One of the most important things that I have remarked in this series is that human activities, despite often being exploitative and destructive in essence, are nonetheless natural processes since we are a part of nature. Nature tends to be harmonious, as many Pre-Socratic philosophers often observed. Destructive forces rise and disappear, making way for creative forces. A close examination of biotic processes on Earth show that death leads to life and life leads to death: trees die, decompose and feed new trees; animals die and provide nourishment for other animals. Forest fires clear the brush and activate seeds, giving way to new seedlings. It is true that humanity’s current path has a very strong destructive element, but this destruction will inevitably lead to a renewal and creative element. The question is… will this creation take place after our own destruction? Or shall we adjust our destructive habits before we ourselves are destroyed and choose to be the agents of creation?
It is no longer far-fetched to say that we can create new worlds and expand the beauty of life to other parts of the universe, nor is it far-fetched to say that we are capable of changing our destructive path here on Earth. I argue that in order to accomplish the creative we must learn how to end the destructive before it destroys us. Terraforming will not work as an escape from our problems, for we will only bring our problems with us. It will only work as a creative project stemming from a respect for natural harmony: for just as a rock will crumble away in the swift currents of a river, all that is disharmonious will crumble away, including human beings in their current relationship with Earth. The greatest advance in terraforming research would be to discover harmonious lifestyles and implement them on Earth, for how do we expect to create a new world if we do not even know how to live in this one? We must find a way of living harmoniously, and then we must find a way of bringing the harmony of life to other places, since this too is the way of nature. All things living give birth to new life, so it should not be any different with the living Earth.
It seems that, at least based on current models, terraforming an entire planet would not be harmonious with the ways of nature, for it involves processes such as detonating nuclear weapons on the planet, crashing asteroids into the planet, creating huge greenhouse gas factories… the very processes that are most threatening to our existence here on Earth! These kinds of approaches are examples of what I am referring to when I say that we live lifestyles inharmonious with nature. These are the very things we need to change. This idea of utilizing the runaway greenhouse gas effect is, in my opinion, ridiculous, considering how minimal our control over this effect on Earth is.
If all that I have said is true about the problems of current terraforming models, then either new models resulting from technological and scientific advances will have to arise in order for terraforming to be a feasible project. There is however an alternative model already present in scientific journals and science fiction: the paraterraforming model. As I explained in the first section, paraterraforming does not attempt to alter the entire planet by means considered destructive here on Earth, but rather leaves the extraterrestrial environment mostly as it is (except for a small area) and replicates Earth’s environment inside a “world-house” structure (Taylor 421).
Paraterraforming is not only the most harmonious approach to planetary engineering, it is also an opportunity to learn how to live harmoniously in and with nature. I say that it is the most harmonious approach because it relies on dwelling in nature and not dominating nature. All animals dwell in nature and survive, but only we have treated nature as our slave or our storehouse. The concept of dwelling is much more appealing because it reflects the fact that Earth’s biosphere has existed for millions of years before humans came into the picture. We are merely dwellers in this place, and to try to dominate it will surely lead to our own downfall. By engineering a confined replica of Earth’s natural biosphere in a place where no indigenous life exists, we are not harming nature but dwelling within nature and in a way that allows us to better understand nature’s natural harmony. In this confined, smaller replica it shall be much easier to see how important ‘eco-friendly’ practices are to our survival: if we start detonating nuclear warheads, burning oil, or making and throwing out synthetic products like Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and Styrofoam in such a small area, the consequences will be felt immediately. In this way can paraterraforming show us how serious a situation we have been creating for ourselves and lead to a more harmonious relationship with nature.
The benefits of paraterraforming can be seen in current “world-house” projects here on Earth, such as Columbia University’s Biosphere II project in Arizona (Harris). The Biosphere II project gives us an opportunity to see how natural processes would occur independently of the current, destructive human processes. Such an opportunity is not possible through examining Earth itself, since human processes are an intrinsic part of Earth that cannot be removed for research. This is the best way to gain insight into the effects of our current ways of living. What can be realized from this project is that “protecting and restoring Earth's balance doesn’t have to mean shutting down human society--just making more intelligent and informed choices about humanity's role in the complex systems that sustain life” (Harris).
