How Space Can Help Us Find a New Ethic in Technology
Contributed By Jean Levy, Graduate from LSE and Sciences Po.
Space is beautiful.
It brings a welcome touch of wonder whenever it makes its way to mainstream media, displaying breath taking astronomical events and alien photos of faraway worlds. Stargazing is a ubiquitous activity across cultures, a canvas on which to paint humankind and the world that surrounds it. Looking up into the night sky to see eternal, unreachable jewels in the firmament opens unique perspectives and introspections: are we alone in the universe? Was/is there a beginning? Will there be/is there an End? Answers to these questions evolved with the societies that formulated them, reflecting their values and beliefs, each answer informing the next, from one paradigm to another. And thus, space remains a source of inspiration and reflection, today more than ever.
Mr. Trump’s dubious proposition of creating a ‘Space Force’ –a branch of the US armed forces dedicated to operating in space- isn’t the first proposition of advancing military presence in space. Likewise, China recognized this possibility early on in their endeavour to conduct an aggressive weaponisation of their space-borne military capabilities. Political influence on the defence sector in the space industry is inevitable, given its historical role as a source of space technologies. As a countermeasure to this, Cold War-era international agreements regulating the use of nuclear weapons attempt to control the god-like destructive power harnessed by science to prevent the parallel Space and Arms races from becoming self-fulfilling prophecies. The 1967 Outer Space Treaty (OST) is a cornerstone piece of legislation for space faring nations, aiming at preserving space as a common good for all mankind, devoid of territorial conquest and warfare. At the dawn of the space age, this could not be more than a declaration of principle, since most of modern space-borne military technologies belonged to the realm of science fiction at the time. Nevertheless, it is precisely on such a declaration of principle that we need to rely on today.
The challenge of creating binding legislation for rival powers and preventing undesirable uses of technology has become even more urgent and widespread today. The industries surrounding space exploration are a salient example of this, perpetuating a strong link with defence applications. Politics are part of this process, with growing powers, like India or China, who’s Space Programs display ambition and ingenuity on equal footing with their regional and international aspirations. Who can rightfully impose legislation onto such powerful sovereign players?
Despite this, the political economy of space is undergoing a transformation. It has shifted from a field occupied by industrial and state actors, into a fundamental civilian infrastructure. Artificial satellites are now part of the firmament and are as many windows allowing us to communicate. This accessibility has extended to young, private companies such as the now-famous SpaceX, Blue Origin and Virgin Galactic. These companies operate in a complex industry involving a dazzling array of participants, incredibly advanced technology and newly developing challenges. Indeed, Jeff Bezos, founder of Blue Origin, has come under fire for his spaceward ambitions, especially as Amazon’s treatment of their employees has raised widespread criticism.
What is space for the layman, the underprivileged or the developing countries?
In 2017’s ‘Hidden Figures’, we are told the inspiring story of the African-American female mathematicians, whose vital contributions helped NASA’s spaceflight programs succeed, from the Mercury capsule to the Space shuttle. This aspect of history failed to appear in other accounts, such as my personal favourite, Tom Wolfe’s ‘The Right Stuff’. But one account doesn’t exclude the other: each is just one side of the same story. Both show that men and women are at the heart of our presence in space, and that presence is shaped by our society and our values.
Recognizing this social aspect is as important a challenge as the technical achievement of launching a rocket. Space brings changes in perspective, bringing us to consider ourselves in a holistic manner — that is, how every aspect of our lives and societies are articulated- against the observable background of the universe. Recent developments in academia of intersectional studies rely on such holistic views, explaining a social phenomenon in light of another. Among those, let us consider two theories to illustrate the shift in perspective.
The first is the Social Shaping of Technology. It is a school of thought that posits that a society’s values and practices will shape the technologies it produces. As such, two cultures can produce two completely different tools for a similar activity, each obeying a different set of rules and priorities integrated into the thought processes of their designers.
The second is Charles Taylor’s consideration of the concept of Modernity. In his work, Taylor proposes what he calls a ‘Social Imaginary’: a specific constellation of values at different levels of perception and formulation. In turn, this constellation informs governance and decision-making for the society that produces it.
Space can therefore exist at the beginning and the end of a society. From a mythological cosmic background to explaining the world, to a point of contention between science and religion, and finally as a scientific and social challenge, space is a funnel for progress. Our technological and political achievements have been shaped by a social imaginary rooted in our past. And in turn, this very imagery, which has depicted the future on different canvases, informs our thinking for the challenges we face today.
Let us then treat technology and politics together. We have seen that technologies can be heavily politicized. If you use a technology made with a particular use in mind, chances are it will favour this original design’s goal, even if it is employed for another. Deriving technology carries these politics and values, structuring the users’ habits around them. Military artefacts can be used for other things than warfare, but they are geared for this use. Space oriented technology, ranging from various launchers to the now-ubiquitous GPS were transferred from military development to civilian application, and retain their warfare potential. We must recognize this culture so that we may steer towards more desirable outcomes, such as environmental, medical or transport innovations.
