of harvesting, processing, and manufacturing locally will be very valuable, as they can ship end products cheaply and efficiently. Many processes could make use of the local environment to further ease the cost of production (geothermal, tidal, or wind power, for example), as well as low gravity and vacuum where applicable. Microgravity can be very, very beneficial to the manufacturing industry [source]. In the case of large, atmospheric planets, the latter may occur in orbital facilities (local ones, to minimize shipping costs associated with deadweight). Lastly, hazardous processes not safe on earth, or any human colony for that matter, may be possible at an unmanned, remote facility with minimal risk of collateral damage.

All of this will be taken into account when siting a colony, and much more. Is it close enough to the sun to offer reliable solar power, or must power be generated by alternative means? Can the colony be constructed from local materials and, by extension, can the servicing spacecraft produce their own fuel there? This will greatly reduce the size of involved spacecraft and the cost of fuel. Can the location be accessed on a regular basis, or is there a limited, scheduled launch window? If too much delta-v is required, the size and cost of the spacecraft may, at times, exceed the benefit of going there in the first place. Mars, for example, has a several-month optimal window (with respect to earth) every few years. Do we need humans there in the first place? Humans demand larger spacecraft, habitats, a regular supply of provisions, and extensive safety measures for extended survival in any extra-terrestrial environment. By extension, how well does the planet/asteroid/moon provide natural shelter from concerns such as solar flares?

Ultimately, this isn't to say that all stages of processing must occur at the source, or even at all, but it seems very unlikely to me for that not to be the case. If your colony is not self-sufficient to a great degree, it will be very expensive to operate and very vulnerable to logistical mishaps, in which case it follows that there is not much of a reason to establish it in the first place. Maximizing a deep space colony's economic independence is in everyone's best interest.

Further reading:
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/resear ... iza14.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_manufacturing

[Immoren]

Obviously deltav problem could be alleviated with use of nuclear pulse propulsion.

[Great Nepal]

I dont think the situation will arise at all; going by our current understanding of universe any such colonies (baring moon or orbital) would have exclusive reign on practically all of the domestic policies whose authority increases with distance. Only matters they may not be able to handle would be foreign policy and defense (and in all likelihood extra-solar colonies would probably be controlling those de facto if not de jure anyway since sending reinforcements from Earth to Alpha Centuri is just stupid).
Essentially these colonies would be independent for all intents and purposes save for flag flying in central square. I doubt anyone will be bothered enough to rebel over that.

[Inzijard]

Obviously deltav problem could be alleviated with use of nuclear pulse propulsion.

There has been a great deal of research in this field, as far back as the mid 1940's (though I'm sure you're familiar). For those who aren't, Project Orion and associated study are good starting points. It's a very interesting concept, but certainly not without its shortcomings. The electromagnetic pulse and fallout produced could pose a liability to nearby infrastructure (and be illegal entirely in Earth orbit), though these challenges aren't impossible to overcome. Modern and near-future materials may resist spalling to an acceptable degree, but as a whole I believe the system is a bit cumbersome.

I am partial to the nuclear salt-water rocket design (Wikipedia and relevant discourse), which delivers more variable, consistent thrust. Of course, it's difficult to overlook the fact that it's no less of a nuclear accident waiting to happen, and would be equally unlawful in Earth orbit).

I dont think the situation will arise at all; going by our current understanding of universe any such colonies (baring moon or orbital) would have exclusive reign on practically all of the domestic policies whose authority increases with distance. Only matters they may not be able to handle would be foreign policy and defense (and in all likelihood extra-solar colonies would probably be controlling those de facto if not de jure anyway since sending reinforcements from Earth to Alpha Centuri is just stupid).
Essentially these colonies would be independent for all intents and purposes save for flag flying in central square. I doubt anyone will be bothered enough to rebel over that.

I agree. Barring superluminal communication and transportation, authority beyond our own planet will need to be a domestic affair. I predict early human colonies beginning as science, then corporate worker, habitats (similar to the model villages that rose during the Industrial Revolution to localize the workforce), where Earth-based control is impractical due to lightspeed lag and, more importantly, emergency response delay. This, I feel, holds only for intra-solar colonies. Those of extra-solar origin may come to be for a variety of reasons, but not in the near future. It will be those reasons that will ultimately decide the political hierarchy.

[Immoren]

Obviously deltav problem could be alleviated with use of nuclear pulse propulsion.

