www.fastcompany.com Open in urlscan Pro
151.101.193.54  Public Scan

Form analysis
0 forms found in the DOM

Text Content

FAST COMPANY

Follow
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

Login
 * Co.Design
 * Tech
 * Work Life
 * News
 * Impact
 * Podcasts
 * Video
 * Recommender
 * Innovation Festival 360IF360
 * Subscribe
 * 
 * FastCo Works
    * AWS
    * Deloitte
    * Genpact


 * HOMEPAGE


 * CO.DESIGN


 * TECH


 * WORK LIFE


 * NEWS


 * IMPACT


 * PODCASTS


 * VIDEO


 * RECOMMENDER


 * INNOVATION FESTIVAL 360


 * SUBSCRIBE

Help Center
fastco works


 * AWS


 * EY


 * BOSTON SCIENTIFIC


 * DELOITTE


 * DEPT


 * ELEVATE PRIZE


 * IBM


 * GENPACT


 * KLARNA


 * VISA


 * FASTCO WORKS
   
   An award-winning team of journalists, designers, and videographers who tell
   brand stories through Fast Company's distinctive lens

FC Executive Board
collections


 * FAST GOVERNMENT
   
   The future of innovation and technology in government for the greater good


 * MOST INNOVATIVE COMPANIES
   
   Fast Company's annual ranking of businesses that are making an outsize impact


 * MOST CREATIVE PEOPLE
   
   Leaders who are shaping the future of business in creative ways


 * WORLD CHANGING IDEAS
   
   New workplaces, new food sources, new medicine--even an entirely new economic
   system


 * INNOVATION BY DESIGN
   
   Celebrating the best ideas in business

Newsletter
Events


 * INNOVATION FESTIVAL


 * MOST INNOVATIVE COMPANIES SUMMIT

Courses and LearningAdvertiseCurrent Issue
Current Issue
SUBSCRIBE
Follow us:

advertisement

 * 05-09-22
 * pov


WHAT A 1970S PHILOSOPHICAL CONCEPT CAN TEACH US ABOUT SPACE GOVERNANCE


WHEN IT COMES TO SPACE EXPLORATION, WE ARE STILL LIVING BEHIND A VEIL OF
IGNORANCE.

[Source Images: CSA Images/Getty]
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

More Like This
Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney talks the metaverse, crypto, and antitrust
This is what Elon Musk did the day he bought Twitter. It’s an amazing lesson in
productivity
The untold story behind Nintendo’s Wii launch in the U.S.
By Douglas Ligor and Luke J. Matthews 8 minute Read

Outer space continues to get more and more dangerous and more “congested,
contested, and competitive” than at any point in history. In 1976, for example,
only about 750 satellites were in orbit around the earth; as of January 5 this
year, there were 12,480, with tens of thousands more expected in the years to
come. SpaceX alone has been granted licenses to launch 12,000 more Starlink
satellites over the next five years as part of its megaconstellation efforts.
Other companies and countries are following suit: Amazon plans to launch over
3,000 satellites, Britain’s OneWeb plans to launch nearly 100,000, and China
plans to launch nearly 13,000. In 2013, there were approximately 21,000 pieces
of debris about the diameter of a softball or larger, and about 500,000 pieces
at least the size of a marble; in 2022, those numbers have grown to 36,500 and 1
million respectively. Any debris in space can be incredibly dangerous: While a
wrench dropped by a sailor sinks harmlessly to the bottom of the ocean, a wrench
dropped in space becomes a 7,000 meter per second projectile capable of
destroying a satellite or space station.




Unsurprisingly, near-miss collisions are on the rise: Not only did the recent
Russian anti-satellite test create debris that jeopardized the lives of the
astronauts on the International Space Station, it is estimated that orbital
objects will cause a typical satellite operator (with 50 satellites) to receive
up to 300 close-call alerts a week. With 4,852 active satellites, that is
approximately 29,000 collision alerts per week, with likely hundreds of those
resulting in the operator having to maneuver to avoid a collision. Given the
projected increase in numbers, the problem of collisions is about to get much,
much worse.

