Humanity stands at a pivotal juncture in its cosmic aspirations, with burgeoning ventures into outer space prompting critical reflection on historical terrestrial experiences. The ambition to explore and potentially settle celestial bodies is not an endeavor isolated from Earth’s complex socio-political history; rather, it echoes profound patterns of expansion and resource acquisition that have long characterized human civilization. As scholars observe, much of the contemporary discourse surrounding the colonization of Mars and beyond mirrors colonialist logics, treating new worlds as if they were blank slates awaiting conquest. The historical progression of maritime armadas, which moved from initial exploration to trade and subsequently to territorial colonization, provides a striking parallel to the modern space industrial complexes now emerging across various nations. Understanding the historical frameworks of colonialism is therefore crucial for critically assessing contemporary space efforts and for preventing the perpetuation of harmful legacies. Human history offers sobering lessons, for repeating patterns of suffering, environmental degradation, and systemic injustice in space would not only betray fundamental humanist values but also imperil the very future space colonization aims to secure.
To navigate this complex interplay, a clear understanding of foundational concepts is essential. Colonialism, in its broadest sense, has been defined as systems and practices that “seek to impose the will of one people on another and to use the resources of the imposed people for the benefit of the imposer” (Asante, 2006, p. ix). This often involves political, physical, cultural, spiritual, and intellectual occupation, leading to the forceful displacement of Indigenous populations. Settler colonialism represents a distinct and particularly insidious form of colonization where outsiders claim land inhabited by Indigenous peoples as their own in perpetuity, aiming for the complete destruction and replacement of Indigenous people and their cultures to establish the settlers as rightful inhabitants. It is understood as an ongoing system rather than a mere historical event, perpetuating the erasure and destruction of native people as a precondition for land and resource expropriation. In contrast, neo-colonialism refers to the continuation of colonial-like rule by one state over another, typically involving a developed nation asserting economic and political control over a formerly colonized state that has gained independence, through indirect means rather than direct colonization. This report will critically investigate the emerging critique of space efforts as neo-colonial or settler-colonial, examining how historical patterns might be re-enacted in the cosmos. It will then pivot to explore alternative frameworks that prioritize inclusivity, planetary protection, and decolonial ethics, envisioning a cosmic future grounded in justice and care, where space exploration transcends national rivalries and corporate monopolies, fostering international cooperation and shared governance.
The discourse surrounding space exploration frequently employs language that directly parallels historical justifications for terrestrial colonialism, such as "frontierism" and "terra nullius." This is not merely a semantic choice; the persistent use of colonial terminology in space discourse reflects and risks embedding a colonial mindset that views celestial bodies as "empty" and ripe for exploitation, akin to historical justifications for terrestrial conquest. Calling outer space "empty" is a conceptual invention that presupposes a particular way of relating to that space, immediately legitimating and imposing certain forms of territorially based political rule. This choice of words is therefore a precursor to action and policy, influencing how humanity conceives of its relationship with extraterrestrial environments. The current framing of space as a "new frontier" for "colonization" by powerful actors often serves to "whitewash" or diminish the violent histories of terrestrial colonialism, thereby enabling the uncritical replication of those very patterns in a new domain. This suggests a deliberate or unconscious erasure of past harms, which then legitimizes similar actions in space, creating a self-perpetuating cycle of potential injustice. Without conscious decolonial reflection, space exploration risks becoming an extension of historical power imbalances, rather than a departure from them, perpetuating a harmful "single story of progress.”
The Echoes of Empire: Colonialism's Terrestrial Footprint
Colonialism, in its classic form, involved systems and practices where one people imposed their will on another, exploiting resources for their own benefit. This historical imposition often manifested through political, physical, cultural, spiritual, and intellectual occupation, leading to the forceful displacement of Indigenous populations. The long-term control exerted by the British Empire over vast territories in North America, Africa, and India serves as a poignant example, where colonial powers systematically imposed their own language, religion, and culture, actively suppressing existing traditions and leading to a profound loss of cultural heritage and identity among the colonized peoples.