Aside from these benefits, paraterraforming on Mars or some other planet also preserves most of the planet’s original environment and provides a facility from which researchers can operate. The research yielded from the original extraterrestrial environment can give us clues to further understand our own planet’s origins, clues that would be rendered inaccessible if we were to alter the entire planet through terraforming. These clues can also help us understand the natural harmony of Earth.
Paraterraforming is also more appealing to those people who feel that the preservation of extraterrestrial processes as they are found is an ethical obligation. While it is true that a certain level of interference will occur by building “world-houses”, such interference is minimal compared to that of terraforming and also helps to preserve our own natural equilibrium here on Earth through the research accomplished in these facilities.
Thursday, April 8, 2010
Monday, November 23, 2009
Harmonious Dwelling. Part 3: Current Approaches to Environmental Ethics
The range of valuation for environmental ethics can be characterized by a scale. At one extreme, nothing is valued. This would be nihilism, which I will not discuss here. The next gradation includes systems which exclusively value human life, then extending to all conscious life forms, all life forms regardless of consciousness, then moving out to the extreme inclusion of all things in existence. These values being discussed are intrinsic, and if a system values all life forms or all things in existence according to values assigned by humans, then it is anthropocentric and remains at the human-valuing gradation. This scale of valuation can be seen in Fogg’s four categories of environmental ethics: anthropocentrism, zoocentrism, ecocentrism, and preservationism (2000, 205). I shall examine these four categories and discuss some of the weaknesses that each approach has.
Anthropocentrism holds that humans are the only entities which have intrinsic value because we are the only ones capable of thinking rationally and acting morally. Therefore, only humans hold moral standing, and all other things have value only in their relation and usefulness to human beings. This approach to environmental ethics has been predominant in society throughout world history, and is the approach taken by the space treaties and policy I have discussed above. It may be argued that, since the anthropocentric approach values nature (both within Earth and in space) only insomuch as it is useful to us, it will inevitably lead to exploitation. However, Fogg points out that this is not completely true, for excessive exploitation would not be useful to us, but rather detrimental to our survival. Therefore humans must “balance exploitation with preservation to provide for the material needs of future generations” (2000, 207). Another argument against anthropocentrism is that it misses some part of the fundamental nature of things, since the universe has been in existence for nearly an eternity compared to the existence of man, and so could not possibly be there simply to be used by us. This might be countered by saying that value is not existence, but rather something ascribed to things by humans. It is quite clear that an anthropocentric approach to environmental ethics would not forbid terraforming, but rather would privilege its potential for increasing resources by which human beings can survive.
Zoocentrism is close to anthropocentrism in that it only values beings considered “living”. But rather than valuing only those beings who have reason (humans), it values all sentient beings (all beings endowed with sense perception, consciousness). With this approach, humans must ensure their actions are not detrimental to sentient beings, and so unless it can be shown that sentient beings exist on a planet, zoocentric ethics would not forbid terraforming. Terraforming has the potential of forming the natural habitats of earth animals outside of the Earth, so that a terraformed Mars could even act as a kind of “Noah’s Arc”, preserving Earth’s various life forms and protecting them from extinction.
I have shown that anthropocentric and zoocentric approaches would favor terraforming. However, it should be mentioned that this favoring relies on one essential condition: that the effects terraforming has on the Earth are more beneficial to humans and animals than they are detrimental. It would be too simple to assume that the eventual increase of resources and other benefits of terraforming legitimate it, since it is such an extremely huge endeavor that will require, at least initially, a large amount of Earth resources to be used. These resources include monetary resources which could alternatively be used for the sake of ending world hunger, poverty, disease, and environment protection. They include whatever type of fuel is required to get the many spacecrafts we send to the Moon, Mars or celestial body, and the materials required to build the ships and apparatuses needed for the endeavor. Furthermore, the launching of spacecraft does not take all of its exhaust into space with it. This exhaust contributes to greenhouse gases here on Earth, and due to the amount of resources needed to be sent up, a lot of exhaust shall have to be produced. Unless we can develop much more eco-friendly methods of getting to space, we will develop the new ecosystem at the cost of our current one.