There has been a great deal of research in this field, as far back as the mid 1940's (though I'm sure you're familiar). For those who aren't, Project Orion and associated study are good starting points. It's a very interesting concept, but certainly not without its shortcomings. The electromagnetic pulse and fallout produced could pose a liability to nearby infrastructure (and be illegal entirely in Earth orbit), though these challenges aren't impossible to overcome. Modern and near-future materials may resist spalling to an acceptable degree, but as a whole I believe the system is a bit cumbersome.

I am partial to the nuclear salt-water rocket design (Wikipedia and relevant discourse), which delivers more variable, consistent thrust. Of course, it's difficult to overlook the fact that it's no less of a nuclear accident waiting to happen, and would be equally unlawful in Earth orbit).

I dont think the situation will arise at all; going by our current understanding of universe any such colonies (baring moon or orbital) would have exclusive reign on practically all of the domestic policies whose authority increases with distance. Only matters they may not be able to handle would be foreign policy and defense (and in all likelihood extra-solar colonies would probably be controlling those de facto if not de jure anyway since sending reinforcements from Earth to Alpha Centuri is just stupid).
Essentially these colonies would be independent for all intents and purposes save for flag flying in central square. I doubt anyone will be bothered enough to rebel over that.

I agree. Barring superluminal communication and transportation, authority beyond our own planet will need to be a domestic affair. I predict early human colonies beginning as science, then corporate worker, habitats (similar to the model villages that rose during the Industrial Revolution to localize the workforce), where Earth-based control is impractical due to lightspeed lag and, more importantly, emergency response delay. This, I feel, holds only for intra-solar colonies. Those of extra-solar origin may come to be for a variety of reasons, but not in the near future. It will be those reasons that will ultimately decide the political hierarchy.

Obviously all worthwhile starship propulsion mechanisms are those that'll cause environmental damage or even extinction even if they crash or even fire their main propulsion system too close to inhabited planet.

[Inzijard]

Obviously all worthwhile starship propulsion mechanisms are those that'll cause environmental damage or even extinction even if they crash or even fire their main propulsion system too close to inhabited planet.

That depends entirely on your definition of "worthwhile."

[Utceforp]

This may be somewhat difficult to talk about considering it is hypothetical, but lets say history happens just like we predict it to. Let's say in the distant future humanity colonizes other moons and planets. Whether they be in this solar system or another is irrelevant. Let's say that in decades, to hundreds of years, the colonies have developed industry and infrastructure. They are self-sufficient to the point of not completely relaying on other colonies. They develop their own culture and identity. Just like on Earth, now these colonies want independence.

Should we give it to them? In modern society colonies are considered unethical, but that largely comes from European colonization of other peoples. No one saw anything wrong with the European colonies that were founded by Europeans (like the US or Brazil.) Furthermore what if these colonies are necessary? What if their resources are necessary to maintain civilization on Earth? What if Earth is so uninhabitable that humanity on it would dies without the colonies. Is there some philosophical need to keep humanity united as it spreads through the stars?

Personally I think these colonies would win independence eventually, just like in the real world. So they should be given independence when they want it.

Why does having your own culture and identity mean that you should be independent? I mean, if the Earth were oppressing the colonies or the colonies were originally independent, then conquered by Earth, it would be justified to give them independence, but otherwise there's no reason to.

[Immoren]

Obviously all worthwhile starship propulsion mechanisms are those that'll cause environmental damage or even extinction even if they crash or even fire their main propulsion system too close to inhabited planet.

That depends entirely on your definition of "worthwhile."

*hilarious* thrust and *ridiculous* specific impulse? Isn't that what All young space cadets want?

[Inzijard]

That depends entirely on your definition of "worthwhile."

*hilarious* thrust and *ridiculous* specific impulse? Isn't that what All young space cadets want?

The reality of which would be the boon of science and the bane of science fiction.

[The Sotoan Union]

You don't understand that other planets could be colonized purely for resources? Manufacturing doesn't have to exist on them.

Colonizing a planet for resources would be counter productive. If they were looking for resources they would mine asteroids seeing as they are resource rich.

Plenty of resources aren't produced in asteroids, like food for a painfully obvious example.

[The Sotoan Union]

This may be somewhat difficult to talk about considering it is hypothetical, but lets say history happens just like we predict it to. Let's say in the distant future humanity colonizes other moons and planets. Whether they be in this solar system or another is irrelevant. Let's say that in decades, to hundreds of years, the colonies have developed industry and infrastructure. They are self-sufficient to the point of not completely relaying on other colonies. They develop their own culture and identity. Just like on Earth, now these colonies want independence.