Equally as concerning, terrestrial conflicts like the war in Ukraine
automatically have a space conflict component. Russia is suspected of engaging
in a cyberhacking attack of Viasat satellites in an effort to shut down internet
services in order to disrupt communications in Ukraine at the start of the
conflict. Without more defined and enforceable rules of war regarding space and
space assets, the danger of a destructive conflict in space grows significantly.

Currently, there are no international binding rules that would address these
growing threats. In fact, the international community has not been able to agree
to any new binding, broadly supported rules for space since 1976, a time when
space was dominated by just two powers—the U.S. and the U.S.S.R.—and the biggest
concern was launching nuclear weapons beyond the stratosphere.

advertisement



Such a hands-off approach to space regulation has had some benefits. Mainly,
it’s helped enable an era of commercial space enterprise and investment. But
this approach, or lack thereof, has also led to some quite glaring holes. For
example, key treaty terms such as “outer space,” “debris,” “space object,”
“interference,” and “contamination” have no agreed upon definition, which allows
nations to claim that destructive anti-satellite tests, which create thousands
of pieces of dangerous debris, do not, in fact, violate the Outer Space Treaty
of 1967 (OST), because they don’t technically create “interference” or
“contamination.”

All this suggests that it may be time to consider new rules for this new space
era. But just how to approach regulation in a place like space can be tricky.
One potentially useful approach to governance could be to adopt a rule-making
thought device, famous in political philosophy, called the “veil of ignorance.”


JOHN RAWLS’S GRAND THOUGHT EXPERIMENT

Philosopher John Rawls first presented the idea of the veil in 1971. In Rawls’
thought experiment, he proposed that, to create fair rules for society, everyone
must first agree to the rules before knowing how, exactly, the rules would apply
to them. Rawls was imagining applying the veil to an Earthbound society. His
notion was that if you didn’t know whether you would be a Black, White, or Brown
person, a woman or a man, or if you would end up rich or poor until after the
rules were created, the rules everyone would agree upon would wind up being more
equitable for all.



Rawls’ thought device has some obvious limitations. It is difficult to forget,
or to even imagine forgetting one’s race or sex or socioeconomic status—our
cognitions are simply too caught up in our lived experience. The best time to
make rules for society, it turns out, is while society is still living under the
veil of ignorance: very difficult, if not impossible, to do here on Earth; but
remarkably useful and relevant to space, both in the past and today.

During those initial space treaties, members of the United Nations engaged in a
rule-making process that Rawls would have likely admired, articulating many
guiding principles before the applicable technological contexts existed. For
example, the Outer Space Treaty prohibited spacecraft from contaminating
potentially habitable extra-terrestrial environments long before science had any
evidence that such environments existed beyond Earth. The first compliance with
this clause occurred in 2017, when NASA destroyed its Cassini space probe after
discovering that Saturn’s moon Enceladus contained a warm saline ocean—a
potential home to living organisms.

Just as the treaty drafters had little idea about if or when environments
suitable to life beyond Earth might be discovered, they did not know what the
future of space might look like in terms of militarization or occupation of
orbits and celestial bodies. And still, they crafted principles that prevented
nuclear weapons from being placed in orbit around the Earth, and they prohibited
the possibility of imperial or colonial claims to orbits or celestial bodies.
The genius of making these rules before knowing the conditions in which the
rules would be applied is that, had the rules been crafted after the fact, the
calculations by the nations making and agreeing to the rules would have likely
been quite different.



Imagine a baseball game in which the teams have not decided what constitutes a
home run until a batter smashes the ball into a foul pole—it’s too late, at this
point, to fairly determine one way or another. Each team has too much riding on
the decision. Unless the rule was decided beforehand—behind Rawls’s veil—teams
that decide on the rule after the fact will automatically be biased to make a
rule that benefits them. Had Cassini arrived at Enceladus in 1966 instead of
2017, or had commercial mining of the Moon been possible in 1966, the diplomats
drafting the Outer Space Treaty would have been similarly biased by the
circumstances of the moment—either by the fact that a nation’s probe was already
about to crash on a watery moon, or one of their commercial miners had already
discovered platinum on the Moon.


TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE

The current exploration of space presents an unusual situation, in that in many
respects we are still behind a veil of ignorance. We still do not know who will
shoulder the burden to clean up our space debris, or which nation or company
will be the first to capitalize on mining extraterrestrial resources. In the
case of space debris, plausible solutions likely would enforce liability or tax
regime for debris cleanup in proportion to future debris production. Countries
will not agree to cleanup in proportion to the debris production of the past
(this is not behind the Rawlsian veil), but with so much active entrepreneurship
in space, countries do not know who will be the largest debris producers going
forward. This creates, like a baseball game, an opportunity to create fair
rules—in this case for burden-sharing—before the game has started.

A similar argument applied to resource extraction in space (space mining). There
likely can be only a few winners from mining asteroids because the number of
near-Earth asteroids with valuable minerals is limited. Who will win at asteroid
mining is unknown, meaning we are behind the Rawlsian veil, which make this the
perfect time to develop the laws for how asteroid resources should be fairly
harnessed. Dropping the veil, we could posit a rule regarding profit sharing.
For developing countries, they would have an economic stake in what is mined on
the Moon or on an asteroid (minus the costs to the first movers who are doing
the exploring and extracting); for the well-resourced states and actors, it
provides limited rights to the mining territory (without accusations of
appropriation in violation of the OST), predictable cost structures, and the
ability to avoid both a resource race and the potential conflict that can arise
from unilateral territory and resource appropriation.



Enforcing such laws will require international mechanisms that would require
countries to develop their own culturally-appropriate, in-country regulations.
There is precedent for this type of mechanism: The UN’s International Seabed
Authority (ISA) was created to license, regulate, and fairly distribute benefits
from deep seabed mining in international waters, which is considered a global
commons. Space is also a global commons, and a Rawlsian approach to resource
extraction could result in the creation of an ISA-like institution for space
mining.

So many of the problems currently facing space present a rare and wonderful
opportunity for the international community to craft fair rules. But time is of
the essence: Once a company has reached the Moon or an asteroid to set up a
mining operation, or a derelict space object has collided with and destroyed a
human-inhabited space station, it will be too late to drop the veil: The miner
will likely have too much skin in the game, and the astronauts on the space
station will likely be dead.

It is still possible for the rule makers to operate “behind the veil,”
completely ignorant of the position they will be in when the veil is lifted,
once the rules go into effect. Ignorant to the position and power they will have
when the veil is lifted, Rawls posits that they would tend toward rules that
maximize fairness and justice for all.



Douglas Ligor is a senior behavioral/social scientist at the nonprofit,
nonpartisan RAND Corporation, and a member of RAND’s Enterprise Space
Initiative. Luke J. Matthews is a senior behavioral/social scientist at RAND.





advertisement



FEATURED VIDEO

Jane Goodall Thinks Comic Books Will Save the Earth
Jane Goodall is known around the world for her groundbreaking discoveries and
studies of chimpanzees. For decades, she has inspired young activists through
her program Roots & Shoots—but now, in the digital era, she discusses how she is
connecting and inspiring new generations through sharing stories in formats they
resonate with, such as Webtoon.
More Videos


0 seconds of 3 minutes, 26 secondsVolume 0%

Press shift question mark to access a list of keyboard shortcuts
Keyboard ShortcutsEnabledDisabled
Play/PauseSPACE
Increase Volume↑
Decrease Volume↓
Seek Forward→
Seek Backward←
Captions On/Offc
Fullscreen/Exit Fullscreenf
Mute/Unmutem
Seek %0-9
Next Up
The moral case for dignity with Anthony Kwame Appiah
02:24
Settings
OffFc Jane Goodall 040522 Df Final V2
Font Color
White

