By: Hugo Douglas
If you wanted somewhere dark, cold and deprived of oxygen, I would suggest the Arctic Ocean. Granted, that probably won't be cold for much longer. Our next best alternative? Space: A breeding ground for some of this century’s most innovative and expensive ventures so far. Space exploration has been a prospect for many parties, including private sector firms such as Jeff Bezos' Blue Origin and Elon Musk's SpaceX and proves to be a source of future economic stimulation. However, as much as everybody loves watching the billionaire ego struggle, one can’t help but wonder: “why now?”.
There are many schools of thought regarding whether the wealthy must help with humanitarianism, climate response, inequality or other pressing concerns. Irrespective of your stance on this, most people can agree that the government should work to allocate their funds to support these, regardless of their private sector support or rather lack thereof.
In 2020, SpaceX's StarLink project received almost $900 million in subsidies. In 2021, SpaceX and Blue Origin were competing for a USD 2.9 billion contract to construct a new lunar lander for NASA, which SpaceX was awarded. This is important because it highlights the opportunity cost involved in government spending, meaning that billions spent on space exploration could be diverted to fund more pressing issues at hand. In addition, we need to think of the bigger picture. In the past, the U.S. has been unparalleled in its ventures. However, as countries become more economically developed and create their space programs, clashes are more likely to occur. One such country could be China, which is also looking to expand its commercial space industry. As technology advances, new issues will arise, and recent precedents will have to be set. As it exists now, no country owns space or any celestial body. Countries have to abide by international law. However, such regulations are bound to change if more players are in the industry.
Be that as it may, there are benefits to commercial space travel. With the imminent possibility of earth becoming inhospitable, space travel provides an unconventional option for the future of the human race, one that has excellent commercial potential. The reality is, cutting on existing consumption is unattractive, and by finding a solution, we should not adapt but rather evolve. That is what SpaceX and Blue Origin claim they are trying to achieve by colonising other planets, with Bezos prophesying that "Over centuries, many people will be born in space". Billionaires such as Bezos and Musk have their sights set on having colonies on other planets to save the earth.
However, with the potential of huge profits being in the air, can we conceivably trust these private firms to act in the best interests of humanity? If so, can they reasonably do this in the time provided? With research being a dynamic industry, would it be a better idea to invest in a backup plan instead of gambling with our investments for far fetched alternatives?
For many, including myself, space colonisation at this stage is a step in the wrong direction. There is still time to save our planet, but some have already given up. Assuming we entertained this idea, we would have to develop a robust infrastructure to move billions of people in time. The planet has a fighting chance at survival. Is technology truly that advanced? While innovation shows potential, profit and wishful dreams should not be prioritised by governments over the livelihood of billions.
Sources:
Comments