Earth below us
While at work the weekend before last, I was talking with my co-worker about space travel. I’m not sure how the topic came up, but I remarked on how it is quite difficult these days to get the American public as excited about space exploration as they were in the past. As a result, NASA’s funding has sometimes been less than ideal. Both of us found that to be quite a shame, inasmuch as the two of us are fascinated by the very notion of space travel.
Really, what’s not to like? It’s well known that the scientific knowledge gained from space exploration (and the research done in the process) is vast, and holds great potential for the improvement of life on Earth. Less often discussed, however, are the less tangible benefits. An American astronaut (I forget which one) once pointed out that seeing the Earth from space, without any artificial political boundaries, practically commands a change in perspective.
He recommended that all the world’s leaders get a look at the planet from the same angle he had, and I personally think the fellow was on to something. The exploration of space is, these days, a truly cooperative international effort. NASA, Rosaviakosmos (the Russian space agency,) and the European Space Agency are all partners in their pursuits, and deserve more than an approving nod. UN peacekeeping and aid missions may also exemplify the spirit of international cooperation, but seeing countries around the world cooperating in space conveys a certain aesthetic purity of mission that, to my mind, is hard to match terrestrially.
Of course, all the starry-eyed idealism falls apart when one looks at the ways space exploration can be misused. In 1967, the United States joined most of the world in signing the Outer Space Treaty, which forbade the placing of weapons in space. In 2000, the UN voted on a resolution called Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space. This resolution was intended to reaffirm the United Nations’ support for the intent of the Outer Space Treaty.
The resolution picked up 160 votes for its passage and none against, though there were three abstentions: The United States, Israel, and Micronesia. It should come as no surprise, then, that the U.S. government is actively planning the placing of weapons in Earth’s orbit, and makes no secret of it. Interestingly, the Canadian delegation to the United Nations has expressed an interest in strengthening the resolution to include all weapons, as right now it only forbids “weapons of mass destruction.” Right now, the Bush administration is following the steps that began under Reagan and never entirely disappeared during the two administrations that followed. The Canadian effort is highly noble, and may become highly relevant in the near future, however, at the moment the U.S. government intends to militarize space no matter what the rest of the world thinks.
Its reasons for doing this are quite revealing, and quite openly admitted. According to the administration’s own documents, American weaponry in space is necessary as the ultimate trump card to check the rising unrest that will sweep the globe in the near future as the effects of globalization drive the gap between rich and poor to levels unseen since the Middle Ages. This would seem to contradict the Bush administration’s public statements about the benefits to be had from globalization (as it’s currently planned by those in power), and “free trade,” but naturally, no official explanation is put forth to clarify this discrepancy. Indeed, none seems necessary, from the viewpoint of those in power.
As if the danger of the arming of space was not obvious enough, the accident of last Saturday left no doubt. The news has been filled with messages from NASA officials warning of the potential danger in touching any pieces of shuttle debris.
Several people have required medical attention for exposure to toxic chemicals, but the tragedy of the Columbia was largely confined to the seven crewmembers.
Such would clearly not be the case in an accident involving military equipment. In fact, there is reason to believe that a nuclear-armed spacecraft burning up in the upper atmosphere could spell a nightmarish death knell for humanity.
Perhaps last Saturday’s disaster will cause the proponents of space-based weapons to rethink their plans, but I’m not optimistic.
All this madness makes me wonder why the Green Party couldn’t sweep an election year by stating that its opponents intend to put weaponry in space for the purpose of murdering millions of the world’s poor, assuming we don’t do away with ourselves first.
Space is thought of as “dark,” but its exploration can yield bright results indeed – or they can be as dark in prospect as the hue of the night sky. The choice, as usual, is up to us.