An example of an ecology movement that is anthropocentric is what Arne Naess calls “shallow ecology” (Naess 3), which is concerned with “advocating resource conservation and pollution control solely or primarily in the interests of human well being” (Warren 256). This movement sees all things as means to human ends, since the only reason behind its call to protect the environment is to ensure the well being of humans now and in the future. It is true however that there are zoocentric variants of shallow ecology which call for environmental conservation for the sake of ‘big’ animals, that is, the animals that we denote as having consciousness. This can be seen in organizations such as the World Wildlife Fund and PETA, who generally do not treat microbial life forms with the anywhere near the same vigor as they do larger organisms.
Deep ecology, on the other hand, strives to change anthropocentric, utilitarian views of nature. This movement is an example of ecocentrism: an approach that attributes intrinsic value to all things living, sentient or not, as well as the very ecosystems in which these beings live. Deep ecology gives all living things “the equal right to live and blossom” (Naess 4) and calls for humans to develop a symbiotic relation with nature rather than a master-slave relation that treats nature as a standing reserve (bestand, Heidegger 309). However, if a place has no life but is rather sterile, such as the Moon and likely Mars, then it does not fit the criteria for ecocentric valuation: it is not living and it does not support life. Therefore, provided that the planet or celestial body to be terraformed is indeed completely devoid of even microbial life forms, terraforming is not wrong according to this movement. In fact, one of the main points of the “Deep Ecology Platform” (Naess, 8) is that “Richness and diversity of life forms are values in themselves…” (8). When the process of terraforming comes to the point that it can support some life forms, it will in fact increase the richness and diversity of life on that planet, not only through the initial migration of basic plants and animals from Earth, but also the gradual, natural diversification resulting from evolution. Our modern conception of evolution tells us that evolution is greatly affected by environment, and though the terraformed planet will have to be close to the nature of Earth’s biosphere, there will be many different characteristics such as soil composition, sunlight levels and gravity. It is therefore quite conceivable that new life forms, never having existed on Earth, will develop in this new place.
Whereas the different approaches to environmental ethics I have been discussing are all geocentric in nature and can only be applied in extension to actions in space, preservationism is an approach that focuses specifically on outer space. This approach says that all things in the universe have their own intrinsic value based on their very being as entities, and thus ethically calls for “non-violation of the extraterrestrial environment and the preservation of its existing state” (Fogg 2000, 208). An example of preservationist theory can be found in Rolston’s “The Preservation of Natural Value in the Solar System” (140), where he extends the characteristic of intrinsic value to everything that exists in the cosmos. Rolston argues in this essay that the unique, formed integrity found in/on extraterrestrial bodies give these bodies intrinsic value, and that “humans ought to preserve projects of formed integrity, wherever found” (170). According to Martyn Fogg, “it is common at conference debates to hear people, whose earth-bound ethic is clearly not preservationist, articulating a preservationist line with regard to the cosmos” (2000, 209). The reason for this seems completely clear to me: if preservationism should have its way on Earth, then humans would have to altogether cease to exist! A certain level of exploitation is necessary for us to continue living. If preservationism is so inapplicable here on Earth, its validity when applied to space also becomes questionable.
