At the 24th Annual International Mars Society Convention held October 14 – 17, Dr. Charles Cockell, professor of Astrobiology in the School of Physics and Astronomy at the University of Edinburgh, gave a talk on what he calls Freedom Engineering. His viewpoint was also published in a paper via the journal Space Policy in August of 2019. Cockell makes the case that due to the extreme constraints imposed by the laws of physics on living conditions in space settlements, freedom of movement will necessarily be restricted. Such conditions could be exploited by tyrannical governments to limit social, political and economic freedoms as well. To address these concerns Cockell suggests that colony designers utilize proactive engineering measures in planning off Earth communities to maximize liberty in the space environment. For example, rather then one centralized oxygen production facility or method that may be leveraged by a despot to control the population, it is suggested that settlements be designed with multiple facilities distributed widely and if possible, other types of oxygen production (e.g. greenhouses) be employed to minimize the chance of monopolization.
This engineering philosophy raised many questions among colleagues of mine so I reached out to Dr. Cockell for an interview via email to provide answers. He graciously agreed and I’m very grateful for his responses.
SSP: How is Freedom Engineering different from standard engineering practices of designing for redundancy to prevent single point failure?
CC: There is a strong overlap. For example, if you want redundancy, you multiply oxygen production. That would also be a desired objective to minimize the chances of monopolistic control over oxygen. So often the objectives are the same. However, I suggest that freedom engineering is a specific focus on engineering solutions that cannot be used to create coercive extraterrestrial regimes, which is not always the same as redundancy. For example, we might minimize the use of cameras and audio devices to monitor habitats for structural integrity, an objective consistent with general engineering demands, but potentially antithetical to human freedoms.
SSP: Since the added costs are significant and we may not be able to follow these practices initially, how do we get around the problems you mention after being on the Moon a decade or two? Wouldn’t the forces of tyranny have already won?
CC: Liberty is never cheap in resources and human effort. You can take a cost-cutting approach and hope that tyrannical regimes don’t take hold in a settlement or you can plan before hand to minimize their success, even if that involves more cost. However, as many freedom engineering solutions are compatible with redundancy, it is not necessarily the case that introducing measures like maximizing oxygen production and spacesuit manufacture motivated by considerations on liberty would add significantly to a cost already incurred by ensuring redundancy.
Liberty is never cheap in resources and human effort.
SSP: How do we avoid centralized control of transportation? Will we have two or more landing pads, several sets of rockets? – e.g., Musk, Bezos, and ULA?
CC: I would say that maximizing the number of entities with transportation capabilities is a good idea. Here too, we would want to achieve this for redundancy, but it would also reduce the chances of monopolization and the isolation of a settlement (particularly if leaving the settlement can only be achieved with one provider). This could also include multiplying the physical number of rocket launch and arrival points.
SSP: There are always non-redundant systems, which you acknowledge. At some level there are critical infrastructures that cannot be made redundant because then we get into an infinite loop. If a tyrannical power wanted to control everything on the Moon, for example, that is where they would focus their control. Can you comment?
CC: That’s true. It goes without saying that, as on Earth, a determined despot with enough support can find ways to take over a society. However, as the framers of the US Constitution understood, if you can introduce enough checks and balances you can make tyranny an outcome that requires many of those to fail. You reduce the risk. So by minimizing the number of single point controls in an extraterrestrial society you never eliminate the chances of tyranny, but you reduce the number of options open to those with tyrannical tendencies.
It goes without saying that, as on Earth, a determined despot with enough support can find ways to take over a society.
SSP: How would a tyrannical off-Earth settlement get its citizens when moving to such a settlement would seem like a terrible idea?
CC: It’s true that an overtly tyrannical settlement may eventually find it difficult to recruit people and might therefore fail. One might hope that this would be a feedback loop that would discourage tyranny in space. However, when building free government[s], it’s a good idea to assume the worse to achieve the best, i.e. assume that people will attempt to, and can, create a tyranny, and then build a system that minimizes this possibility. It’s also worth pointing out that once people are in a settlement, they will be physically isolated under some governance power. Just as it isn’t trivial to remove a tyranny on Earth that has a population corralled under it once it is established, it may not be easy to free a settlement once it has a population under its control. It is worthwhile to attempt to design societies that avoid this possibility from the beginning.
SSP: Would a space settlement economy with multiple competing companies providing essential needs such as life support, obviate the requirement for engineering redundancy since it would be more difficult for a tyrannical government to take over all the means of production?
CC: Yes, I think in many ways multiple competing companies is a form of redundancy – providing many conduits for production and minimizing single points of control or failure. Maximizing productive capacity is essential. I would mandate some basic level of oxygen production capability, for example, that any settlement must be capable of producing to keep people alive, and then try and stimulate a private market in fashionable oxygen machines of various kinds, different oxygen production methods etc. Of course, one should not be utopian. A coercive monopoly could still control a lot of this, but in general the more entities that produce vital resources, the more likely real choice can emerge in some form.
SSP: One reasonable measure that can be taken that doesn’t fall under normal engineering approaches is standardizing data transparency. It might make sense that it should be a matter of public record, and easily assessable, the records of who does what with vital resources and how activities that seriously impact human safety are managed. This can be done without compromising anyone’s intellectual property. The full light of day can be good protection especially when used proactively, and establishing such standards would head off the opportunity to wave things away as bias or smear campaigns. Open-source approaches to data are already a big thing for all the space agencies and may be the best course of action. Do you have an opinion on this philosophy?
CC: I think this is essential. The freedom engineering approach I suggest is just one mechanism for reducing coercive governance, but a free society is constructed from many other needs. In some of my previous papers I have discussed exactly this – the need for transparency in information about oxygen production, who is funding it, and how etc. A general culture of openness is necessary. There may be some novel approaches such electing members of the settlement by lot to take part in meetings to do with oxygen or water production, for instance, and write public reports. Corporations will find all this very annoying of course, but the wider culture of liberty will be enhanced by a very ‘leaky’ society with respect to information. Other essential things are a free press (even if that is just informal lunar or Martian newspapers), transparency in elections for running the settlement, and perhaps maximum terms on people involved in health and safety tasks to create fluidity in the network of officialdom that oversees the potentially large number of health and safety concerns with respect to radiation, dust, production of essential items.
Corporations will find all this very annoying of course, but the wider culture of liberty will be enhanced by a very ‘leaky’ society with respect to information.