Font Opacity
100%

Font Size
100%

Font Family
Arial

Character Edge
None

Background Color
Black

Background Opacity
50%

Window Color
Black

Window Opacity
0%

Reset
WhiteBlackRedGreenBlueYellowMagentaCyan
100%75%50%25%
200%175%150%125%100%75%50%
ArialCourierGeorgiaImpactLucida ConsoleTahomaTimes New RomanTrebuchet MSVerdana
NoneRaisedDepressedUniformDrop Shadow
WhiteBlackRedGreenBlueYellowMagentaCyan
100%75%50%25%0%
WhiteBlackRedGreenBlueYellowMagentaCyan
100%75%50%25%0%
facebook twitter Email
Linkhttps://www.fastcompany.com/videos
Copied
Auto180p1080p720p406p270p180p
Live
00:00
03:26
03:26








 


JANE GOODALL THINKS COMIC BOOKS WILL SAVE THE EARTH

advertisement


Today's Top Stories:
01

advertorial
Why the 360-degree customer view is over
02

magazine
These innovative projects are changing the health industry
03

news
The Metaverse of Things: This startup is using microchips to turn physical
objects into NFTs
04

co-design
Are some fonts ageist?
05

advertorial
Sonic Science: Understanding your brain on sound
More Top Stories:
PLAY Fast Company Top Articles: Video Settings Full Screen About Connatix
V161844 Read More Read More Read More Read More Read More Read More
Sorry, Apple, the iPod Touch was never really an iPod
READ MORE
Sorry, Apple, the iPod Touch was never really an iPod 1/1 Skip Ad Continue
watching after the ad Visit Advertiser websiteGO TO PAGE




advertisement

advertorial
3 traits digital leaders have in common
advertorial
Why CIOs are instrumental to implementing corporate ESG policies
co-design
This bird-shaped monitor drops dead when your indoor air is bad
news
Hari Mari, inventor of the smart flip-flop, tries on proper shoes
leadership
How to become a better listener, according to science
advertorial
New Opportunities to Invest in Professional Venture Capital
advertorial
Business travel made simple
technology
Google lines up with Apple and Microsoft to nix passwords in favor of
nearby-device authentication
technology
How an online search for abortion pills landed this woman in jail
advertorial
Front row seats in your home
advertorial
Good business starts with purpose
advertorial
Audio is Getting Precise
advertorial
Logistics designed for today’s e-commerce business
technology
These are the storytelling lessons I learned from Steve Jobs
advertorial
Catching buzzworthy moments that matter
advertisement

advertisement

advertorial
Why cutting-edge cybersecurity is more important than ever
advertorial
Audacy, leveraging tech capabilities to enhance consumer experience
advertorial
How collaboration is driving the next wave of genomics
advertorial
The world’s newest business school is . . . an art school
technology
How Apple overcame its culture of secrecy to create AirPods Pro
advertorial
Four ways hybrid cloud can deliver innovative applications anywhere in the world
leadership
Has your motivation to work declined? Maybe your values have shifted
advertorial
Digital transformation is complex: it requires trust, resilience, and innovation
advertorial
Mapping the metaverse: 4 critical concepts business leaders must focus on
technology
Inside the harrowing world of online student surveillance
magazine
30 companies that are using software to change the world
advertorial
How corporations can establish a true net-zero carbon footprint policy
leadership
Coming to grips with the seismic shift in our work and our lives
advertorial
Why the virtual, flexible future of work is good for business
advertisement