Preservationism differs from ecocentrism in its treatment of the relation between humans and nature. Ecocentrism rejects the “man-in-environment image in favor of the relational, total-field image” (Naess 3), thus considering human beings and their actions a part of nature and the natural process. On the other hand, preservationism, despite its distaste for anthropocentrism, privileges human beings and their activity by treating it as something outside of nature that intrudes. Herein lies a major contradiction: we are a part of nature, since nature’s processes include all things… so whatever we do to alter “projects of formed integrity” (Rolston 170) cannot be treated as something other than a natural project itself! This contradiction is the fundamental flaw of the preservationist approach, showing why it does not work on Earth or in space. We humans are an integral part of the Earth-ecosystem. We cannot be separated from it except by the total annihilation of our species, and this much is clear. Interestingly, Rolston himself extends our ecosystem beyond earth to include the entire solar system, since the solar system’s specific configuration is what renders Earth livable. “The solar sphere is as vital as the atmosphere” (Rolston 142). It has been shown that we are an integral part of our ecosystem, and the preservationist proponent Rolston claims that our ecosystem extends into space: therefore the idea that we are intruding when entering into and developing other planets in our solar system to suit our wishes is quite unfounded, since we are not outsiders and thus are incapable of intruding. We are always already inside the processes of nature.
Anthropocentrism holds that humans are the only entities which have intrinsic value because we are the only ones capable of thinking rationally and acting morally. Therefore, only humans hold moral standing, and all other things have value only in their relation and usefulness to human beings. This approach to environmental ethics has been predominant in society throughout world history, and is the approach taken by the space treaties and policy I have discussed above. It may be argued that, since the anthropocentric approach values nature (both within Earth and in space) only insomuch as it is useful to us, it will inevitably lead to exploitation. However, Fogg points out that this is not completely true, for excessive exploitation would not be useful to us, but rather detrimental to our survival. Therefore humans must “balance exploitation with preservation to provide for the material needs of future generations” (2000, 207). Another argument against anthropocentrism is that it misses some part of the fundamental nature of things, since the universe has been in existence for nearly an eternity compared to the existence of man, and so could not possibly be there simply to be used by us. This might be countered by saying that value is not existence, but rather something ascribed to things by humans. It is quite clear that an anthropocentric approach to environmental ethics would not forbid terraforming, but rather would privilege its potential for increasing resources by which human beings can survive.
Zoocentrism is close to anthropocentrism in that it only values beings considered “living”. But rather than valuing only those beings who have reason (humans), it values all sentient beings (all beings endowed with sense perception, consciousness). With this approach, humans must ensure their actions are not detrimental to sentient beings, and so unless it can be shown that sentient beings exist on a planet, zoocentric ethics would not forbid terraforming. Terraforming has the potential of forming the natural habitats of earth animals outside of the Earth, so that a terraformed Mars could even act as a kind of “Noah’s Arc”, preserving Earth’s various life forms and protecting them from extinction.
I have shown that anthropocentric and zoocentric approaches would favor terraforming. However, it should be mentioned that this favoring relies on one essential condition: that the effects terraforming has on the Earth are more beneficial to humans and animals than they are detrimental. It would be too simple to assume that the eventual increase of resources and other benefits of terraforming legitimate it, since it is such an extremely huge endeavor that will require, at least initially, a large amount of Earth resources to be used. These resources include monetary resources which could alternatively be used for the sake of ending world hunger, poverty, disease, and environment protection. They include whatever type of fuel is required to get the many spacecrafts we send to the Moon, Mars or celestial body, and the materials required to build the ships and apparatuses needed for the endeavor. Furthermore, the launching of spacecraft does not take all of its exhaust into space with it. This exhaust contributes to greenhouse gases here on Earth, and due to the amount of resources needed to be sent up, a lot of exhaust shall have to be produced. Unless we can develop much more eco-friendly methods of getting to space, we will develop the new ecosystem at the cost of our current one.
