CDfM Episode #2 "Should we go to Mars?”An Introduction

Welcome to Civilisation Design for Mars, CDfM.

This time we’re looking critically at the question: “should we go to mars?”

CDfM is building a legal and ethical framework for a civilisation on our alternate planet as we become multi-planetary. This channel documents controversial and notable topics encountered along the way. All policies discussed are intended for mars, not earth.

In the coming years, there will be much debate about whether we should go to Mars. Is this the right question to ask? What is the impact if we agree or disagree? Is our opinion ethically and legally relevant to the attempts to go to mars? We look at these and other issues in this introduction to the question: “should we go to mars?”

Governments and private individuals

Until recently, only national governments had the resources and know-how to go to space. Their citizens’ opinion about whether it was a good idea was constitutionally relevant because in democratic political systems, decision makers are voted into power by their citizens. And in all political systems, citizens pay their leaders’ wages and fund their policy recommendations funded by a combination of work, taxes and purchases.

It remains a constitutionally and ethically relevant critique of any government policy to question whether that policy is a good idea and a use of taxpayer money. However, in the context of the Mars civilisation mission, we’re dealing with a different situation.

We live at a time in which one private individual has amassed enough resources that they are able to attempt to go to Mars as a privately funded project. This happens within the same legal systems as we all live, therefore the mission must adhere to the laws of the relevant countries. However, this project is not dependent on votes or opinions by the electorate. This difference - a private, individual project rather than a government-led project - has an impact on the relevance of the debate around it.

Debate structures

The conversations and debates we have with others are often structured by the way we learn about a topic. If our main source of information about going to mars comes via 3rd party media, rather than our first hand experience, the way the information is explained in that media is likely to inform how we structure our own conversations on the topic. If news publications treat attempts to start a civilisation on mars in the way they would a new government or national policy, the question “should we go to mars?” may well be pursued in public debate. However, this will be treating a private issue as though it is a national political one.

Red herring

The question “should we go to mars?” is a red herring: something that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important question, even inadvertently. The decision to attempt to go to mars, with all the resources, strategy and thinking it requires, is a decision for those who are privately attempting to go there. In fact, apparently - looking at the work of Space X and others - the decision to try and go there has been taken. Despite this, the question “should we go to mars?” will likely take up a disproportionate part of the debate around the topic of mars whilst having little to no relevant impact on the outcome.

Opinions about private decisions

Let’s see an example of having opinions on ethically irrelevant or relevant topics. Elon Musk could have an opinion about a private decision of yours to buy a new car or start a new company, however his opinion doesn’t have any ethical or legal weight and there is no requirement to take his opinion into account. Since your private actions are out of Musk’s control, his critique has done little more than waste his own time. Seen in this light, each of us can have an opinion about whether it’s a good idea to go to Mars, however, that opinion is not legally relevant to whether the project should or will go ahead. If Elon Musk were attempting to go to mars as a government funded project, where he acts within a government or military role, the question of whether we should go to mars at all, would be ethically relevant for citizens of that country to debate and decide. It would be an important question of public interest where citizens hold their leaders to account and challenge the use of their taxes. But that isn’t the case here.

Is that it?

There are events that could stop the attempt to go to mars. The most likely cause for stopping this mission would be internal, not external pressure. The private individuals who are working to go to Mars could choose to stop for any number of reasons such as lack of funds, inability to solve critical engineering problems within a reasonable budget and timescale or a leadership decision to pursue other projects. External to the private project, attempts to find a justification for the illegality of the mission could be attempted.

We live in a pluralist society that has many millions of different initiatives, projects, companies and goals being attempted in any given moment. For those who would prefer the Mars project not to go ahead, the best course of action is to ignore the mission and focus attention on making projects happen that they deem more important. For those interested in this project, they can use their time effectively by working on the problems the mission needs to solve in order to be successful.

Summary

Because the mission to build a new branch of humanity on mars is a private project funded by a private individual, the opinions of those not involved are relatively legally and ethically irrelevant at present. Our usual media debate structure will likely spend a disproportionate amount of time on the question “should we go to mars?” However, this decision has already been taken by the private individual who has the relevant decision-making powers. They may change their mind and decide not to go to mars, they may also not succeed in their attempts despite wanting to go. However, public opinion on the “should we go to mars?” question will be so highly emotive, produce much content and sell a lot of adverts online and off on all sides of the debate, so there is an incentive to debate the point anyway. The debate would be ethically relevant if this were government policy. But it is not relevant to the private decision to go to mars.

Next time we predict when life on mars will begin. That’s all for this episode. Please subscribe, share your thoughts in the comments and thanks for listening to civilisation design for mars.

Copyright 2022 S J A Giblin