IMPACT

Impact


BEN & JERRY’S IS CUTTING THE CARBON FOOTPRINT OF YOUR ICE CREAM

Impact


PREMATURE BIRTHS HAVE TRIPLED IN UKRAINE. THIS NONPROFIT IS DONATING PORTABLE
INCUBATORS

Impact


THOUSANDS OF FOSSIL FUEL PROJECTS ARE PROTECTED BY TREATIES. CANCELING THEM
COULD COST COUNTRIES BILLIONS


NEWS

News


LEADING NFT BLOCKCHAIN FLOW ANNOUNCES $725 MILLION ECOSYSTEM FUND TO DRIVE WEB3
INNOVATION

News


WHY YOU NEED TO TAKE RIGHT-WING COMEDY SERIOUSLY

News


GRINDR GOES PUBLIC: WHAT TO KNOW ABOUT THE GAY, BI, TRANS, AND QUEER DATING
APP’S PLANNED SPAC


CO.DESIGN

Co.Design


I HAVEN’T BOUGHT A SINGLE PIECE OF FURNITURE THIS YEAR. HERE’S HOW

Co.Design


A DESIGNER AND A NASA SCIENTIST TEAM UP TO FIGHT A $244 BILLION PROBLEM THAT’S
HIDING IN PLAIN SIGHT

Co.Design


HOW AIRPORT SECURITY TECH COULD HELP UNCOVER ANCIENT CAVE ART


WORK LIFE

Work Life


HOW BETTER.COM AND ITS CEO LEFT LAID-OFF WORKERS OUT TO DRY

Work Life


WE NEED TO STOP MANAGING AND START LEADING. HERE ARE 4 WAYS TO BE A LEADER

Work Life


HOW TO MAKE A GREAT FIRST IMPRESSION WHEN YOU ONBOARD FOR THAT NEW JOB

 * Advertise
 * Privacy Policy
 * Terms
 * Notice of Collection
 * Do Not Sell My Data
 * Permissions
 * Help Center
 * About Us
 * Site Map
 * Fast Company & Inc © 2022 Mansueto Ventures, LLC
 * 






FAST COMPANY

Follow
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

Login
 * Co.Design
 * Tech
 * Work Life
 * News
 * Impact
 * Podcasts
 * Video
 * Recommender
 * Innovation Festival 360IF360
 * Subscribe
 * 
 * FastCo Works
    * AWS
    * Deloitte
    * Genpact


 * HOMEPAGE


 * CO.DESIGN


 * TECH


 * WORK LIFE


 * NEWS


 * IMPACT


 * PODCASTS


 * VIDEO


 * RECOMMENDER


 * INNOVATION FESTIVAL 360


 * SUBSCRIBE

Help Center
fastco works


 * AWS


 * EY


 * BOSTON SCIENTIFIC


 * DELOITTE


 * DEPT


 * ELEVATE PRIZE


 * IBM


 * GENPACT


 * KLARNA


 * VISA


 * FASTCO WORKS
   
   An award-winning team of journalists, designers, and videographers who tell
   brand stories through Fast Company's distinctive lens

FC Executive Board
collections


 * FAST GOVERNMENT
   
   The future of innovation and technology in government for the greater good


 * MOST INNOVATIVE COMPANIES
   
   Fast Company's annual ranking of businesses that are making an outsize impact


 * MOST CREATIVE PEOPLE
   
   Leaders who are shaping the future of business in creative ways


 * WORLD CHANGING IDEAS
   
   New workplaces, new food sources, new medicine--even an entirely new economic
   system


 * INNOVATION BY DESIGN
   
   Celebrating the best ideas in business

Newsletter
Events


 * INNOVATION FESTIVAL


 * MOST INNOVATIVE COMPANIES SUMMIT

Courses and LearningAdvertiseCurrent Issue
Current Issue
SUBSCRIBE
Follow us:

advertisement

advertisement

 * 05-09-22
 * pov


WHAT A 1970S PHILOSOPHICAL CONCEPT CAN TEACH US ABOUT SPACE GOVERNANCE


WHEN IT COMES TO SPACE EXPLORATION, WE ARE STILL LIVING BEHIND A VEIL OF
IGNORANCE.