Settler colonialism, a distinct and particularly destructive variant, goes beyond mere exploitation. It is characterized by the additional criterion of the complete destruction and replacement of Indigenous people and their cultures by the settler's own, with the explicit goal of establishing the settlers as the rightful inhabitants. This system perpetuates the destruction and elimination of Indigenous peoples, claiming their land as its own in perpetuity.6 Its foundation rests on the theft and exploitation of lands and resources, driven by deeply entrenched racism and white supremacy, often operating under the assumption that European cultures and values are inherently superior to Indigenous ones, thereby legitimizing the destruction of Indigenous rights and traditions.
The French annexation of Algeria, lasting from 1830 to 1962, provides a stark illustration. The French objective was to integrate Algeria into France by systematically erasing Indigenous rights, displacing populations, and "Francizing" city names, resulting in the deaths of five million Indigenous Algerians and the denial of their most basic rights.7 Similarly, the US settler state dispossessed over 98.9% of Indigenous lands, a process justified by concepts like Terra nullius, the notion of land belonging to no one, and Manifest Destiny, the belief in a divinely ordained expansion.
Following formal independence, many formerly colonized states found themselves in a new form of subjugation, termed neo-colonialism. This refers to the continuation of colonial-like rule by one state over another, typically involving a developed nation asserting power and control over a formerly colonized state through indirect economic and political influence rather than direct military or political occupation. The term originated from the anti-colonial and liberation movements in Africa during the 1950s and 1960s, with Kwame Nkrumah detailing it as a complex, all-encompassing system operating at political, economic, social, and cultural levels. In a neo-colonial state, despite possessing "all the outward trappings of international sovereignty," its economic system and political policy are, in reality, directed from outside. The mechanisms of neo-colonialism are varied and pervasive, including conditional development aid from former colonizers, international finance and trade systems that disproportionately favor Western nations and their corporations, the perpetuation of multinational corporations that exploit resources and labor without allowing local economies to genuinely expand, and persistent political interference in the internal affairs of developing nations.
The profound terrestrial impacts of these forms of coloniality are far-reaching and enduring. Environmentally, colonial enterprises, both accidentally and intentionally, introduced exotic plants, animals, and diseases to colonies, while also transporting biota back to Europe. Landscapes and waterscapes were fundamentally transformed through the introduction of unsustainable land use systems. Monoculture agriculture, for example, depleted soil nutrients, reduced biodiversity, and made ecosystems more vulnerable to global climate change. Vast areas of endemic forests were cleared, wetlands drained, and land reclaimed for farms, plantations, towns, and cities, as natural resources like timber, spices, and minerals were extracted to fuel the lifestyles and economic development of colonial powers. This process deeply intertwined colonialism and capitalism with pervasive environmental changes.
Societally, colonized peoples were systematically removed and dispossessed of their homelands, forced into planned and enforced situations of poverty with significantly less access to basic necessities than their colonizers. Global colonialism severely disrupted pre-existing Indigenous environmental governance and management regimes, systematically excluding colonized peoples from decision-making processes and leading to countless environmental injustices that regrettably persist to this day.
Culturally, colonial powers often imposed their own language, religion, and culture, actively suppressing the existing cultures and traditions of occupied countries, leading to a profound loss of cultural heritage and identity. Coloniality itself refers to the control and management of knowledge by the "universals" of Western modernity, Eurocentrism, and global capitalism, which denies people their language and cultural integrity by maintaining the legitimacy of only one language, one culture, and one frame of reference. This imposition also resulted in a "psychological enslavement of Africans to feel the need to fit into a Western society".
Economically, most former colonized states remain dependent on their former colonizers for aid and funds, leading to cycles of debt and continued exploitation. Neo-colonialism perpetuates a "lop-sided dependence on the export of raw materials, and the import of manufactured goods," creating a "vicious cycle of selling goods low, then buying them high." This economic alienation leads to stunted development, political instability, and high debts. Africa's nominal independence, for instance, has often not translated into genuine autonomy due to ongoing economic dominance, political interference, and cultural subjugation.
