Will space exploration usher about the end of freedom?
I spent a lot of time thinking about this recently; writing new material, reading books and binge watching TV shows.
If space exploration and planetary settlement is spearheaded by private industry (and partially paid for my Earth governments) there will employment contracts and confidentiality agreements, not a Constitution, dictating how those venturing off world life. Space and other worlds (moons and asteroids) would be equal to international waters, lawless places where might makes right and what happened is what whoever with that might say happened. Law will be what a corporation determines it to be. Tyrannical rule akin to saddam hussein could/would flourish as the food, water, communication and even the very air a person breathes is tightly regulated and can be withheld (under voluntary agreement of course) at the discretion of the company.
I contend that freedom in any meaningful capacity would be dead. The idea of Objectivism may be present in space but the practice, like freedom, like the individual and free will, would essentially be dead.
If space exploration and planetary settlement is spearheaded by private industry (and partially paid for my Earth governments) there will employment contracts and confidentiality agreements, not a Constitution, dictating how those venturing off world life. Space and other worlds (moons and asteroids) would be equal to international waters, lawless places where might makes right and what happened is what whoever with that might say happened. Law will be what a corporation determines it to be. Tyrannical rule akin to saddam hussein could/would flourish as the food, water, communication and even the very air a person breathes is tightly regulated and can be withheld (under voluntary agreement of course) at the discretion of the company.
I contend that freedom in any meaningful capacity would be dead. The idea of Objectivism may be present in space but the practice, like freedom, like the individual and free will, would essentially be dead.
But the proposition that it is wrong to steal the product of another man's efforts is true. It is true universally and is not untrue even in the pits of Darfur, let alone on a well-maintained albeit international space station. When Ayn Rand called objectivism a philosophy for living on earth, I believe her intention was to distinguish objectivism from other philosophies that deal or dealt with supernatural dimensions and the corresponding mysticism.
There is the potential for man or alien beings to misbehave, but the location in which these lamentable actions take place is inconsequential to the understanding that objective law is true independent of place, applying to both earth- and space-based man.
Signing that contract to go off word was voluntary what happens next, not so much. And what of those born under a company contract? Slippery, ugly slope.
Great question.
Mine is: Why would be get involved in a scheme where you can never go out and lay on a new mown lawn; never have a BBQ, never fish a small stream in the mountains; never sit on a terrace and watch the sunset over the mountains; never spend a day shooting guns off your back deck; never go cowboy dancing in the local saloon?
For those that would give up those small pleasures, I hope you enjoy it, but leave me out of it.
I'm not asking for anything.
https://www.amazon.com/Planet-Strappe...
Space life will for along time be highly regulated and regimented. When going off your own means death, and all kinds of errors (like leaving the door open) can kill everyone nearby, expect to find group cooperation and rule-enforcement emphasized
But when people can go off and live on their own or in small groups, expect freedom to flourish because the frontiers will be endless.
Your warnings are not unknown or unique to you. Even ST:OS dealt with it. And yet, as we know, coal miners still have many of the same complaints they did 100 years ago. There is no perfect system for dealing with human limitations, least of all the ones we insist on for ourselves.
I'll keep an eye out for your novel :)
But even then colonists would probably come already signed up under a contract with some company or government.
It taking a long time to get there should provide an opportunity for a revolution. The 1776 British Empire only had ships with sails.
The warp speed of Star Wars is the Empire's primary tool for enslavement. Those Death Stars are only secondary weapons.
I was in the Navy. I get what you mean. But at least on earth you have options, even if they are shitty ones.
Read "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" for a story with this theme.
No one knows what happened in Roanoke to make them disappear, its a mystery. Stephen King, Storm of the Century?
Air was never concern for anyone. And easy or not, you could breathe, you could forage, you could hunt.
Consider a mining colony on an asteroid where the company spent hundreds of millions of dollars to mine platinum for profit. Do you think, considering the absence of any real authority and the dependency of everyone on their ability to provide food, water, shelter and breathable oxygen,, that they would tolerate a workers strike? Stealing? A refusal to working 14-18 hour shift?
Who will tell the people back on earth that these things are occurring, or that someone has been killed by the company, if communication is restricted to the company or shut off entirely?
