Ethicists in space (again)

On topic of space ethics, recently brought to Matt Drudge's attention are some actually-ethical ethicists. Daniel Deudney has a book out, Dark Skies, arguing that space exploration is space militarisation. Fellow author Bleddyn map Owain has written exactly about space war, earlier this year, and with the information fresh in his mind reviews Deudney.

Deudney's thing is systemic political and social change in the way humans govern the world before we get cracking on some of our more ambitious projects. From an academic, usually that means formalising academia into our New World Order. As we've seen the academy prefers population control, mind and body, over population improvement. Because at heart they're not in the population.

None of this is to express entire disagreement with Deudney. I do however want to make clear where Deudney stands: for all his vaunted concern with life on Earth, and for all his noise against Totalitarian Space Empire; he holds a dim view of the actual people on it, and he is a totalitarian. Oh, I am sure his own motives are the purest. But ultimately whoever wants systemic change in a hurry, an orbital weapon station would be a lovely tool to have. So what's even his problem?

Deudney is also wrong in parts - laughably so. Take this, in Bowen's summary: The key negative outcome of the Space Age to date is that space technologies – mainly rockets, missiles and military space infrastructure – make nuclear war more likely. Dude, no; they haven't. We have endured one nuclear war, ever: the Japanese / American war. The Cold War after that ended without a nuclear exchange. So did the "World War IV" against distributed Sunnite terror. I've read For All Time, the alt-earth where nuclear proliferation meant nuclear wars-plural. It's fiction. Didn't happen. Because in real life, Mutual Assurance of Destruction pulled everyone (except maybe ISIS) from even considering The Button.

Deudney argues that life in uninhabitable worlds will follow the Captain Of The Ship model: they will all be despotic. Meh. In the space-stations, sure. Abraham and Franck saw the same on Mars. Abraham and Franck figured the Belters would be more shambolic, as long as life support was working. Honestly I'm not seeing even Mars entering into a single government as Abraham-Franck did. You'll note later events in that very series had Mars' great warrior government crumbling into corruption as life got easier there. As for the system-wide war... mayyybe. But if we survived the Cold War and got the Sunnis sane again, I'd bet for optimism.

Which is not to say the warning is unwelcome. I just think he hasn't thought it all through. If he doesn't want Totalitarian Space Empire (and a good part of him does want it, but Earth-based), the answer is for a balance of power. More space presence, not less.

FINITUDE 11/23: The moon is large, but not infinite, and not all of its surface is useful. Harvard's wargamers are proposing more exploration before landing colonists.