Dilemma
Should we colonize space?
The drive to extend human presence beyond Earth is sometimes framed as the next chapter of stewardship, sometimes as hubris, sometimes as escape from problems we ought to solve here. Which it is depends on what we take our relationship to nature to be.
Context
Permanent settlements on the Moon and Mars, asteroid mining, self-replicating probes, the long-term project of becoming a multi-planet species — these are no longer pure science fiction. The technical feasibility is improving; the moral and political conversation is lagging. Pro-colonisation voices appeal variously to survival of the species, the growth-imperative, the spirit of exploration, and the moral weight of long-run human flourishing. Critics appeal to neglect of present problems, ecological hubris, the rights of potential native life on other worlds, and the danger of exporting Earth's worst patterns. The disagreement isn't only empirical; it sits on top of different answers to where humans stand in relation to nature.
Why it matters
How a tradition reads humanity's place in nature determines whether expansion into the cosmos is appropriate stewardship, natural cultivation, hubristic overreach, or beside the point. The ontological commitments underdetermine the policy: schools sharing a stance can disagree on whether the particular projects underway (SpaceX, China's lunar plans, deep-space probes) are the right execution of the stance's abstract endorsement.
The coordinates that split the schools
The stances
Nature includes its limits; colonisation is bounded by what the cosmos allows.
18 schoolsOn these views, humans operate within a given natural order whose laws and limits set the terms. Space colonisation is fine to the extent that it is actually possible — radiation, gravity wells, biological tolerances — and folly to the extent that it requires denying what the cosmos is.
Where this stance leads ⓘ
- 1% Subject to a real natural order we did not make. on What is our place in nature?
- 1% Biology is what it is; we modify it within real biological constraints. on Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
- 1% Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all. on Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
- 1% Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation. on Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
- 1% Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial. on Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Cultivating worlds beyond Earth is the next form of stewardship.
68 schoolsOn these views, humans are active participants in a real natural order, and extending cultivation into new domains is what we do well when we do it well. Terraforming, settlement, asteroid use, the long-term spread of life-bearing capacity — these are continuations of the work we have always done, with the same stewardship obligations.
Where this stance leads ⓘ
- 1% Active in a real nature — we cultivate, steward, transform. on What is our place in nature?
- 1% Genetic modification is cultivation by other means. on Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
- 1% Yes — matter was created and is conserved as a real substance. on Is the world created from nothing?
- 1% Yes — the physical world is fully real, mind-independent, persisting. on Is the physical world fully real?
- 1% Matter is morally considerable insofar as it is created or conserved good. on Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
The 'space frontier' is partly what we make of it.
27 schoolsOn these views, space is not a given canvas on which we paint; it is one more domain that is constituted, in part, by the categories, practices, and imaginations we bring to it. What 'colonisation' even means is a function of frames we choose. The right question is which frame to bring.
Where this stance leads ⓘ
- 1% Nature is partly what we make of it — concepts, practices, and minds shape the world. on What is our place in nature?
- 1% What counts as a 'natural' genome is itself a construction. on Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
- 1% The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it. on Do you really choose?
- 1% The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real. on Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
- 1% An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible. on Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
From the standpoint of the One, expansion across substrate is just movement within the same.
13 schoolsOn non-dual views, the difference between Earth and elsewhere is conventional — particular locations within a single underlying reality. Space colonisation as escape is therefore incoherent; nothing is escaped because nothing was elsewhere to escape from.
Where this stance leads ⓘ
- 1% Individuality dissolves into the One. on What happens to "you" when you die?
- 1% From the standpoint of the One, the question doesn’t apply in the form it is asked. on When does a person begin?
- 1% All union is participation in the One — particular forms are conventional. on What is marriage?
- 1% Money's apparent diversity is convention over a single underlying value. on What is money?
- 1% Nations are conventional partitions of a single humanity. on What is a nation?
Schools the coordinates don't place
These schools don't satisfy any stance's coordinate pattern strongly enough to be assigned — either because they decline to commit on the question (Confucianism is famously silent on what comes after; Pyrrhonian and pragmatist traditions suspend judgment), or because their attribute signature crosses categories in a way the five buckets don't capture.
Related Experiments
Experiments engaging the same dimensions as this dilemma — they\'re where the same questions get stress-tested in cleaner cases.
Related Films
Films engaging the same dimensions as this dilemma.
Related Historical Debates
Historical confrontations where parties argued out questions on these dimensions.