The various forms of colonialism, including classic colonialism, settler colonialism, and neo-colonialism, share core tenets of domination, resource exploitation, and cultural imposition, yet they differ significantly in their methods and ultimate goals regarding the subjugated population. Classic colonialism primarily focused on imposing will and exploiting resources. Settler colonialism, however, added the distinct goal of elimination and permanent replacement of Indigenous populations. Neo-colonialism, in contrast, operates through indirect control in the post-independence era. While the common thread running through all these forms is domination and exploitation, the mode of control (direct, elimination-focused, or indirect) and the target of that control (resources, land, people, or a combination thereof) vary, leading to distinct historical and ongoing impacts.
A pervasive understanding is that the "single story of progress, development, and civilization" propagated by Western modernity is inextricably linked to coloniality, serving as a powerful ideological justification for the devastation inflicted upon peoples and the planet. The very politics of modernity are inseparable from colonialism because of this singular narrative of progress that produced widespread devastation. This implies that the ideology of modern advancement and universal "truth," often rooted in Eurocentrism, has historically functioned as a tool for colonial expansion and exploitation, rather than a neutral force. This connection highlights how "cognitive imperialism” systematically delegitimizes other knowledge systems and justifies a "natural" order based on land ownership and racial hierarchy, thereby enabling widespread dispossession and violence.
Furthermore, the environmental degradation and socio-economic disparities observed globally today are not merely residual effects of past colonialism but are actively perpetuated by ongoing neo-colonial structures. This demonstrates that "decolonization" has often been incomplete, leaving former colonies in a state of pseudo-sovereignty. As evidence suggests, Africa's nominal and flag independence following decolonization has often not translated into genuine autonomy and self-sufficiency. This indicates that the mechanisms of neo-colonialism, such as unequal trade relationships, conditional foreign aid, multinational corporate exploitation, and political interference, are not simply historical footnotes but active forces that continue to hinder genuine development and perpetuate a cycle of exploitation. The deeper implication is that the "end of colonialism" was frequently a re-articulation of power dynamics, leading to a form of "decolonization" that was largely superficial in its economic and political dimensions, thereby maintaining the global order established by the US and the West.
To clarify these distinct yet interconnected historical forces, a comparative overview proves instructive.
| Feature | Classic Colonialism | Settler Colonialism | Neo-Colonialism |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary Goal | Resource extraction, trade, political control | Elimination and replacement of Indigenous population | Indirect economic/political/cultural control |
| Method of Control | Direct political/military rule, administrative structures | Physical displacement, cultural erasure, forced assimilation, land annexation | Economic agreements, foreign aid, multinational corporations, political interference |
| Relationship to Indigenous Population | Subjugation, forced labor, resource extraction | Destruction, replacement, assimilation, denial of rights | Economic dependency, cultural subjugation, political instability |
| Duration/Nature | Formal occupation, often finite | Ongoing system, perpetual, aims for permanent replacement | Post-independence, informal, continued influence |
| Key Justifications | "Civilizing mission," "progress," resource access, market expansion | Terra nullius, Manifest Destiny, white supremacy, "natural" order | "Development," "modernization," "free trade," "aid" |
| Environmental Impact | Resource extraction, monoculture agriculture, habitat destruction, introduction of exotic species | Disruption of Indigenous stewardship, land theft, environmental injustice, ecosystem transformation | Resource exploitation, environmental degradation, focus on export crops, perpetuation of climate injustice |
Celestial Frontiers: Critiques of Space Efforts as Neo-Colonial and Settler-Colonial
The discourse surrounding space exploration frequently employs problematic terminology that directly echoes Earth's history of expansion and conquest. Terms such as "new frontier," "wild west," "terra nullius," and "Mars colony" are commonly used in space colonization narratives. Technocrats like Elon Musk and politicians such as Ted Cruz openly use these terms to describe plans for human settlement on Mars, often comparing it to the "New World" of centuries past. This language, often presented as benign or aspirational, signals a "whitewashing" and diminishing of centuries of colonial and settler colonial history, revealing a profound failure to comprehend the historical suppression and domination that accompanied such terrestrial expansions.