[Source Images: CSA Images/Getty]
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

By Douglas Ligor and Luke J. Matthews 8 minute Read

Outer space continues to get more and more dangerous and more “congested,
contested, and competitive” than at any point in history. In 1976, for example,
only about 750 satellites were in orbit around the earth; as of January 5 this
year, there were 12,480, with tens of thousands more expected in the years to
come. SpaceX alone has been granted licenses to launch 12,000 more Starlink
satellites over the next five years as part of its megaconstellation efforts.
Other companies and countries are following suit: Amazon plans to launch over
3,000 satellites, Britain’s OneWeb plans to launch nearly 100,000, and China
plans to launch nearly 13,000. In 2013, there were approximately 21,000 pieces
of debris about the diameter of a softball or larger, and about 500,000 pieces
at least the size of a marble; in 2022, those numbers have grown to 36,500 and 1
million respectively. Any debris in space can be incredibly dangerous: While a
wrench dropped by a sailor sinks harmlessly to the bottom of the ocean, a wrench
dropped in space becomes a 7,000 meter per second projectile capable of
destroying a satellite or space station.

advertisement

advertisement



Unsurprisingly, near-miss collisions are on the rise: Not only did the recent
Russian anti-satellite test create debris that jeopardized the lives of the
astronauts on the International Space Station, it is estimated that orbital
objects will cause a typical satellite operator (with 50 satellites) to receive
up to 300 close-call alerts a week. With 4,852 active satellites, that is
approximately 29,000 collision alerts per week, with likely hundreds of those
resulting in the operator having to maneuver to avoid a collision. Given the
projected increase in numbers, the problem of collisions is about to get much,
much worse.

Equally as concerning, terrestrial conflicts like the war in Ukraine
automatically have a space conflict component. Russia is suspected of engaging
in a cyberhacking attack of Viasat satellites in an effort to shut down internet
services in order to disrupt communications in Ukraine at the start of the
conflict. Without more defined and enforceable rules of war regarding space and
space assets, the danger of a destructive conflict in space grows significantly.

Currently, there are no international binding rules that would address these
growing threats. In fact, the international community has not been able to agree
to any new binding, broadly supported rules for space since 1976, a time when
space was dominated by just two powers—the U.S. and the U.S.S.R.—and the biggest
concern was launching nuclear weapons beyond the stratosphere.

advertisement

advertisement


Such a hands-off approach to space regulation has had some benefits. Mainly,
it’s helped enable an era of commercial space enterprise and investment. But
this approach, or lack thereof, has also led to some quite glaring holes. For
example, key treaty terms such as “outer space,” “debris,” “space object,”
“interference,” and “contamination” have no agreed upon definition, which allows
nations to claim that destructive anti-satellite tests, which create thousands
of pieces of dangerous debris, do not, in fact, violate the Outer Space Treaty
of 1967 (OST), because they don’t technically create “interference” or
“contamination.”

All this suggests that it may be time to consider new rules for this new space
era. But just how to approach regulation in a place like space can be tricky.
One potentially useful approach to governance could be to adopt a rule-making
thought device, famous in political philosophy, called the “veil of ignorance.”


JOHN RAWLS’S GRAND THOUGHT EXPERIMENT

Philosopher John Rawls first presented the idea of the veil in 1971. In Rawls’
thought experiment, he proposed that, to create fair rules for society, everyone
must first agree to the rules before knowing how, exactly, the rules would apply
to them. Rawls was imagining applying the veil to an Earthbound society. His
notion was that if you didn’t know whether you would be a Black, White, or Brown
person, a woman or a man, or if you would end up rich or poor until after the
rules were created, the rules everyone would agree upon would wind up being more
equitable for all.

advertisement


Rawls’ thought device has some obvious limitations. It is difficult to forget,
or to even imagine forgetting one’s race or sex or socioeconomic status—our
cognitions are simply too caught up in our lived experience. The best time to
make rules for society, it turns out, is while society is still living under the
veil of ignorance: very difficult, if not impossible, to do here on Earth; but
remarkably useful and relevant to space, both in the past and today.

During those initial space treaties, members of the United Nations engaged in a
rule-making process that Rawls would have likely admired, articulating many
guiding principles before the applicable technological contexts existed. For
example, the Outer Space Treaty prohibited spacecraft from contaminating
potentially habitable extra-terrestrial environments long before science had any
evidence that such environments existed beyond Earth. The first compliance with
this clause occurred in 2017, when NASA destroyed its Cassini space probe after
discovering that Saturn’s moon Enceladus contained a warm saline ocean—a
potential home to living organisms.

