Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-wq484 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T10:11:50.963Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Is transplanetary sustainability a good idea? An answer from the perspective of conceptual engineering

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 January 2019

Claus Beisbart
Claus Beisbart*
Affiliation:
Institute of Philosophy, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
*
Author for correspondence: Claus Beisbart, E-mail: Claus.Beisbart@philo.unibe.ch
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Is our current concept of sustainable development too focused on our planet? Do we need a new conception of sustainability? The recent call for an 'ethics of planetary sustainability' by A. Losch may be understood as promoting an affirmative answer to this question. This essay analyses and assesses the introduction of a new concept of sustainability from the perspective of conceptual engineering. The central question is whether this new concept, which I call ‘transplanetary sustainability’, may improve our thinking, and, indirectly, our practices. I argue that a new notion of transplanetary sustainability advantageously points to considerations that matter from a moral point of view. It may also help us to be more exact and consistent in our moral thinking. At the same time, there are serious doubts as to how fundamental the concept of sustainability as such is from a theoretical perspective since it does not figure in prominent moral theories. Furthermore, in view of possible extraterrestrial beings that deserve to be taken into account from a moral point of view, the proposed revision of the concept may reach less than required. Nevertheless, since sustainability has had an impressive career in international politics, it is practically speaking important that sustainability be conceived such that outer space is taken into account.

Keywords

Conceptsextraterrestrial beingsmoral theoriessustainability
Type
Research Article
Information
International Journal of Astrobiology , Volume 18 , Issue 5 , October 2019 , pp. 468 - 476
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Andreas, H (2017) Theoretical terms in science. In Zalta, EN (ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Fall 2017 Edn. Available at https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2017/entries/theoretical-terms-science/ (Accessed July 2018).Google Scholar
Bañon Gomis, AJ, Guillén Parra, M, Hoffmann, WM and McNulty, RE (2011) Rethinking the concept of sustainability. Business and Society Review 116, 171–191.Google Scholar
Barclay, R and Brooks, R (2002) In situ preservation of historic spacecraft. Journal of the British Interplanetary Society 55, 173–181.Google Scholar
Beauchamp, TL and Childress, JF (2009) Principles of Biomedical Ethics, 6th Edn. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Beckerman, W (1994) ‘Sustainable development’: is it a useful concept? Environmental Values 3, 191–209.Google Scholar
Blackburn, S (1999) Think. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Brun, G (2016) Explication as a method of conceptual re-engineering. Erkenntnis 81, 1211–1241.Google Scholar
Cappelen, H (2018) Fixing Language: An Essay on Conceptual Engineering. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Carnap, R (1950/1962) Logical Foundations of Probability. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Fogg, MJ (2000) The ethical dimensions of space settlement. Space Policy 16, 205–211.Google Scholar
Gutés, MC (1996) The concept of weak sustainability. Ecological Economics 17, 147–156.Google Scholar
Haslanger, S (2000) Gender, race: (what) are they? (what) do we want them to be? Noûs 34, 31–55.Google Scholar
Hurka, T (2011) Common themes from sidgwick to ewing. In Hurka, T (ed.) Underivative Duty. British Moralists From Sidgwick to Ewing, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 6–25.Google Scholar
IUCN (1980) World Conservation Strategy, Living Resource Conservation for Sustainable Development (ICUN-WCS-004). Available at https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.CH.1980.9.en (Accessed 11 June 2018).Google Scholar
Kuhn, TS (1977) Objectivity, value judgment, and theory choice. In Kuhn, TS (ed.) The Essential Tension. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 320–339.Google Scholar
Lacey, H (1999) Is Science Value Free? Values and Scientific Understanding. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Livingston, D (2003) A code of ethics for conducting business in outer space. Space Policy 19, 93–94.Google Scholar
Losch, A (2018 a) The need of an ethics of planetary sustainability. International Journal of Astrobiology, 1–8. doi: 10.1017/S1473550417000490.Google Scholar
Losch, A (2018 b) The Need of an Ethics of Planetary Sustainability. Available at http://blog.journals.cambridge.org/2018/01/16/the-need-of-an-ethics-of-planetary-sustainability/ (Accessed 8 June 2018).Google Scholar
Losch, A (forthcoming) Interplanetary sustainability. Mars as a means of a long term sustainable development of humankind in the Solar System? In Szocik, K (ed.), The Human Factor in a Mission to Mars. An Interdisciplinary Approach. Springer.Google Scholar
Margolis, E and Laurence, S (2014) Concepts. In Zalta, EN (ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Available at https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2014/entries/concepts.Google Scholar
Marshall, JD and Toffel, MW (2005) Framing the elusive concept of sustainability: a sustainability hierarchy. Environmental Science & Technology 39/3, 673–682.Google Scholar
NASA (2014) Our Vision for Planetary Sustainability. Available at https://www.nasa.gov/content/planetary-sustainability-our-vision/ (Accessed 8 June 2018).Google Scholar
Oxford Dictionaries. Entries ‘sustainable’. Available at https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/sustainableand_sustainabledevelopment,’ https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/sustainable_development (Accessed).Google Scholar
Rex, D (1998) Will space run out of space? The orbital debris problem and its mitigation. Space Policy 14, 95–105.Google Scholar
Rockstrom, J, Steffen, W, Noone, K, Persson, A, Chapin III, FS, Lambin, E, Lenton, TM, Scheffer, M, Folke, C, Schellnhuber, H, Nykvist, B, De Wit, CA, Hughes, T, van der Leeuw, S, Rodhe, H, Sorlin, S, Snyder, PK, Costanza, R, Svedin, U, Falkenmark, M, Karlberg, L, Corell, RW, Fabry, VJ, Hansen, J, Walker, B, Liverman, D, Richardson, K, Crutzen, P and Foley, J (2009) Planetary boundaries: exploring the safe operating space for humanity. Ecology and Society 14, 32. Available at http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss2/art32/.Google Scholar
Tännsjö, T (2006) Understanding through explanation in ethics. Theoria 72, 213–220.Google Scholar
United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development (1987) Our Common Future, Transmitted to the General Assembly as an Annex to document A/42/427 – Development and International Co-operation: Environment. Available at http://www.un-documents.net/wced-ocf.htm (Accessed 11 June 2018).Google Scholar
United Nations (2015) Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 25 September 2015. Available at http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/70/1&Lang=E (Accessed 12 June 2018).Google Scholar
Vallance, S, Perkins, HC and Dixon, JE (2011) What is social sustainability? A clarification of concepts. Geoforum: Journal of Physical, Human, and Regional Geosciences 42, 342–348.Google Scholar
Väyrynen, P, (2017) Thick ethical concepts. In Zalta, EN (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2017 Edition). Available at https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2017/entries/thick-ethical-concepts/Google Scholar