An example of an ecology movement that is anthropocentric is what Arne Naess calls “shallow ecology” (Naess 3), which is concerned with “advocating resource conservation and pollution control solely or primarily in the interests of human well being” (Warren 256). This movement sees all things as means to human ends, since the only reason behind its call to protect the environment is to ensure the well being of humans now and in the future. It is true however that there are zoocentric variants of shallow ecology which call for environmental conservation for the sake of ‘big’ animals, that is, the animals that we denote as having consciousness. This can be seen in organizations such as the World Wildlife Fund and PETA, who generally do not treat microbial life forms with the anywhere near the same vigor as they do larger organisms.
Deep ecology, on the other hand, strives to change anthropocentric, utilitarian views of nature. This movement is an example of ecocentrism: an approach that attributes intrinsic value to all things living, sentient or not, as well as the very ecosystems in which these beings live. Deep ecology gives all living things “the equal right to live and blossom” (Naess 4) and calls for humans to develop a symbiotic relation with nature rather than a master-slave relation that treats nature as a standing reserve (bestand, Heidegger 309). However, if a place has no life but is rather sterile, such as the Moon and likely Mars, then it does not fit the criteria for ecocentric valuation: it is not living and it does not support life. Therefore, provided that the planet or celestial body to be terraformed is indeed completely devoid of even microbial life forms, terraforming is not wrong according to this movement. In fact, one of the main points of the “Deep Ecology Platform” (Naess, 8) is that “Richness and diversity of life forms are values in themselves…” (8). When the process of terraforming comes to the point that it can support some life forms, it will in fact increase the richness and diversity of life on that planet, not only through the initial migration of basic plants and animals from Earth, but also the gradual, natural diversification resulting from evolution. Our modern conception of evolution tells us that evolution is greatly affected by environment, and though the terraformed planet will have to be close to the nature of Earth’s biosphere, there will be many different characteristics such as soil composition, sunlight levels and gravity. It is therefore quite conceivable that new life forms, never having existed on Earth, will develop in this new place.
Whereas the different approaches to environmental ethics I have been discussing are all geocentric in nature and can only be applied in extension to actions in space, preservationism is an approach that focuses specifically on outer space. This approach says that all things in the universe have their own intrinsic value based on their very being as entities, and thus ethically calls for “non-violation of the extraterrestrial environment and the preservation of its existing state” (Fogg 2000, 208). An example of preservationist theory can be found in Rolston’s “The Preservation of Natural Value in the Solar System” (140), where he extends the characteristic of intrinsic value to everything that exists in the cosmos. Rolston argues in this essay that the unique, formed integrity found in/on extraterrestrial bodies give these bodies intrinsic value, and that “humans ought to preserve projects of formed integrity, wherever found” (170). According to Martyn Fogg, “it is common at conference debates to hear people, whose earth-bound ethic is clearly not preservationist, articulating a preservationist line with regard to the cosmos” (2000, 209). The reason for this seems completely clear to me: if preservationism should have its way on Earth, then humans would have to altogether cease to exist! A certain level of exploitation is necessary for us to continue living. If preservationism is so inapplicable here on Earth, its validity when applied to space also becomes questionable.
Preservationism differs from ecocentrism in its treatment of the relation between humans and nature. Ecocentrism rejects the “man-in-environment image in favor of the relational, total-field image” (Naess 3), thus considering human beings and their actions a part of nature and the natural process. On the other hand, preservationism, despite its distaste for anthropocentrism, privileges human beings and their activity by treating it as something outside of nature that intrudes. Herein lies a major contradiction: we are a part of nature, since nature’s processes include all things… so whatever we do to alter “projects of formed integrity” (Rolston 170) cannot be treated as something other than a natural project itself! This contradiction is the fundamental flaw of the preservationist approach, showing why it does not work on Earth or in space. We humans are an integral part of the Earth-ecosystem. We cannot be separated from it except by the total annihilation of our species, and this much is clear. Interestingly, Rolston himself extends our ecosystem beyond earth to include the entire solar system, since the solar system’s specific configuration is what renders Earth livable. “The solar sphere is as vital as the atmosphere” (Rolston 142). It has been shown that we are an integral part of our ecosystem, and the preservationist proponent Rolston claims that our ecosystem extends into space: therefore the idea that we are intruding when entering into and developing other planets in our solar system to suit our wishes is quite unfounded, since we are not outsiders and thus are incapable of intruding. We are always already inside the processes of nature.
