don't let em leave the zine in 10 sections

Don’t let them leave!

for Laika

From the list of demands against the so-called city of Olympia, WA:

Number 13. Cessation of all space exploration  

and 

Number 2. Blow up the sun!

 A ten point countdown as to why we oppose human conquest in space

Our hatred of manned space travel has nothing to do with our love of science fiction! Even with all the problems with the genre, there is much to love and cherish. So much so, that we confuse and transpose this love onto modern-day space exploration, which is not, and will never be, as free and utterly wild as our dreams.

If you watch NASA films and look through their documents, what you see is not space opera--not Octavia Butler or Ursula K. Le Guin--but a sterile lab bleached of all our dreams and wonder. You see hardware and machines, and men building structures for business. A  future architecture of our entanglement in domination. We’ve been fooled by their propaganda. 

The hero is always some North American, flaunting some pure, good guy hero mysticism, in a gleaming white suit. With flags and expensive, gold-plated spaceships. Either in ruins or in perfect order. 

NASA has the best propagandists in the world, even better than the police’s. And the point of this PR mission is to make space appear peaceful, serene, and sterile. But we know that the space industry is none of these things. 

NASA is populated with the soft-spoken, intelligent professor, a white man. This is the number one cause for alarm. That should concern everyone. Space is for white people only. Say it again, and watch the footage, the newscasts, the documentaries. Space is for white people and their property, weapons and robots. 

That is why rich, white billionaires are interested in space exploration. They don’t want us to see what lies behind space exploration.To look closer, without television lenses or cellphones. We need a countdown, for drama, for thrills. Like an execution. 

Countdown

10.  Space colonization and space travel are unethical 

 9.   The sun, moon, and planets are not our junkyards

 8.    Space exploration is colonialism

 7.    You will be left behind

 6.    Weapons development and militarism

 5.    Tourism: everybody hates a tourist

 4.    Nationalism: space exploration is statist 

 3.    Space exploitation is not vegan

 2.    Contamination! 

 1.    Space is only for white men

 0.    Wernher von Braun

 Supplement 

10.  Space colonization and space travel is unethical 

There are numerous ethical concerns to consider regarding human space exploration. These concerns can be sorted into four realms.

The first realm to investigate is human society: how we behave toward each other and how this disgraceful state of affairs will be relocated into space and the exoplanets. While there are people houseless, while there are people hungry, while there are people dying on our streets, while there are prisons and people locked in cages, it is indefensible to waste any funds on rich people’s dreams. None of us can be free as long as these conditions exist. 

The most common rebuttal to this position is that space travel receives only a small percentage of taxes in the US, having little impact on the redistribution of our collective resources. And yet, year after year, decade after decade, the poor grow poorer, the wealth gap expands, and the spaceships keep lifting off. We all are forced to support this status quo with our hunger and our poverty.

The second realm relates to the relationship between human civilization and the Earth: our planet’s richness of lifeforms and its very structures. Our history and behavior have shown the dangers that we humans represent. Through strip mining, clearcutting entire bioregions, industrial hunting and fishing species to the point of extinction, the draining of estuaries, the paving of wetlands, the dredging of rivers, killing the oceans, and mining the very heart out of our planet.

Space preservation requires that the solar system be valued for its own sake, not on the basis of what it can do for us. Space conservation insists that extraterrestrial resources ought not to be exploited to benefit the few at the expense of the many or of the solar system itself. Space sustainability asks that our explorations "do no harm" and that we leave the moon, Mars, and space itself no worse--and perhaps better--than we found them.

Margaret R. McLean 

None of these preservationist or conservationist ideals are even accomplished here on earth. This leads to the obvious conclusion that no! We are not capable of responsibly caring for one planet, let alone an entire universe.

The third realm focuses on the notion that humans will invade other moons and planets, and that we will want to change them to resemble the Earth. This is a process known as “terraforming,” a term for the absolute destruction of entire worlds’ ecosystems. This process is in no way understood. We will be driven to terraform worlds because outer space is almost entirely uninhabitable for humans. 

This acceptance of radically reshaping outer space mirrors the way we have already drastically transformed Earth with industry and fossil fuel combustion. But forget this point, and listen to their maniacal plans to improve other planets instead of this one. Their plans for outer space seem to be the complete destruction of the worlds they find, like we’ve destroyed the world where we were born, and which we have an obligation to share with all of life, whether edible or not.

Robert Sparrow argues that terraforming “demonstrates at least two serious defects of moral character: an aesthetic insensitivity and the sin of hubris … To change whole planets to suit our ends is arrogant vandalism.” He claims that we can demonstrate aesthetic insensitivity in two ways: firstly, by destroying beauty directly and, secondly, by using beauty “for one’s own purposes in ways that make no reference to its beauty” even though that beauty is not destroyed.The basis of this ethical problem is not knowing how our actions, no matter how noble in intent, might affect life so fundamentally different from ourselves.

Liz Miller

The fourth realm of ethical concern we must face is our incredibly limited understanding of time, non-human history, and non-human, non-biological nature: the planets, moons, asteroids, and comets themselves. Is there geological life, lunar life, star life? Some panpsychism?

The centuries old doctrine of panpsychism--the idea that consciousness is universal, existing as some kind of mind stuff inside molecules and atoms. Consciousness doesn’t have to emerge. It’s built into matter, perhaps as some kind of quantum mechanical effect.

George Johnson  

Keekok Lee argues that we should go further still, beyond the biocentric view, and “develop a conception of intrinsic value which is not necessarily tied up solely with the fate of biotic Nature … [and] confront the issue of abiotic or inanimate nature as a locus of intrinsic value”. His approach is to start by constructing an ‘intrinsic value ethics’ for the Earth (with a view to later extending it to Mars) based on the following considerations. Firstly, Earth did not come into existence (or continue to exist) for the benefit of human beings. Secondly, although human beings find much of nonbiological Nature useful, it doesn’t follow that Nature exists for humanity. Expanding on this, he points out that: a) the genesis of the Earth is independent of the arrival of humans; b) Earth and its biota would not be extinguished if humanity were to become extinct; c) the functioning of the biota as a systemic whole would be independent of humans; d) Earth and its biosphere are autonomous; and e) from the perspective of Earth and its biota, humanity is dispensable and maybe even redundant.

Paul York 

We don't know the full spectrum of what is definable as life.  We can’t even understand the life of a tree, let alone consciousness. 

Do we care about the geological life history of Mars, or the possibility that if we left other planets alone, that one day a billion years from now, life might come into being?  Or the notion that life exists there already, but we have failed to comprehend its existence because we are blinded by our own imagined brilliance.

While this is written from the human perspective, there are infinitely more complex points of view to consider. Points of view which our very first attempts at space exploration could destroy.

Our last thousand years on Earth have shown us that we as a species are not capable of coexisting within any natural ecosystem. While the science fiction lovers and the poets will scream and protest that, individually, we are magnificent, brilliant, and capable of transcendent miracles, history has nothing but genocide to show us, cities carpeted over forests, the complete destruction of all life that dares not serve some purpose of mankind. Our individual beauty is wholly wiped away when one looks back over our shoulder at this dead earth: these cemetery cities; the festering trash pools of our oceans; the hazed-out, polluted sky; the radioactive waste; the extraction-fueled hellscape that we have created. If your fake-ass gods were not bound to your image, they would instantly kill us all. We deserve nothing less. 

The answer to whether or not we should be allowed to explore other worlds is a giant

 NO!

Followed by a painful slap to our faces. 

Fuck you, mankind.