The concept of "frontierism," initially proposed by Frederick Jackson Turner, describes a belief in the individual's ability to overcome challenges in a new territory and claim it as their own, thereby turning "unproductive land into an economic resource." This directly mirrors the historical justifications for westward expansion and the displacement of Indigenous populations on Earth. The notion of outer space as an "empty frontier" is not a neutral observation but rather a "conceptual invention" that presupposes a particular way of relating to that space, immediately beginning the process of legitimating and imposing certain forms of territorially based political rule. This imposition of a territorial conceptualization of property onto space thereby initiates a process akin to colonialism.
The conceptualization of celestial bodies as "empty" or "valueless" unless occupied and exploited by humans is a direct re-enactment of the colonial logic that justified the dispossession of Indigenous peoples on Earth. This is evident in the views of "space frontierists" who consider the cosmos and celestial objects valueless unless humans occupy them and extract economic and political value from them. This reveals a deep-seated colonial epistemology that devalues non-human-centric existence and justifies exploitation, thereby laying the groundwork for repeating historical patterns of dispossession and resource extraction.
Space colonization is not occurring in a political or economic vacuum; rather, it is profoundly shaped by existing power structures, commercial interests, and geopolitical competition. The increasing privatization of space exploration, spearheaded by billionaires and corporations, raises critical concerns about equity and accountability.
This emerging "space gold rush" risks replicating colonial resource extraction patterns, where wealth flows to a select few actors while others are systematically excluded.
Concerns are significant that space settlements could replicate existing social inequalities and hierarchies, potentially creating an elite "space aristocracy" with unprecedented power and resources, while the majority of humanity remains bound to Earth's worsening conditions. The immense cost of space colonization projects, such as SpaceX's Mars colonization initiative, which would require millions of dollars per person, raises fundamental questions about resource allocation. This diversion of funds and political attention toward distant dreams that may benefit only an elite few comes at the expense of addressing urgent terrestrial problems like climate justice and the pressing needs of marginalized communities. The historical use of Western science, including astronomy and planetary science, to reinforce "racial difference" and justify "colonial expansion, the slave trade, genocide, and the displacement of the Indigenous population" serves as a cautionary tale. Critics note the traditional majority of the NASA workforce being White males, evoking narratives of Western colonization that historically excluded, exploited, and dehumanized people of color.
The increasing privatization of space and the emergence of "astropolitical blocs" risk creating a new form of "digital colonialism" and exacerbating global inequalities, mirroring the historical concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a few during Earth's colonial era. The rapid deployment of mega-constellations by countries such as the United States and China, particularly SpaceX's efforts, restricts the ability of emerging nations to deploy their own satellites and participate in the space economy, leading to concerns about "digital colonialism" where rapid digitalization exacerbates disparities between the Global North and South. This indicates that the historical economic and political power imbalances are not only being replicated but potentially amplified in the space domain, creating new forms of dependency, control, and exclusion, effectively bypassing existing treaties that aim for equitable access.
The 1967 Outer Space Treaty declares space a global common, stipulating that no nation or individual can claim sovereignty over any celestial body. However, with growing interest in space resource extraction, there is increasing tension between this notion of shared space and the potential for private ownership of resources extracted from space. Some countries, including the United States, Luxembourg, and the United Arab Emirates, have passed national legislation allowing private companies to claim ownership of extracted resources, despite the lack of an internationally recognized legal framework governing space mining.This situation raises fundamental questions about fairness and equity: who should benefit from resources harvested in space? Should profits be shared globally, or can individual companies or nations claim them as their own?. The pursuit of space resources, such as asteroid mining and lunar resources, is seen as potentially perpetuating colonialism if viewed as a resource "just ripe to be exploited". Historical parallels are drawn between the maritime trading armadas of European powers in the Age of Discovery and modern space industrial complexes, suggesting a progression from exploration to trade and then colonization. This indicates a potential for "historical recurrence" where geopolitical rivalries extend to the Moon and Mars, with "astropolitical blocs" potentially bypassing existing treaties that prevent national appropriation of extraterrestrial resources.