So the question is, is this possible. The answer: probably not at the present time, but sometimes, cautiously assuming the best of others, letting them know that you expect this and they are capable of doing so...is all that is needed.
After all...we know that an Objectivist run Company of the AR brand has the best chance of achieving the best environment and outcome possible.
Many of the films we watch of this venue postulate the outcomes you are properly concerned...maybe, we need films that project just the opposite?
If science fiction often equals science fact at some point in the future, then wouldn't it make sense to assume the best of all outcomes...might that change the culture a bit? Isn't that how our culture survived during the late 40's and 50's; projecting the best thoughts, behaviors, morals, ethics and world views?
Long ago a friend of mine did some high dollar tech consulting work for the Saudi's in Saudi Arabia. He was grossly overpaid. When he completed his work, the contract fully satisfied, the Prince refused to let him leave then country until more work was done. He said he spend 3 weeks additional working free of charge on things that were not within his project's scope, only then was his passport returned to him and he was allowed to leave. He confided that he will never work for an middle eastern country again.
How much more severe would this be if it was in an asteroid mining community or on a planet or moon with any neutral means of survival.
We can dream of a scenario where it seems property and life can be in conflict, but it must be understood that that conflict is false, because the owner of such property having threatened my life has abnegated his right to property, so therefore a right to property no longer exists for him, so my actions of self-defense are in complete rational non-conflict with reality and the other people around, whom are rational of course.
Objectivism advocates a government based on the principles of rational self-interest and laissez-faire capitalism, but a major part of these things are natural rights, which can operate in a context of a government or in a context of anarchy. The governmental context is preferable, but the principles of self-defense, self-ownership, and the right to life would still be operable in an anarchic context, such as that would be in space foraging.
Great question for thought, AJ!
That situation differs significantly from what we experience here on this planet. No one "owns" the air. In fact, even the notion of such is absurd. Water is readily available in most areas of the globe for a pittance. Thus two of the major necessities of life (and the corresponding high priorities of need for such) are off the negotiating table. Right to life becomes a tertiary concern instead of a constant day-to-day struggle (see Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs). And when life itself is constantly an issue, other matters are quickly subsumed - such as freedom of speech, right to bear arms, etc.
Imagine the life where any kind of political action against the Company/State (including unionization) is considered subversive speech. The Company/State can very easily place a clause in your contract that says that they can withhold oxygen for disagreement. There goes freedom of speech. There goes right to work for competition. There goes any kind of representative government. Even asking for a raise could get you terminated - and I don't mean just unemployed. There goes any kind of ethical alignment differing at all from the Company/State: no conscientious objectors. In short, it would by tyranny to exceed that seen at any point on this planet and there would be absolutely nothing that could be done to change it.
No one can live on earth without land, whether he owns his own plot, leases it in contractual arrangements, or visits others in mutual trade. Land is in moral principle no different than the air and water we require to survive. We are not ghosts; we live and act in a material world. The air in the atmosphere is not owned because it is for practical purposes unlimited, with no need for private ownership. Collectivists, and others who don't understand the need and purpose of property rights, also argue that owning land is "absurd".
Actually, there's plenty of life that exists without rational thought and planning. Take progressives for instance. ;)
Seriously, though, life doesn't require long-term thought and planning. It is better with such, of course, but it is hardly a requirement. "Long-term" is a nebulous argument as well. If one is running out of air, thirty seconds is long-term planning! That's the reality of Maslow's Hierarchy - it accurately breaks down what can be rationally considered within a given time frame. Those who have their immediate needs met may begin to deal with issues of a less and less immediate nature.
The whole point of AJ's post is that we aren't used to having to deal with such a primal state of existence - one where the basics of life can never be taken for granted to allow us to deal with the "long-term". Property rights are important, but its pretty difficult to argue such without the air to voice one's opinions.
When food depended on growing and storing it through the seasons, that required long term planning. Today you can decide on the spur of the moment to go to the grocery store, which in turn requires long term rational thought for a society of rational individualism and increased knowledge that makes grocery stores possible. A more technical society requires rational thought on a larger scale, anticipating and planning for future needs, not "woe is us, the Borg is inevitable". That includes taking into account and planning for emergencies, which does not mean a "primal state of existence". If someone takes being provided for for granted and leaves himself in a state where 30 seconds is long term planning it is his own default on his own life.