Just as the treaty drafters had little idea about if or when environments
suitable to life beyond Earth might be discovered, they did not know what the
future of space might look like in terms of militarization or occupation of
orbits and celestial bodies. And still, they crafted principles that prevented
nuclear weapons from being placed in orbit around the Earth, and they prohibited
the possibility of imperial or colonial claims to orbits or celestial bodies.
The genius of making these rules before knowing the conditions in which the
rules would be applied is that, had the rules been crafted after the fact, the
calculations by the nations making and agreeing to the rules would have likely
been quite different.

advertisement


Imagine a baseball game in which the teams have not decided what constitutes a
home run until a batter smashes the ball into a foul pole—it’s too late, at this
point, to fairly determine one way or another. Each team has too much riding on
the decision. Unless the rule was decided beforehand—behind Rawls’s veil—teams
that decide on the rule after the fact will automatically be biased to make a
rule that benefits them. Had Cassini arrived at Enceladus in 1966 instead of
2017, or had commercial mining of the Moon been possible in 1966, the diplomats
drafting the Outer Space Treaty would have been similarly biased by the
circumstances of the moment—either by the fact that a nation’s probe was already
about to crash on a watery moon, or one of their commercial miners had already
discovered platinum on the Moon.


TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE

The current exploration of space presents an unusual situation, in that in many
respects we are still behind a veil of ignorance. We still do not know who will
shoulder the burden to clean up our space debris, or which nation or company
will be the first to capitalize on mining extraterrestrial resources. In the
case of space debris, plausible solutions likely would enforce liability or tax
regime for debris cleanup in proportion to future debris production. Countries
will not agree to cleanup in proportion to the debris production of the past
(this is not behind the Rawlsian veil), but with so much active entrepreneurship
in space, countries do not know who will be the largest debris producers going
forward. This creates, like a baseball game, an opportunity to create fair
rules—in this case for burden-sharing—before the game has started.

A similar argument applied to resource extraction in space (space mining). There
likely can be only a few winners from mining asteroids because the number of
near-Earth asteroids with valuable minerals is limited. Who will win at asteroid
mining is unknown, meaning we are behind the Rawlsian veil, which make this the
perfect time to develop the laws for how asteroid resources should be fairly
harnessed. Dropping the veil, we could posit a rule regarding profit sharing.
For developing countries, they would have an economic stake in what is mined on
the Moon or on an asteroid (minus the costs to the first movers who are doing
the exploring and extracting); for the well-resourced states and actors, it
provides limited rights to the mining territory (without accusations of
appropriation in violation of the OST), predictable cost structures, and the
ability to avoid both a resource race and the potential conflict that can arise
from unilateral territory and resource appropriation.

advertisement


Enforcing such laws will require international mechanisms that would require
countries to develop their own culturally-appropriate, in-country regulations.
There is precedent for this type of mechanism: The UN’s International Seabed
Authority (ISA) was created to license, regulate, and fairly distribute benefits
from deep seabed mining in international waters, which is considered a global
commons. Space is also a global commons, and a Rawlsian approach to resource
extraction could result in the creation of an ISA-like institution for space
mining.

So many of the problems currently facing space present a rare and wonderful
opportunity for the international community to craft fair rules. But time is of
the essence: Once a company has reached the Moon or an asteroid to set up a
mining operation, or a derelict space object has collided with and destroyed a
human-inhabited space station, it will be too late to drop the veil: The miner
will likely have too much skin in the game, and the astronauts on the space
station will likely be dead.