Ethical Imperatives for the Cosmos: Planetary Protection and Responsible Stewardship
The responsible expansion into the cosmos necessitates a robust ethical framework, beginning with the critical principle of planetary protection. This is a system of internationally agreed guidelines applied in the exploration and use of space to avoid contamination of Earth and to prevent compromising the search for extraterrestrial life in the solar system. The Committee on Space Research (COSPAR) provides the international standard for planetary protection, with associated requirements for responsible space exploration, guiding the design of space missions to protect solar system bodies from biological contamination. This policy is crucial for preserving pristine environments that could be potentially habitable or offer an opportunity to understand the origin and evolution of the universe and Earth. More stringent constraints are applied to missions targeting bodies like Mars, Jupiter’s moon Europa, and Saturn’s Enceladus, where there is significant scientific interest in searching for life.
A significant challenge arises from the ethics of resource utilization and ownership in space. The 1967 Outer Space Treaty designates space as a global common, stipulating that no nation or individual can claim sovereignty over any celestial body.
However, the increasing interest in space resource extraction, for example, from asteroids or the Moon, creates tension between this notion of shared space and the potential for private ownership of resources extracted from space. Some countries have passed national legislation allowing private companies to claim extracted resources, despite the lack of an internationally recognized legal framework governing space mining. This situation raises fundamental questions about fairness and equity: who should benefit from resources harvested in space? Should profits be shared globally, or can individual companies or nations claim them as their own?. The concept of "planetary justice" is emerging, seeking to extend principles of justice, rights, and ethics beyond Earth. It calls for preemptive legal frameworks, ethical oversight, and participatory governance involving diverse stakeholders, including those traditionally marginalized, to ensure space expansion benefits all humanity.
The existing international space law, particularly the Outer Space Treaty, prohibits national appropriation but is ambiguous on private ownership and resource extraction, creating a legal vacuum that allows for unilateral national legislation. While the Outer Space Treaty (OST) establishes space as a global commons not subject to national appropriation, its vagueness on private ownership and resource extraction has led countries like the United States, Luxembourg, and the United Arab Emirates to pass their own domestic laws allowing private companies to claim extracted resources.
Further analysis of the limitations of both the OST and the Moon Agreement reveals an ongoing debate and a lack of clarity regarding the non-appropriation principle in the context of commercial resource activities. This significant governance gap creates a situation where the current legal and ethical frameworks for space, while attempting to prevent overt territorial claims, are struggling to adapt to the rapid commercialization and private interests, risking a "tragedy of the commons" in space similar to terrestrial resource depletion. An "atrophy scenario" is envisioned where unchecked commercialization, geopolitical rivalries, and environmental neglect converge to create a cosmos characterized by conflict, exploitation, and degradation. This suggests that existing frameworks are insufficient to manage the burgeoning commercial interests and competitive drives, potentially leading to a repeat of Earth's historical environmental degradation and resource conflicts, where short-term gains overshadow long-term sustainability.
The moral quandary of terraforming, the process of planetary engineering aimed at transforming a lifeless planet like Mars into a habitable environment resembling Earth, poses complex ethical questions. Arguments against terraforming include the potential disruption or destruction of existing ecosystems and geological features, such as Martian polar ice caps, which would erase evidence of the planet's history and potentially harm undetected life. From a virtue ethics perspective, terraforming could reveal vices such as insensitivity to beauty, by destroying the unique natural beauty of Martian landscapes, and hubris, reflecting excessive pride in human power to transform entire planets, especially given humanity's track record of environmental mismanagement on Earth. Critics contend that a species that has demonstrated a propensity to damage its home environment is ill-suited to colonize another, and that having a second home on Mars might effectively remove any incentive for solving Earth's pressing environmental problems. The debate over terraforming exposes a fundamental tension between anthropocentric and biocentric or ecocentric ethics, forcing humanity to confront whether its expansion into the cosmos should prioritize human needs above all else, or acknowledge the intrinsic value and right to exist of extraterrestrial environments and potential life. This challenges the very motivation behind certain types of space exploration, urging a shift from a purely utilitarian or conquest-oriented mindset to one of respect and stewardship.