I believe that we are loosing our freedoms regardless if some leave the confines of earth or not. Then again the number of earthlings that actually leave the earth via a machine will be very very few over the next 20 years and when they all die in space maybe the space program will come to an end. That is until the aliens return to show us how it is done.
We all like Heinlein's visions. I enjoyed the works of Melinda Snodgrass, and Allen Steele. I also recommend Kim Stanley Robinson's 2312. It is not hopeful or utopian, but, (I believe) realistic and full of promising opportunities.
My Mom once visited Ellis Island. She said she saw this plaque, but that seems hard to attest to now. The statement still stands on its own.
An Italian immigrant says, "I came to America because I heard the
streets were paved with gold. When I got here, I found out three things:
first, the streets weren't paved with gold; second, they weren't paved
at all; and third, I was expected to pave them." ("Ellis Island:
Realizing the American Dream," Town & Country)
The Italian American Family Album (The American Family Albums)
America was and is nonetheless a great place to be.
1. Not all who initially came to the new world were indentured or slaves; politicians, merchants, farmers and entrepreneurs we certainly in attendance as well,
2. The Pilgrims were not, in any way, indicative of the common man of that time. Having started college in NY and taken American Literature I was able to learn quite a bit about those commercially over-glorified zealots who wanted nothing to do with the Colonies, the Colonists or any idea of participation in the formation of a new country. All they wanted was to be left alone, entirely, and to live according to their own way.
3. Unlike in the 1600, there is a Constitution in place which assures certain rights. Venturing into space you'd literally be placing ownership of you continued existence in every conceivable way, in the hands of a person or group whose sole purpose is to use your skill, be that what it may, to make a profit. That person or group, particularly at the onset, has no legal framework or constraint to preserve your life or the life of your family or to ensure that when your term ends you even get back to Earth.
4. Lastly, its a different matter knowing that you are exploring the unknown on earth (where you can breathe, fish, forage and make shelter) and venturing across the void to a planet, moon or asteroid where nothing is available for use that you pre-plan and carry with you.
As human expansion becomes the rage, I think those free, very much like Firefly, will end up the rogues skirting the law, living off their wits and guile, and not staying in any one place too long. And I think that type of freedom will only be scratched out long after planetary colonization is a common occurrence and no longer fantasy.
If Mars were arable, I could see people going there and living poor and free. Poor and rich requires trade. Ideally the colony should be remote enough to make looting impractical but close enough that trade with the rest of the world is easy. Whether it's an individual, country, or colony, being self-sufficient in the sense of not trading with others is a clear recipe for poverty. Value comes from people specializing and serving one another freely in a way that people are willing to pay for.
So people might build facilities to mine the gas giants in corporate-owned operations like you describe. Maybe it would be like those mining towns I recently saw in eastern KY or the ones depicted in The Expanse, where the company owns everything pays workers in scrip valid at the company store. Once there are enough people for an economy that can trade, and companies that spring up to serve the mining industry starting getting orders from customers on Earth, maybe it becomes part of the economy. They sell stuff that the exigencies of space life have med them good at and they buy food and whatever is easier to make on Earth. But then you have to keep the looting from starting.
I've only watched the first season of The Expanse, but in that fictional universe the asteroid belt is run/controlled by Earth companies and seek independence. Mars is independent from Earth and is contemptuous of its bloated gov't.
I agree all of this makes for great stories but it's easier to create free institutions on Earth than in space.
It is the same here.
Years ago a young chap told me about his parents.
The father stepped off the boat and started work on an inland farm the next day.
Life was hard, the same as in the old country. One difference, there was money
saved after a year. His fiance was brought over.
Life was hard, nothing but work, the same as in the old country, but money
slowly accumulated in the bank. They bought a smallholding, lived frugally.
There were six children, all were put thru university.
Yes then there was state help in subsidized health and free school till 16.
Still, it was Win Win.
Now, the welfare state has grown and there is different type of migrant,
those who want to blow us up.
How do you argue/quit when you signed the agreement and the very air you breath is given as partial payment for services you were supposed to provide?
A bit different.
Burning people at the stake for witchcraft was one of the many injustices by pre-Enlightenment religious zealots engaged in power struggles in the early colonies.