Should we give it to them? In modern society colonies are considered unethical, but that largely comes from European colonization of other peoples. No one saw anything wrong with the European colonies that were founded by Europeans (like the US or Brazil.) Furthermore what if these colonies are necessary? What if their resources are necessary to maintain civilization on Earth? What if Earth is so uninhabitable that humanity on it would dies without the colonies. Is there some philosophical need to keep humanity united as it spreads through the stars?

Personally I think these colonies would win independence eventually, just like in the real world. So they should be given independence when they want it.

Why does having your own culture and identity mean that you should be independent? I mean, if the Earth were oppressing the colonies or the colonies were originally independent, then conquered by Earth, it would be justified to give them independence, but otherwise there's no reason to.

It's why they would want independence. It's a significant factor in independence movements throughout history, including in non-colonies. Scotland and Catalonia for example.

[Aurulie]

No, the last thing we need is more division between us. We need a unified government of the Earth. Colonies shouldn't be allowed to seek independence.

[Utceforp]

No, the last thing we need is more division between us. We need a unified government of the Earth. Colonies shouldn't be allowed to seek independence.

They should be able to seek independence if the Earth government isn't democratic, if the colonies were originally separate states but then conquered, or if the Earth government is actively oppressing them but other than that I see no justification.

[Inzijard]

Colonizing a planet for resources would be counter productive. If they were looking for resources they would mine asteroids seeing as they are resource rich.

Plenty of resources aren't produced in asteroids, like food for a painfully obvious example.

So long as you can source nitrogen you can synthesize food pretty well anywhere. Nitrogen supply would be a significant bottleneck in deep space, if you lack access to a planet, but there may well be ways of circumventing that, too.

[The Sotoan Union]

Colonizing a planet for resources would be counter productive. If they were looking for resources they would mine asteroids seeing as they are resource rich.

Not necessarily. Asteroids appear to be more limited in the resources they contain. Comets, for example, are rich in volatiles (water especially), but asteroids in general tend to consist of packed rubble and seldom contain the heavier metals that consolidate in the cores and mantles of large planets. Asteroids relatively distant from the sun are primarily carbon-based, while those closest are silicon-based. It is believed that asteroids around Mars contain a great deal of iron [source][source]. All of these materials are readily available on earth and the solar system as a whole [source], so there's not much reason to go out of your way for them in that respect.

That said, the negligible gravity of asteroids does make them appealing if it's worth the additional delta-v expense required to reach them. The low gravity would certainly ease manufacturing and logistics, and make possible some industrial processes that would otherwise not be feasible on a large planet. Interplanetary vehicles and routes may become the norm, but specialized vehicles will be required to reach the lesser asteroids. I would exclude Ceres and Vesta in this case, as their size and relative accessibility appear to make them candidates for practical exploitation, though I haven't researched much in that regard. They're also dwarf planets, and not asteroids in the traditional sense. Either could turn out rather insignificant, but I can only guess.

Further reading:
Ceres
Vesta

You don't understand that other planets could be colonized purely for resources? Manufacturing doesn't have to exist on them.

Extensive refining will be necessary in situ. When every ounce of cargo translates to three ounces of fuel, it is in your best interest to maximize the value density of the payload before rocketing it into space. Colonies capable of a wide range of harvesting, processing, and manufacturing locally will be very valuable, as they can ship end products cheaply and efficiently. Many processes could make use of the local environment to further ease the cost of production (geothermal, tidal, or wind power, for example), as well as low gravity and vacuum where applicable. Microgravity can be very, very beneficial to the manufacturing industry [source]. In the case of large, atmospheric planets, the latter may occur in orbital facilities (local ones, to minimize shipping costs associated with deadweight). Lastly, hazardous processes not safe on earth, or any human colony for that matter, may be possible at an unmanned, remote facility with minimal risk of collateral damage.

All of this will be taken into account when siting a colony, and much more. Is it close enough to the sun to offer reliable solar power, or must power be generated by alternative means? Can the colony be constructed from local materials and, by extension, can the servicing spacecraft produce their own fuel there? This will greatly reduce the size of involved spacecraft and the cost of fuel. Can the location be accessed on a regular basis, or is there a limited, scheduled launch window? If too much delta-v is required, the size and cost of the spacecraft may, at times, exceed the benefit of going there in the first place. Mars, for example, has a several-month optimal window (with respect to earth) every few years. Do we need humans there in the first place? Humans demand larger spacecraft, habitats, a regular supply of provisions, and extensive safety measures for extended survival in any extra-terrestrial environment. By extension, how well does the planet/asteroid/moon provide natural shelter from concerns such as solar flares?