Extending Earth's environmental ethics to space is a crucial step towards responsible cosmic engagement. Space Environmental Ethics applies principles of environmental responsibility to human actions beyond Earth, recognizing space not merely as a void or a resource to be exploited, but as a vast, complex, and increasingly utilized environment, including celestial bodies and the space surrounding Earth. Core principles include non-harm, advocating for minimizing human-induced changes to space environments unless absolutely necessary, and ensuring the long-term sustainability of activities like resource extraction and lunar bases. Relevant principles from international environmental law, such as the Preventive Principle, which compels space actors to take precautionary measures to avoid creating harmful space debris or contaminating celestial bodies, and the Polluter Pays Principle, which suggests that those who generate debris or cause degradation should bear the costs of remediation, are ethically compelling and applicable to space activities. Furthermore, Environmental Impact Assessment, requiring rigorous, transparent assessment processes for major space activities, is also a relevant ethical principle.
Forging an Inclusive Cosmic Future: Decolonial Ethics and Collaborative Frameworks
Decolonizing space represents a fundamental paradigm shift in humanity's approach to the cosmos. It means rethinking humanity's cosmic future to ensure equitable, sustainable, and ethical expansion beyond Earth. This process is a struggle against models that prioritize economic profits, treat people as mere resources, plunder land, and dehumanize lived experiences. It requires a radical new ethics of space exploration, moving beyond treating celestial bodies as sites of conquest and settlement. This involves challenging the "totalizing view of seeking supremacy in space" that persisted even after the Cold War and fundamentally redefining the modes of space activities. A decolonial approach scrutinizes the language used, moving away from terms that evoke conquest and ownership towards a lexicon of stewardship and shared benefit, actively rejecting the "whitewashing" of colonial history. This linguistic shift is a foundational step in decolonizing the approach to space.
Inclusivity and equitable access are paramount for a just cosmic future. Space endeavors must prioritize participation from historically marginalized communities, Indigenous peoples, and Global South nations, ensuring space is a collective human endeavor, not the exclusive domain of billionaires and powerful states. This includes bridging the "space divide" between spacefaring and non-spacefaring nations, ensuring diverse representation in the space workforce, and democratizing access to space-derived data and technologies. The UN Office for Outer Space Affairs (UNOOSA) actively works to expand access for the Global South by advising on national space legislation, helping countries launch payloads and access data through programs like "Access to Space for All" and KiboCUBE, and promoting gender equity through the Space4Women initiative. International cooperation models, such as the International Space Station (ISS), exemplify the potential for diverse nations, including the United States, Russia, Europe, Japan, and Canada, to overcome political complexities and collaborate on ambitious space programs, serving as a vital model for future endeavors.
The integration of Indigenous knowledge systems and cosmologies offers a transformative alternative to Western anthropocentric and territorial views of space. Indigenous cultures possess ancient wisdom and timeless narratives regarding humanity's relationship with the cosmos, predating modern space exploration by millennia, offering a rich tapestry of wisdom and sustainable practices. Indigenous knowledge systems, encompassing sky, land, seasonal, and environmental knowledge, can profoundly inform modern space practices, enriching humanity's presence in space.
Indigenous cosmologies often reject the Western notion of "outer space" as separate, viewing "Country" as encompassing land, sea, and sky, fostering kinship and connection to celestial bodies, thereby challenging the terra nullius concept that underpins colonial expansion. This profound ontological difference highlights that decolonization in space is not just about who goes to space, but how space is conceptualized, related to, and managed. "Cosmic caretaking" emphasizes the importance of fostering meaningful collaboration grounded in sustainable environmental caretaking, with Indigenous-led astro-environmentalism and conservation efforts preserving and protecting celestial environments. There is a clear need for the development of protocols for engaging Indigenous peoples in space activities, aligning with Indigenous values and practices, and emphasizing equal opportunities for Indigenous communities to learn, participate, and benefit from space science, technology, and careers. Indigenous culture and ethics inform space law by emphasizing shared responsibility and the concept that "space is for all of us. Space belongs to all of us and it belongs to none of us.” Australia, with the world's oldest continuous culture, is uniquely positioned to lead these global conversations.
