The burgeoning commercial space industry is facing a critical ethical and legal debate as companies plan for increased activity beyond Earth’s atmosphere. A recent prediction that it will soon be cheaper to send a human worker to orbit than to develop more advanced robotics has sparked concerns about labor conditions and resource exploitation in space. This discussion comes as the industry rapidly evolves, with companies positioning themselves to mine asteroids and extract resources from the moon.
The Future of Space Work and the Cost of Human Labor
At TechCrunch Disrupt in San Francisco, Varda Space Industries founder Will Bruey suggested that within 15 to 20 years, the cost of sending a “working-class human” to orbit for a month could be less than developing more sophisticated machines to perform the same tasks. This claim, following Jeff Bezos’s prediction of millions living in space due to robotic cost-effectiveness, highlights a potential shift in how space work is envisioned.
Wesleyan University Dean of Social Sciences Mary-Jane Rubenstein argues this scenario raises significant power imbalance issues. She points out that workers already face economic precarity on Earth, and that dependence on employers for basic necessities like food, water, and air would be dramatically increased in a space-based work environment.
Rubenstein emphasizes that the romanticized view of space as a pristine frontier overlooks the harsh realities of the environment. “It is not nice at all,” she stated, noting the lack of natural resources and the inherent dangers of operating in space.
Resource Ownership and International Law
Beyond labor concerns, the question of who owns space resources is becoming increasingly contentious. The 1967 Outer Space Treaty prohibits nations from claiming sovereignty over celestial bodies, intending for the moon, Mars, and asteroids to be the common heritage of humankind.
However, the 2015 U.S. Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act introduced a loophole, allowing companies to own resources extracted from these bodies, but not the bodies themselves. This legislation has spurred interest in space mining, with companies like AstroForge and Interlune actively pursuing asteroid and lunar resource extraction, respectively.
Rubenstein draws an analogy, stating that the U.S. law is akin to allowing ownership of everything *inside* a house, but not the house itself. She argues this is even more problematic, as the extracted materials are fundamentally part of the celestial body. The law has also raised concerns about equitable access to these resources, as one nation’s claim could effectively exclude others.
Geopolitical Implications and the Artemis Accords
The 2015 U.S. act drew immediate international criticism. Russia labeled it a violation of international law during a 2016 UN Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS) meeting, while Belgium warned of potential global economic imbalances.
In response, the U.S. initiated the Artemis Accords in 2020, a series of bilateral agreements with allied nations that formalize the American interpretation of space law, particularly regarding resource extraction. Currently, 60 countries have signed the Accords, though notably, Russia and China remain absent.
Critics view the Accords as the U.S. unilaterally setting rules and pressuring other nations to comply. While the Accords don’t explicitly legalize resource extraction, they assert it doesn’t constitute “national appropriation” as prohibited by the Outer Space Treaty. This careful wording attempts to navigate the legal gray area surrounding space resource ownership.
Rubenstein suggests a potential solution lies in returning control to the UN and COPUOS, or at least repealing the 2011 Wolf Amendment, which restricts U.S. cooperation with China on space projects. She argues that collaboration, even with geopolitical rivals, is essential for responsible space development.
Beyond Conquest: Reimagining Space Exploration
Rubenstein categorizes science fiction’s portrayal of space into three genres: conquest, dystopia, and speculative fiction. She observes that the current trajectory of space development aligns with the “conquest” genre, prioritizing national and corporate interests over ethical considerations.
She notes a concerning trend where companies seem to be actively realizing the dystopian warnings presented in science fiction, rather than heeding them. However, she believes there’s still an opportunity to embrace the “speculative fiction” approach, using space to envision alternative societies based on justice and care.
One area where international cooperation appears more likely is space debris mitigation. With over 40,000 trackable objects orbiting Earth, the risk of a Kessler syndrome – a cascading collision event rendering orbit unusable – is growing. Addressing this issue requires a collaborative effort, as space garbage poses a threat to all nations and space actors.
Rubenstein is currently developing a proposal for an annual conference to foster dialogue between academics, NASA, and industry representatives on ethical and collaborative space development.
Looking ahead, the future of space law and labor practices remains uncertain. Recent Congressional action to make the Wolf Amendment permanent suggests continued restrictions on China cooperation. Meanwhile, companies continue to pursue ambitious space mining and habitation projects, and Bruey’s prediction about the cost of human labor in orbit continues to fuel debate. The next few years will be crucial in determining whether space development prioritizes exploitation or collaboration, and whether the benefits of space exploration are shared equitably among all of humanity.