Ultimately, this isn't to say that all stages of processing must occur at the source, or even at all, but it seems very unlikely to me for that not to be the case. If your colony is not self-sufficient to a great degree, it will be very expensive to operate and very vulnerable to logistical mishaps, in which case it follows that there is not much of a reason to establish it in the first place. Maximizing a deep space colony's economic independence is in everyone's best interest.

Further reading:
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/resear ... iza14.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_manufacturing

Absolutely none of that means that manufactured goods have to be produced at the colony. Obviously infrastructure is required. Let's compare it to say a colony in the New World founded for timber. Can you just send over people to get the timber and come back? Not at all. You need infrastructure. You need a colony for the workers, buildings to process the wood, into lumber, and things to maintain the colony. Only after all that can lumber be shipped over. But Lumber is not the finished good. The ships built from the lumber are the finished good, and those come from England. Infrastructure is needed to produce the lumber at all, but that is not manufacturing. That happens back in England.

Say you found a colony because a rare metal is found there. Everything to both mine the metal and maintain the mining is infrastructure. The metal shipped back to Earth to be made into products is manufacturing. The manufacturing takes place on Earth. It doesn't take place on the colony. It could, but moving complicated manufacturing to the colony wouldn't necessarily be cheaper.

Furthermore this is all about resource colonies. You aren't factoring in population centers. The very real possibility exists that earth won't always be able to maintain a sizable population, so worlds may be colonized just for people to live on. These worlds won't be self-sufficient. They'll need to be connected to Earth and the other colonies. That trade system will allow them to grow and develop as a full colony, since a combination of worlds gives the colony both population and resources, and it will allow the colony to maintain itself if it decides to be independent. Population centers will likely manage nearby resource colonies, since it's to inefficient to manage from Earth. If they gain independence, they will take these worlds with them

[The Sotoan Union]

Plenty of resources aren't produced in asteroids, like food for a painfully obvious example.

So long as you can source nitrogen you can synthesize food pretty well anywhere. Nitrogen supply would be a significant bottleneck in deep space, if you lack access to a planet, but there may well be ways of circumventing that, too.

It may be a lot easier to grow on a planet that people would choose a planet for food production over an asteroid. Furthermore there are still plenty of resources asteroids don't provide.

[Aurulie]

No, the last thing we need is more division between us. We need a unified government of the Earth. Colonies shouldn't be allowed to seek independence.

They should be able to seek independence if the Earth government isn't democratic, if the colonies were originally separate states but then conquered, or if the Earth government is actively oppressing them but other than that I see no justification.

Eh, independence even in those circumstances are rash, because you're running away from a problem and not solving it.

[The Sotoan Union]

They should be able to seek independence if the Earth government isn't democratic, if the colonies were originally separate states but then conquered, or if the Earth government is actively oppressing them but other than that I see no justification.

Eh, independence even in those circumstances are rash, because you're running away from a problem and not solving it.

Solving the problem of Earth being oppressive? Running away from that is solving their problem. They aren't responsible for Earth.

[Utceforp]

They should be able to seek independence if the Earth government isn't democratic, if the colonies were originally separate states but then conquered, or if the Earth government is actively oppressing them but other than that I see no justification.

Eh, independence even in those circumstances are rash, because you're running away from a problem and not solving it.

Touché. It'd be better to peacefully or violently push for the Earth government to adopt more progressive policies then just dooming those who aren't independent to a non-democratic society and dividing up humanity.

[Nervium]

Is the whole situation secretly a plot for the chancellor to achieve supreme power?

Isn't he Supreme Chancellor at this point?

[Aurulie]

Eh, independence even in those circumstances are rash, because you're running away from a problem and not solving it.

Solving the problem of Earth being oppressive? Running away from that is solving their problem. They aren't responsible for Earth.

They're responsible for Earth, making sure the mother colony is fine is a responsibility for colonies.

[Utceforp]

Eh, independence even in those circumstances are rash, because you're running away from a problem and not solving it.

Solving the problem of Earth being oppressive? Running away from that is solving their problem. They aren't responsible for Earth.

That's pretty selfish.