8 Will space become another ‘Tragedy of the Commons’? Jude Franklin

Will space become another ‘Tragedy of the Commons’?

Jude Franklin Upper Sixth

With four hundred years since the first colony was established in the ‘New World,’ a new frontier of exploration appears to be opening up. With all land on Earth essentially occupied, people are now looking to Space for the next voyage into the unknown. Being conceived during World War II, and turbo-charged during the Cold War, large space programmes of the USA and Soviet Union kick started humans’ presence off Earth. However, moving into the 21st century a new force has arisen in the extra-terrestrial realm. The Private Company. Once deemed impossible, and then only for the world’s largest super powers, space travel may have seemed out of the public’s reach. This idea has come into question over the last ten years, with some of the worlds richest billionaires founding private space companies, working alongside space agencies to put humans into space. The bounds in both mechanical and computer engineering made in recent times has begun to slash costs of leaving Earth. Although now there are only a select few wealthy and inspired enough to take on this massive challenge, in the coming decades it seems inevitable the market for space will explode, and what were once noble feats will descend into an uncontrollable economic free-for-all. The ensuing economic phenomenon that is the commercialisation of space could not only lead to inequality like we’ve never seen, but also what is known as the ‘tragedy of the commons.’ One of the primary interconnectedness needed seems to be reasons space is reversing, as there are signs globalisation likely to become is slowing down, and even reverting. In a tragedy of the an article from the Financial Times, the commons is the author states “The contract people thought simple fact that they had with politicians, governments, international policy institutions, and potentially each other is is extremely hard disintegrating.” This implies that at a time for humans to agree when we finally have the technology to on. Currently we move off Earth and onto the next frontier, are restricted to our governance couldn’t handle it. There just one planet, and are some potent examples of how, in a time it already seems when we consider ourselves to be growing challenging enough, closer, we are actually drifting apart. without the prospect of considering the Of course the key instance is that of the rest of our near Paris Climate Accord, with Donald Trump solar system. Human nature is greedy. announcing his departure soon after his This has driven millennia of territorial election success. An excellent example of wars, colonialism, and perhaps even the the commons is the atmosphere, as no one space race. However, once we leave the state can control it, due to it being fluid atmosphere, those national boarders should and dynamic; actions in one place can lead disappear, with our only defining origin to huge changes elsewhere. Without the being that of Earth. This is the issue that US being apart of the climate accord, the many governments struggle with—working ‘tragedy of the commons’ really becomes as a whole isn’t in our current nature. obvious. America is one of the worlds Driven by the insatiable appetite for more biggest polluters, with the fourth highest growth, governments will generally put carbon emissions per capita, at 14.6T/ their economies above all others, not capita/year of CO2 being released considering that fundamentally we are all a . Their exit from the agreement means part of a global society. All it takes is a look untempered climatic degradation is likely at the ‘America First’ sentiment pursued by to ensue. Trump’s motives behind the move Donald Trump’s government to understand is that being in such an agreement hinders that much of the world is America’s growth; falling not ready for multilateral agreement on the scale [W]hat were just short of calling out the UN for conspiring against that would be needed once noble him (though I’m sure his for extra-terrestrial inhabitancy. Ultimate cooperation would be feats will descend into an Twitter drafts contain such an accusation.) Republicans believe that needed for humans to uncontrollable having to comply with such effectively find a home, on Mars for example, and the level of compromise economic freefor-all. an agreement is “eroding U.S. sovereignty” and acts to dampen their growth. needed for such an endeavour seems unlikely. We would need Although such policies are generally a governing body, similar to that of the considered to diminish GDP growth, UN, where decisions could be agreed upon maybe it is a wakeup call to the world that between all of the member states, in a way pursuing such a blunt and generic measure that is independent of individual, corporate, can no longer accurately inform us about or state intervention. At first this doesn’t the health of the economy, and rather seem so hard, but when you look at the ignores the fact that infinite growth in a dismal track record of such agreements contained system is practically impossible. on Earth, this feat seems far greater. The