Decolonial ethics and governance models are essential for this transformative shift. Decolonial praxis is a dynamic process of thought-action-reflection-action aimed at rehumanizing the world, redistributing resources, and producing counter-knowledges and counter-praxes, challenging Eurocentric and patriarchal ways of being, doing, thinking, and relating. This involves dismantling hegemonic structures by challenging Western-centric regulatory frameworks, such as the "Brussels Effect," and resisting economic exploitation, including the commodification of data and the exploitation of labor and resources in the "majority world" for data centers. Embracing "pluriversality" means acknowledging multiple forms of knowledge and ontologies, creating "a world where many worlds fit," centering marginalized people and interests, and incorporating local values and needs into data protection frameworks. Decolonial scholarship challenges universalized narratives of development, viewing it as a "local history that governs as a global design," and actively works to de-silence subaltern experiences by highlighting erased histories and counter-governance systems. New governance models should promote transparency, accountability, and ethical innovation, ensuring that space ambitions complement, rather than compete with, urgent efforts to heal Earth's crises. This calls for strengthening global governance frameworks to enforce equitable use and responsibility for long-term consequences.
True decolonization of space requires not just equitable access and diverse representation, but a radical re-evaluation of the purpose of space exploration itself.
This means moving from a profit-driven, survivalist, or supremacy-oriented imperative to one rooted in collective human flourishing, environmental stewardship, intergenerational justice, and a commitment to address terrestrial inequalities. While species survival and resource acquisition are often cited as benefits of space colonization, critiques highlight these motivations as potentially elitist or escapist, diverting resources from Earth's urgent problems. A humanist framework and the concept of planetary justice propose prioritizing global collaboration, ethical innovation, cultural pluralism, and Earth stewardship, emphasizing that space ambitions must complement terrestrial efforts.
Decolonial praxis, by rehumanizing the world, redistributing resources, and producing counter-knowledges, implies that merely making space accessible to more people is insufficient. The fundamental goals and values underpinning the entire enterprise must be decolonized. The ultimate purpose shifts from a narrow focus on human self-interest or conquest to a broader, interconnected responsibility for all life and environments, both on Earth and beyond, ensuring that space exploration serves as a force for global justice and sustainability.
Conclusion: A Call for Conscious Cosmic Engagement
The preceding analysis underscores a critical imperative: humanity's ongoing expansion into space, if left unchecked by a conscious ethical framework, risks replicating the detrimental patterns of terrestrial colonialism. This includes the unchecked exploitation of resources, the degradation of environments, the exacerbation of global inequalities, and the imposition of a singular, often Western, worldview upon new domains. The language employed in current space narratives, with its emphasis on "new frontiers" and "colonization," is far from benign; it carries significant historical baggage that perpetuates harmful ideologies, effectively "whitewashing" the violent realities of Earth's colonial past and legitimizing similar actions in the cosmos.
To forge a truly inclusive and just cosmic future, a multifaceted approach grounded in decolonial ethics is essential. It is imperative to establish and rigorously uphold planetary protection protocols, safeguarding celestial environments and any potential extraterrestrial life, thereby ensuring scientific integrity and preventing harmful contamination. Furthermore, the establishment of equitable governance frameworks for space resources is crucial. These frameworks must ensure that the benefits derived from cosmic wealth are shared by all humanity, not monopolized by a privileged few, thereby upholding the fundamental principle of space as a global common. The transformative potential of integrating Indigenous perspectives and decolonial ethics cannot be overstated. Moving towards a relational understanding of the cosmos, where "Country" extends to celestial bodies and demands "cosmic caretaking," offers a holistic and sustainable approach to humanity's presence in space, fundamentally challenging anthropocentric and extractive paradigms.
Ultimately, humanity's expansion into space should be guided by humility, foresight, and a deep sense of responsibility, acknowledging human fallibility and resisting the hubris that has historically driven destructive terrestrial endeavors. This calls for global collaboration, ethical innovation, and cultural pluralism in all space activities, ensuring that cosmic ambitions complement, rather than compete with, urgent efforts to heal Earth's crises and address its profound social injustices. The true aspiration for humanity in the cosmos should transcend mere survival or expansion; it should be to evolve into a multiplanetary species that embodies justice, equity, and sustainable stewardship across the universe, learning from Earth's past to build a truly inclusive destiny where space is a domain governed by justice, equity, and respect for all.
References
Asante, Molefi Kete. 2006. Colonialism, Coloniality and Settler Colonialism. York University.