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Harmonious Dwelling. Part 2: The Art of Terraforming
Martyn Fogg, a forerunning scientist in terraforming issues who has been cited by NASA (“Terraforming Mars”), defines terraforming as
"...a process of planetary engineering, specifically directed at enhancing the capacity of an extraterrestrial planetary environment to support life. The ultimate in terraforming would be to create an uncontained planetary biosphere emulating all the functions of the biosphere of the Earth--one that would be fully habitable for human beings." (Fogg 1998, 415)
As one might imagine, the process of terraforming a planet into a habitable biosphere would be an enormous undertaking, one that would involve numerous, complex sub-processes and hundreds if not thousands of years to complete. Although we may not be able to inhabit the planet being terraformed for such a long time, every step in the process yields us with invaluable information for research, which could lead to insights into the genesis of our own planet. The first and most researched biological stage in terraforming is what Haynes named ecopoiesis (from Greek, “dwelling place” + “fabrication”) (Fogg 1998, 416). Ecopoiesis is the formation of the first biosphere, which will be uncontained, that is, lacking an atmospheric boundary like the one that separates us from the vacuum of space, and thus only able to support anaerobic life forms (forms not requiring atmospheric oxygen) such as cyanobacteria (see Friedmann 243). This first stage will require an increase in temperature, in atmospheric mass, in the availability of liquid water, and a reduction in “surface UV and cosmic ray flux” (Fogg 1998, 416). Near the end of this stage, atmospheric oxygen and nitrogen levels will have to be increased to make way for consequent stages including the introduction of basic plant life and finally the introduction of complex life forms such as reptiles and finally mammals and humans.
Most models for terraforming Mars rely on the so-called ‘runaway greenhouse gas effect’ (Fogg 1998, 417) for achieving the ecopoiesis stage. This effect is called ‘runaway’ because only a relatively small amount of carbon dioxide needs to be initially released, which will in turn heat up the Martian polar ice caps, consequently releasing more and more CO2 and increasing the effect. This approach assumes that adequate levels of CO2 will be present in Mars’ surface. Other possible ways of warming up Mars’ surface and releasing CO2 include the use of greenhouse gas-producing factories, the detonation of thousands of nuclear bombs, tractoring meteors to collide with Mars, or building giant mirrors to concentrate the Sun’s energy on Mars’ surface in order to evaporate the Martian ice caps and release subsurface carbon dioxide. These scenarios can transform Mars “into a planet habitable for anaerobic life in roughly a century”, according to Fogg (1998, 418).
However, According to Richard Taylor, evidence suggests that the nitrogen “inventory of Mars is now severely depleted” and therefore complete terraforming may not be possible (421). Taylor suggests the solution of this problem can be found in ‘paraterraforming’, which is the creation of a “deliberately restricted ecospheric environment (DREE)” or “world-house” (421), an enclosure in which Earth’s biosphere is replicated through engineering. Proponents of this approach (see also Cathcart) argue that world-houses can give us relatively immediate results and require much smaller technological advances than terraforming. In fact, according to Cathcart, paraterraforming “is achievable using already patented technology” ([1], 117). Furthermore, this approach has much less detrimental effects on the planet’s original environment, so that this original environment can still be studied. I will argue that this approach is more suitable to our current capacities, more likely to be successful, and strikes a middle ground for the varying approaches of environmental ethics.
Friday, November 13, 2009
Harmonious Dwelling: On the Ethics of Terraforming - Part 1
In the following series of blogs I will be discussing the ethics around the practice of terraforming. Discussion and research concerning terraforming is becoming increasingly relevant to the current concerns of human being. No longer is this possibility simply a sci-fi myth, it now presents itself as the next step in the human story. It also places an increasingly urgent demand on science and technology.