these major political non-alignments, then we will have to consider different ways of thinking about society, and how economics as a whole is formulated. Kate Raworth’s donut model is based off the theory that GDP growth has become obsolete, and for anthropogenic progression we must change what we Another example of difficult multilateral consider as normal society, so that we may policy agreement is that of international work together in such ways that pushes waters. A perfect case of where without society as a whole forward, rather than total agreement from the majority of leaving many behind. Should we venture powerful nations, the in to space with economic agreement of a few means nothing. Where engineers and intentions, we must consider those that are able to fund such endeavours are already There are, of course, mathematicians extremely wealthy on Earth. short term commercial benefits to keeping the open ocean entirely go, philosophers and social An extra-terrestrial elite could form, where those who have access to the space non-regulated. Those scientists will commons hold all power on who have the best equipment and largest follow. Earth, leading to massive inequality. fishing fleets are able to exploit the resource, taking what Despite clear cut arguments on why they want, without the concern that what any international policy is hard to agree they are doing will harm the planet for on, there is nothing to say that in the years to come. An example of this is the long term, agreements cannot be made, huge growth in Tuna catches in the open especially as larger international governing ocean. Over just 50 years, the catch has bodies become more influential. With moved from 125 thousand tonnes a year, technology moving on, despite an evident to 3.5 million tonnes. The current rate lag, society can move on too. of exploitation of the ocean is expected Where engineers and to lead to a reduction in fish stocks, and mathematicians go, therefore a long term downward trend in philosophers and the amount of fish we will be able to catch. social scientists By 2050 the fisheries’ yield is expected to will follow. fall by 34%, meaning those who had the Though there resources to exploit and pollute the oceans will inevitably today have created major problems for be issues, those of tomorrow. Many consider this a creating an by-product of a government ‘Laissez-faire’ extraterrestrial attitude to what businesses do in global settlement commons, especially when these practices that doesn’t generate strong GDP growth for the result in a ‘tragedy,’ country. An independent study on the open could quite possibly be oceans said that the data above was due to achieved. Amongst the growing power of “Global governance architecture [being] international law, there comes a certain fragmented, poorly integrated, and [having] hope that societies of the future will be significant gaps.”1 That seems a perfect able to both utilise and respect the global summary for why policy in space, at this commons. point of time, would be virtually impossible for any humans to decide. One example of where significant work has already been done is the protection It is likely that if humanity is to move past of Antarctica, leaving the vast majority of its land mass up to scientists from all nations, that have maintained it in near pristine conditions. This is largely down to the Antarctic Treaty, that was established before any permanent settlement was created on the continent. The treaty, containing just fourteen articles, stipulates an array of laws in order to protect the area, for the greater good of humanity. It includes strict laws on how the area can be used, and that individual nations must “set aside the potential for sovereignty disputes.”2 There are also pre-decided procedures which must be followed, should a dispute arise. This has been in place for more than fifty years now, and as of yet there have been no major political issues over the land mass. This provides hope that humans may be able to achieve such stability in space. Another example of where strides in international law are being made is with marine commons. Despite earlier listing all of the current problems surrounding the area, many international authorities are working towards creating a clearer set of rules and regulations that all who wish to utilise the commons must abide by. Policy makers believe that this can be done through shared responsibility, conditional access, and effective enforcement. With these three pillars, the hope is that the ocean commons can be protected, with stakeholders being actively involved into the movement to sustainable management. Various international lawyers are trying to coordinate such protection through the UN, and the hope is that over the next few years there will be a global network of protected and enforced areas in which fish stocks are managed successfully.3 One of the key groups working towards ocean protection is the Global Commons Alliance, that has created a four step plan to success. This includes the Earth Commission, Science Research Targets, Earth HQ, and the Systems Change Lab.

There is no reason to suppose, once a permanent presence is established in space, that a similar organisation wouldn’t be able to deal with the issues of the ‘space commons’. This agency is working to foster collaboration between scientists, industry

leaders, and governments, to create a push towards more sustainable management of the oceans. If, before any serious space economy could be established, those on Earth could form a collaborative effort similar to this one, we may be able to create a whole anthropogenic system in which industry, science, and the environment could be balanced. The anticipation is that by 2050, the GCA will have developed a system where science will inform governance, and specific performance targets will be set for policies to strive for, “ultimately transform[ing] the global economy.” They have backing from the UN, the World Economic Forum, and the World Resource Institute, among others, proving that there can be large scale global cooperation.