Barbière, Cécile. 2015. "Europe's former imperial powers continue to target aid to ex-colonies." Guardian, April 22, 2015.
Battiste, Marie. 2005. "Indigenous Knowledge: Foundations for First Nations." Canadian Journal of Native Education 28, no. 1/2: 13.
Bormann, Nicole, and Michael Sheehan. 2009. The Half Life of Empire in Outer Space. European Institute of International Relations.
Brady, A. 2023. "Exploring Astroethics: Ethical Considerations in the Search for Extra-terrestrial Life." Walsh Medical Media.
Camacho, Ana, and Guljannat Huseynli. 2023. Preventing the Exploitation of Developing Nations from Neo-Colonialism. Old Dominion University Model United Nations Society.
Castillo, Mario, et al. 2023. "Critical Research Ethics as Decolonial Praxis: A comment and responses." SSOAR.
Committee on Space Research (COSPAR). 2019. Planetary Protection Policy.
Cornell Law School. n.d. "Settler Colonialism." Wex.
Dery, Mark. 2018. "Space is not just built for nothing, it’s built for people." Haskins.
Gardner, Leigh, and Tirthankar Roy. 2020. The Economic History of Colonialism. Oxford University Press.
Global Policy Forum. 2020. Neo-colonialism.
Guyette, Tristan. 2025. "No Space for Colonialism." Ploughshares.org.
Hospicing Modernity: A Conversation. n.d. Journal #139.
Mandelbaum, Michael. 2018. The Case for Colonizing Space.
Marshall, Alan. 1995. Wild West: The Frontier in American History.
Mignolo, Walter D., and Catherine E. Walsh. 2018. On Decoloniality: Concepts, Analytics, Praxis. Duke University Press.
NASA. 2023. "Space Station International Cooperation."
Nichols, Robert. 2012. Theft is Property! Duke University Press.
Nkrumah, Kwame. 1970. Neo-Colonialism, The Last Stage of Imperialism. International Publishers.
Oxfam. 2020. Addressing Neo-colonialism.
Redfield, Peter. 2002. "The Half Life of Empire in Outer Space." Public Culture 14, no. 3: 791-817.
Riegert, Jack William. 2019. "Neocolonialism and Globalization: The Dual Phenomena of Exploitation and Underdevelopment in Modern Africa." ResearchGate.
Rubenstein, Mary-Jane. 2022. Astro-Colonialism: The New Frontier.
Sanders, Deen. n.d. "Indigenous culture, ethics & space law." CSIRO.
Smiles, Deondre. 2025. "Not ‘Manifest’ but an ‘Inclusive’ Destiny: A Case for Decolonizing Space Exploration." E-International Relations.
Spencer, John. 2017. Space Exploration and Human Destiny.
Tuck, Eve, and K. Wayne Yang. 2019. Decolonization is Not a Metaphor. Routledge.
United Nations. 2007. United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP).
United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs (UNOOSA). 2021. Promoting Space Sustainability.
United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs (UNOOSA). 2025. "From the Global South to the stars: expanding access to outer space." UN News.
University of California, Santa Cruz. 2023. "Neocolonialism." Keywords.
University of Old Dominion. n.d. "Neo-colonialism."
University of Utah. n.d. "Equitable Access to Space." Research Horizons.
University of York. n.d. "Colonialism, Coloniality and Settler Colonialism." UnLeading.
Vally, Sumayya. 2020. Serpentine Pavilion.
Wilson, Mabel O. n.d. "African American History and Memorialization." Built By Us.
Wolfe, Patrick. 2006. "Settler Colonialism and the Elimination of the Native." Journal of Genocide Research 8, no. 4: 387-409.
Wynter, Sylvia. 2003. "Unsettling the Coloniality of Being/Power/Truth/Freedom: Towards the Human, After Man, Its Overrepresentation—An Argument." CR: The New Centennial Review 3, no. 3: 257-337.
York, Paul. 2009. "The Ethics of Terraforming." Philosophy Now 38.
Zwart, Melissa de. 2023. "Space Resource Activities and Indigenous Space Law Frameworks." ResearchNow Flinders.
Add comment
Comments