Vocabulary Matters in Space, Too

GUSI gained a new advisor this week, Dr. William Krammer, an extraterrestrial environmental ethicist. Earlier this week, Dr. Krammer and I discussed the importance of the vocabulary we use to describe space and how it frames the way we interact with the extraterrestrial. He’s written an incredible, recommendable paper on the subject called To Humbly Go: Guarding Against Perpetuating Models of Colonization in the 100-Year Starship Study. Many of the ideas discussed in this blog post are attributable to our conversation and his paper.

The modern space industry lexicon on both the private and the public side is filled with disturbing vocabulary that evokes colonialist themes and invites hostility into our interactions with extraterrestrial environments and lifeforms. This vocabulary has seeped into government publications, television shows, science fiction books, and historical literature and has come to define humanity views space and our place in it.

Vocabulary may seem trivial, but it matters. As Dr. Krammer explains, it defines the way we interact with objects and the power structures between them. It determines whether or not we view something different as a friend or a foe. As a manned mission to the Red Planet becomes increasingly realistic, it’s more important than ever that we fix our vocabulary to match our modern morals and set ourselves up for healthy, positive interactions with space environments.

Vocabulary that paints extraterrestrial environments as hostile reflects the worst parts of human narcissism and should be dropped. No, extraterrestrial environments are not hostile. Extraterrestrial environments were not shaped with the intent of excluding humans. It’s a matter of our flawed biology that we are imperfectly suited for most extraterrestrial environments. As Dr. Krammer explains, vocabulary that establishes a relationship of hostility with the extraterrestrial is dangerous because it gives tacit consent to dominate, colonize, or otherwise shape that environment to suit the needs and wants of humanity. Similar vocabulary was used during the era of colonization to marginalize non-Europeans and rationalize the horrific acts perpetrated by Westerners during that period. We should seek to build a harmonious relationship with the extraterrestrial in our minds and in our language to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past. Words like “colony,” “colonize,” “conquer,” “conquest,” “discover,” and “mission” must be replaced with “embassy,” “voyage,” “learn,” and “understand.” When discussing the difficulties of space travel, hardships should be framed in the context of human inadequacy instead of environmental hostility.

Talk of terraforming has, unfortunately, pervaded discussions on Mars since human voyages became a possibility. Would we terraform Death Valley to be more temperate? Antarctica to be a little less chilly? Then why would we consider doing the same on Mars? Terraforming is unethical and poses serious risks. Permanently altering an extraterrestrial environment could result in the death of unknown lifeforms. In other words, by terraforming, we could kill our extraterrestrial neighbors. Instead, we should focus on augmenting human anatomy and biology to allow humans to more easily adapt to the Martian environment.

Humanity’s ability to venture into space is improving. So should our perspectives towards it. Our interactions with extraterrestrial environments (and possibly lifeforms) pose a litmus test of sorts for the degree to which humanity has evolved in its morals and character.

Brian Britt is a senior in the School of Foreign Service studying Science and Technology in International Affairs. He is a co-founder of the Georgetown University Space Initiative.