Whilst efforts from such organisations are impressive and honourable, they are often flawed. One such issue is that any change created will take a long time to come to fruition. Whilst the improvements may be invaluable, that becomes an issue when considering human nature and satisfaction. If we are able to see instant results, we gain instant gratification. However, it is far more difficult to modify our behaviour now, when benefits won’t be seen for another 50 years, even if we know the eventual outcome will be of huge significance. This is evident through practices such as burning fossil fuels and the still-massive consumption of plastic. Sometimes this can prove fatal, as half the battle in political melee is public perception. Applied to space, when first presented with seemingly unlimited resources, it may seem tempting to reap what we desire, with no foresight past the present. This implies a dangerous future for space; as although humans may want to change, they may not have the self control and perseverance to change. In addition to this, policy tends to fall years, and even decades, behind the realisation change needs to happen. More often than not, the majority of the damage is done before any real action is taken. This is a major issue for societies today, when faced with such challenges as climate change. As early as the 1970s, there was research that proved climate change was being heavily influenced by anthropogenic burning of fossil fuels. One of the key contributors to this research was ExxonMobil, a multinational petroleum extractor. Quite shockingly, they concluded that the petroleum industry was a massive contributor to climate change, yet they spent the next forty years trying to cover this up in order to protect their business interests. They were aware of such damage in 1977, 11 years before the science even became known to the public, yet actively tried to cover it up. Only in the most recent decade has any real concern for the environment materialised, with the UK government declaring a climate emergency in 2019.

Finally, even the ‘local’ area space is far more vast than the domains of Earth, and control over people’s actions is difficult when they are so disparate. Without the necessary enforcement in place, rules are there to be broken, and it is likely disorder will ensue, as has been the case in all former frontiers. An example of this, where control has been lost, is the foundation of independence in America. Those who had immigrated to the New World eventually became self sufficient, and no longer saw a need to comply with the rules of the Old World. This came to fruition with the Boston tea Party in 1773, where those in Massachusetts grew weary of the British taxation and law making, especially when they lacked representation in British Parliament. They decided to break ties with Europe, leading to the War of Independence, and eventually the establishment of the United States.4 There is little reason to object that once a self sustaining colony establishes itself in space, they will ultimately call space their home, and reject all Earth-based control. Even if the Earth-created policy seems sensible and irrefutable to us, those living in space may have an entirely different perspective, deciding that those on Earth couldn’t possibly understand the nuances of extraterrestrial living, in much the same way the Americans did to the Europeans.

To summarise, despite many successful and well thought-out policies being implemented in space, they could either take to long to implement due to inertia or sheer stubbornness, or they will be impossible to police and eventually disintegrate.

In conclusion, it seems inevitable that at some stage, human technological evolution will take us into space, to maintain a more permanent residence. What may be at first scientific, will likely turn commercial, with the abundant supply of minerals found off Earth. Elon Musk’s SpaceX has already stated its intent to establish a base on Mars by 2030, opening the floodgates for a 21st century space race, between both States, corporations, and private individuals. There also arises the threat of the space debris, which not only deteriorates the space commons, but completely prevents any humans from ever leaving Earth. Every space voyage leaves behind matter in orbit. This makes it perpetually harder for the next launch to happen, as the likelihood of each rocket being interrupted by debris previously deposited increases, which in turn leads to more debris if that rocket is damaged. Four satellites every year are destroyed by space debris, which is only set to increase, eventually making it impossible to leave Earth if an exponential chain reaction were to occur. If one satellite is destroyed, it could fragment and shatter three more satellites, eventually leading to a chain reaction so extensive it will be impossible to enter space again. Some predictions put an event like this as close as ten years away. This would not only diminish the space commons, but entirely prevent us from using it.

However, provided a solution for such an event is created, or it never arises, space may never become a ‘tragedy of the commons.’ Not only is there evidence that in the future humans will be able to agree on inter-planetary policy, but they may not even need to. With space being so vast, it is only a matter of time after we first colonise our local planets that we will attempt moving further a field. Once, or if, humans are able to break through the colossal barriers preventing our wide spread presence off-Earth, then we will have access to space’s seemingly infinite resources. One of the key assumptions about commons is that it is limited, and those who exploit it exclude others from doing so in the future. Thinking about the global oceans, we will reach a point at which fish stocks are too depleted, temperatures are too warm, and micro plastics are too prevalent. However, with the endless nature of the eventual universe, space itself would both have the resources and the dilution to counteract any exploitation. Though our solar system may be considered a commons, space itself, technically, isn’t. If humans managed to ever reach that point, without destroying ourselves first, we would be in possession of potentially limitless resources, thereby negating the idea that use of such resources would be a ‘tragedy of the commons.’