It is still possible for the rule makers to operate “behind the veil,”
completely ignorant of the position they will be in when the veil is lifted,
once the rules go into effect. Ignorant to the position and power they will have
when the veil is lifted, Rawls posits that they would tend toward rules that
maximize fairness and justice for all.

advertisement


Douglas Ligor is a senior behavioral/social scientist at the nonprofit,
nonpartisan RAND Corporation, and a member of RAND’s Enterprise Space
Initiative. Luke J. Matthews is a senior behavioral/social scientist at RAND.


advertisement

advertisement

advertisement

advertisement






VIDEO

How Nick Kroll Builds Characters out of His Emotions
The 'Big Mouth' creator joins the mental health conversation, discussing how
anthropomorphizing his emotions has helped him be more open.
More Videos


0 seconds of 3 minutes, 49 secondsVolume 0%

Press shift question mark to access a list of keyboard shortcuts
Keyboard ShortcutsEnabledDisabled
Play/PauseSPACE
Increase Volume↑
Decrease Volume↓
Seek Forward→
Seek Backward←
Captions On/Offc
Fullscreen/Exit Fullscreenf
Mute/Unmutem
Seek %0-9
Next Up
Jane Goodall Thinks Comic Books Will Save the Earth
03:26
facebook twitter Email
Linkhttps://www.fastcompany.com/video/how-this-entrepreneurs-mental-health-struggle-fueled-his-success/6PINsfv9
Copied
Auto180p1080p720p406p270p180p
Live
00:00
03:49
03:49








 



IMPACT

Impact


BEN & JERRY’S IS CUTTING THE CARBON FOOTPRINT OF YOUR ICE CREAM

Impact


PREMATURE BIRTHS HAVE TRIPLED IN UKRAINE. THIS NONPROFIT IS DONATING PORTABLE
INCUBATORS

Impact


THOUSANDS OF FOSSIL FUEL PROJECTS ARE PROTECTED BY TREATIES. CANCELING THEM
COULD COST COUNTRIES BILLIONS


NEWS

News


LEADING NFT BLOCKCHAIN FLOW ANNOUNCES $725 MILLION ECOSYSTEM FUND TO DRIVE WEB3
INNOVATION

News


WHY YOU NEED TO TAKE RIGHT-WING COMEDY SERIOUSLY

News


GRINDR GOES PUBLIC: WHAT TO KNOW ABOUT THE GAY, BI, TRANS, AND QUEER DATING
APP’S PLANNED SPAC


CO.DESIGN

Co.Design


I HAVEN’T BOUGHT A SINGLE PIECE OF FURNITURE THIS YEAR. HERE’S HOW

Co.Design


A DESIGNER AND A NASA SCIENTIST TEAM UP TO FIGHT A $244 BILLION PROBLEM THAT’S
HIDING IN PLAIN SIGHT

Co.Design


HOW AIRPORT SECURITY TECH COULD HELP UNCOVER ANCIENT CAVE ART


WORK LIFE

Work Life


HOW BETTER.COM AND ITS CEO LEFT LAID-OFF WORKERS OUT TO DRY

Work Life


WE NEED TO STOP MANAGING AND START LEADING. HERE ARE 4 WAYS TO BE A LEADER

Work Life


HOW TO MAKE A GREAT FIRST IMPRESSION WHEN YOU ONBOARD FOR THAT NEW JOB

 * Advertise
 * Privacy Policy
 * Terms
 * Notice of Collection
 * Do Not Sell My Data
 * Permissions
 * Help Center
 * About Us
 * Site Map
 * Fast Company & Inc © 2022 Mansueto Ventures, LLC
 * 





search by queryly Advanced Search



WE VALUE YOUR PRIVACY

To deliver the best possible experience, we and our partners use techniques such
as cookies to store and/or access information on a device and provide
personalised ads and content, ad and content measurement, audience insights and
product development. Precise geolocation and information about device
characteristics can be used. Personal data such as network address and browsing
activity may be processed.

You may click to consent to the processing described above or review options and
make granular choices. Some processing may not require your consent, but you
have a right to object. Your preferences will apply to this site only. You may
change your mind at any time by visiting our privacy policy.


review options accept & continue
#browser_notifications_enabled

#browser_notification_subscriber_blocked

#session_pageviews_1

#capture_slider_active

#capture_lightbox_active