Looking upwards is looking inwards.
Space feels unreachable and disconnected, while on the contrary, it has never been more present in our lives. Our compiled social imaginaries make up a ‘realm of possibilities’ in all the things we have dreamed of and estimated to be desirable or achievable, and this influences our actions. Admittedly, there is a lot to unpack here. Firstly, it is very hard to measure the actual impact that any media can have on a decision, if any. We must therefore surmise that this “realm’s” effect is not unlike of how habitus functions, according to Bourdieu. Secondly, the “realm” is akin to a common frame of reference allowing us to illustrate and communicate complex ideas. Issues surrounding A.I., for example, can easily be represented, albeit dramatically and simplified, through movies such as “2001, A Space Odyssey” or the “Terminator” franchise. These movies illustrate risks and quickly establish what is undesirable in Artificial Intelligence. Popular opinion and knowledge of increasingly complex technological and philosophical issues rest on this frame of reference. Because Science Fiction is concerned with predicting and imagining outcomes it reinforces the “imaginary” part: sci-fi illustrates cultural or social interactions in the future. Regulating our presence in space and increasingly complex technologies comes through our awareness of this dynamic. Consciously changing the paradigm bonding space to defence means changing international practices and regulations. This will require scientists, politicians and users to take a good look at their perspectives and assumptions.
Companies face the responsibility of understanding the technologies they sell when themselves are uncertain about their possible developments and applications once released to the public. Consulting services such as SciFutures, rely on story-telling to forecast these developments because the technical aspect is incapable of grasping the values and social implications they present. Moral leadership increasingly becomes something desirable and necessary from technology developers and users. To their credit, companies have started to face this problem, integrating corporate responsibility in their thought processes and daily operations.
Making ethics a key concern in business or science allows directing technological development towards a preferred outcome, rather than letting it operate by ‘its own logic’. Science is exploring the infinitely small and the infinitely large. Both allow us to generate understandings of human on cosmic and microscopic, even atomic scales. On the other hand, globalisation has increased the flow of peoples, goods and ideas leading to the deconstruction and reconstruction of identities. Technologies operating on that scale have the potential to affect our sense of self and our relationships as individuals and groups. They become part of everyday politics and the global political economy, favouring certain practices and discouraging others. Choosing which way to drive technological development is a value-laden, intensely political and subjective decision that can neither be achieved through data or ideals alone. It requires us to learn what to challenge and what not to. Technological and scientific development has never “run wild” or been driven by a mystical force, but operated in a cultural and social environment, like every other human activity. Controlling these conditions is not restrictive, but allows deciding which values the tools we produce will convey. This is both a blessing and a curse, in that we are now able to affect global populations with terrible or beneficial consequences.
Expect more.
Why should we fund space programs when there are more urgent problems to fix here, on the ground? Why should we invest money in something that will likely become tourism for wealthy people, a revenue stream for corporations, or even a new battlefield? The truth is that space is already all of these things. Let us envision space as a solution rather than as a problem. The sheer political, economic and scientific momentum behind a space program can be used to address deep structural and social problems. On the one hand, it allows those able to meet the challenge to come forward, whatever their ethnicity, sex or sexuality: there’s a job to do, so who can do it? Secondly, meeting the incredible requirements of operating a space program on large scale will drive the transformation and creation of institutions adapted to the task. Why not design to be inclusive or to transform economic relations of those involved in the effort? More than that, it provides ground for all participants to raise each other up, by giving all a chance at proving themselves.
Don’t read this as a naive account of the situation. This is my challenge to you, the reader. Don’t stop at the difficulty of the task but accept it. Don’t look at what isn’t, but at what is possible. Find the strength to be optimistic. Find the faith to believe in something better. Space begins in the mind of the men and women contemplating it. The momentum displayed by a space program in terms of means and the minds of the people that witness it is a great force for change. Like the atomic bomb, it is our responsibility to harness this force and accept that what we do with it, and how we do it, is as important as why.
We are at the dawn of a new age, not because it is fated, but because we have the means and the will to lift ourselves up and face the challenges of tomorrow, may they be climate change or reaching Mars. We must face what we create as parts of ourselves and be aware of this so that our creations do not control our actions.
Jean Levy graduated from Sciences Po Paris and LSE where he studied communication and political science. Passionate about space exploration, he wrote his Master’s thesis on how popular media affect the public’s perception of technology and ongoing ethical issues.
Today, he continues to work on using the narrative power of technology to drive positive change in businesses and politics.
This is The Fourth Group’s platform for open debate and conversations on the interaction between technology and politics — Follow The Fourth Group’s actions by subscribing to our newsletter.