Robert Zubrin, former chief engineer of Lockheed Martin, called Mars “a new frontier” while discussing the possibility of making that planet suitable for human life (in York 8). Indeed, the prospect of terraforming distant planets presents to us a new frontier in more ways than one: not only will it be a first in the obvious realms of space exploration and macro-engineering, it will also be a first in the realm of ethics. Up until the past century, ethics has only really had to deal with issues inside the sphere of being we call Earth. The prospect of entering into and living in a different system requires us to explore new ways of thinking about “things-in-themselves”, nature, and our relation to all which is beyond ourselves. Our understanding of these things will greatly affect our values. This paper has four chief objectives: first I will outline how terraforming would work, according to current theory. Secondly I will examine current space policy in order to understand the current ethical approach of spacefaring nations, with a focus on UN treaties and NASA policy. Thirdly I will outline some main approaches to environmental ethics and discuss them in relation to terraforming. Finally, I shall provide my own viewpoint on the matter and suggest what I feel to be the best approach. My thesis is that we must not terraform another planet until we can learn to live harmoniously in our own planet. What we should do is develop “world-houses” or “biodomes” on sterile extraterrestrial bodies such as the moon or Mars, for this is a more respectful approach that can teach us how to live harmoniously in our own planet.
The following bibliography is for the entirety of this series' posts.
Badescu, Viorel. “Regional and Seasonal Limitations for Mars Intrinsic Ecopoiesis”. Acta Astronautica. No. 56. pp. 670-680. Great Britain: Elsevier, 2005.
Catchcart, Richard B [1]. "Taming Mars with a Tent and a Tunnel: Creation of a Biosphere-City". Speculations in Science and Technology. No. 21, pp. 117-131. California: Chapman and Hall, 1998.
Catchcart, Richard B [2]. "A Macro-Engineering Concept to Maintain Desirable Planetary Biospheres". Speculations in Science and Technology. No. 21, pp. 53-62. California: Chapman and Hall, 1998.
Chyba, Christopher F. and Cynthia B. Phillips. “Europa as an Abode of Life”. Origins of Life and Evolution of theBiosphere. No. 32, pp.47-68. Netherlands: Kluwer, 2002.
Cocknell, Charles and Gerda Horneck. “A Planetary Park System for Mars”. Space Policy. No. 20, pp. 291-295. Great Britain: Elsevier, 2004.
Fogg, Martyn J. "Terraforming Mars: A Review of Current Research". Advances in Space Research. Vol. 22, No. 3, pp. 415-420. Great Britain: Elsevier, 1998.
Fogg, Martyn J. “The Ethical Dimensions of Space Settlement”. Space Policy. No. 16. pp. 205-211. Great Britain: Elsevier, 2000.
Friedl, Lawrence and John Conger. “Space Visions from a New Generation”. Space Policy. No. 12, pp. 93-95. Great Britain: Elsevier, 1996.
Friedmann, E. Imre and R. Ocampo-Friedmann. "A Primitive Cyanobacterium as Pioneer Microorganism for Terraforming Mars". Advances in Space Research. Vol. 15, No. 3, pp. 243-246. Great Britain: Elsevier, 1995.
Golley, Frank B. “Environmental Ethics and Extraterrestrial Ecosystems”. Beyond Spaceship Earth. Ed. Eugene C. Hargrove. pp. 211-226. San Francisco: Sierra Club, 1986.
Harris, William C. and Lisa J. Graumlich. "Biosphere 2: Sustainable Research for a Sustainable Planet". Columbia University. Last Accessed November 14, 2009. http://www.columbia.edu/cu/21stC/issue-4.1/harris.html
Hartmann, William K. “Space Exploration and Environmental Issues”. Beyond Spaceship Earth. Ed. Eugene C. Hargrove. pp. 119-139. San Francisco: Sierra Club, 1986.
Haynes, Robert H. “Ecce Ecopoiesis: playing God on Mars”. Moral Expertise. Ed. Don Macniven. pp. 161-183. New York: Routledge, 1990.
Heidegger, Martin. “The Question Concerning Technology”. Basic Writings. New York: Harper & Row, 1777.
Lupisella, Mark. “The Rights of Martians”. Space Policy. No. 13. pp. 89-94. Great Britain: Elsevier, 1997.
Marshall, Alan. “Development and Imperialism in Space”. Space Policy. Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 41-52. Great Britain: Elsevier, 1995.
Mancinelli, Rocco L. “Planetary Protection and the Search For Life Beneath the Surface of Mars”. Advances in Space Research. Vol. 31, No. 1, pp. 103-107. Great Britain: Elsevier, 2003.
McKay, Christopher P. “Does Mars have Rights?”. Moral Expertise. Ed. Don Macniven. pp. 184-197. New York: Routledge, 1990.
Naess, Arne. “The Shallow and the Deep, Long-Range Ecology Movements: A Summary”. Philosophical Dialogues. Ed. Nina Witoszek and Andrew Brennan. pp. 3-7. New York: Rowman & Littlefield, 1999.
Naess, Arne and George Sessions. “The Deep Ecology Platform”. Philosophical Dialogues. Ed. Nina Witoszek and Andrew Brennan. pp. 8-9. New York: Rowman & Littlefield, 1999.
Potter, John F. “Seeking a New Home”. The Environmentalist. No. 20. pp.191-194. Netherlands: Kluwer, 2000.
Rolston III, Holmes. “The Preservation of Natural Value in the Solar System. Beyond Spaceship Earth. Ed. Eugene C. Hargrove. pp. 140-182. San Francisco: Sierra Club, 1986.
Taylor, R.L.S. "Why Mars? Even under the condition of critical factor constraint engineering technology may permit the establishment and maintenance of an inhabitable ecosystem". Advances in Space Research. Vol. 22, No. 3, pp. 421-433. Great Britain: Elsevier, 1998.
Turner, Fredrick. “Terraforming and the Coming Charm Industries”. Advances in Space Research. Vol. 22, No. 3, pp.433-439. Great Britain: Elsevier, 1998.
Warren, Karen. “Ecofeminist Philosophy and Deep Ecology”. Philosophical Dialogues. Ed. Nina Witoszek and Andrew Brennan. pp. 255-269. New York: Rowman & Littlefield, 1999.
Williamson, Mark. “Protecting the Space Environment: Are We Doing Enough?”. Space Policy. No. 14, pp. 5-8. Great Britain: Elsevier, 1998.
York, Paul. “The Ethics of Terraforming”. Philosophy Now. Issue 38, Oct./Nov. 2002: pp. 6-9.
United Nations Treaties and Principles on Outer Space. New York: United Nations, 2002. Last Accessed: November 14, 2009. http://www.unoosa.org/pdf/publications/STSPACE11E.pdf
“Terraforming Mars”. NASA Aerospace Scholars Program. Last Accessed: April 11, 2006. http://aerospacescholars.jsc.nasa.gov/HAS/cirr/em/10/10.cfm
“Planetary Protection Provisions for Robotic Extraterrestrial Missions”. NASA Procedural Requirements. NPR 8020.12C. April 27, 2005. Last Accessed: November 14, 2009. http://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/displayDir.cfm?Internal_ID=N_PR_8020_012C_&page_name=main
Saturday, November 7, 2009
Welcome to The IPSA Journal
Welcome! We are members of the International Philosophy Student's Association (IPSA) at K.U. Leuven, Belgium. Our contributors are enthusiastic philosophy students from postgraduate, graduate and undergraduate programs. We come from all over the world.
This blog will be used as a way for us to publish and share our ideas, as well as help each other work these ideas out through dialogue. Everyone is welcome, and if you are interested in becoming a contributor, contact us. All you need to do is have a blogger account (this is included in your google/gmail account).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)