Who Owns the Cosmos? Unpacking the Ethics of Space Exploitation
In October 2025, during a technology conference in Italy, Jeff Bezos, founder of Amazon and Blue Origin, projected that within the next few decades, millions of people will reside in space, primarily by choice. He suggested that robots would handle most of the labor, making human presence more about preference than necessity.
Contrasting this vision, Will Bruey, CEO of Varda Space Industries, posited at TechCrunch Disrupt in San Francisco that within 15 to 20 years, it would be more economical to send working-class humans to orbit for a month than to develop advanced machinery. This assertion raises critical questions about the future of labor in space and the conditions under which these workers would operate.
Mary-Jane Rubenstein, Dean of Social Sciences and Professor of Religion and Science and Technology Studies at Wesleyan University, offers a critical perspective on this issue. She highlights the potential for exacerbated power imbalances, noting that workers already struggle on Earth with financial stability and safety. In space, these challenges could intensify, as employees would depend entirely on their employers for essentials like food, water, and even air. Rubenstein emphasizes that space is an inherently hostile environment, devoid of natural comforts, making the prospect of laboring there particularly daunting.
Beyond labor concerns, the question of ownership and resource exploitation in space is becoming increasingly contentious. The 1967 Outer Space Treaty established that no nation could claim sovereignty over celestial bodies, designating them as the collective heritage of humanity. However, the 2015 U.S. Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act allows private entities to own resources they extract from space, such as minerals from asteroids or the Moon. This legislation has sparked debates about the ethical implications of space resource exploitation and the potential for international conflicts over these assets.
Rubenstein draws an analogy to illustrate the issue: it’s akin to saying you can’t own a house, but you can own everything inside it. She argues that this perspective is flawed because the materials that constitute celestial bodies are integral to their identity; extracting and claiming ownership over these resources effectively equates to owning the celestial body itself.
Several companies are positioning themselves to capitalize on this legal framework. AstroForge is pursuing asteroid mining, while Interlune aims to extract Helium-3 from the Moon. These resources are finite, raising concerns about equitable access. Rubenstein points out that once a nation or company extracts these materials, they are no longer available to others, potentially leading to geopolitical tensions.
The international community has expressed apprehension regarding unilateral actions in space resource exploitation. At the 2016 United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space meeting, Russia criticized the U.S. legislation as a violation of international law, while Belgium warned of potential global economic imbalances.
In response, the U.S. introduced the Artemis Accords in 2020, bilateral agreements with allied nations that formalize the American interpretation of space law, particularly concerning resource extraction. While 60 countries have signed the Accords, notable absences include Russia and China, indicating a lack of global consensus.
Rubenstein critiques this approach, suggesting that it reflects a pattern of the U.S. setting rules and expecting others to follow or be excluded. The Accords do not explicitly legalize resource extraction but assert that such activities do not constitute national appropriation, as prohibited by the Outer Space Treaty. This nuanced stance attempts to navigate a complex legal landscape without directly addressing the core issues.
To foster a more inclusive and cooperative approach, Rubenstein proposes reinstating the United Nations and the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space as central authorities in space governance. She also advocates for repealing the Wolf Amendment, a 2011 U.S. law that restricts NASA and other federal agencies from collaborating with China without explicit approval. Rubenstein argues that if ambitious projects like establishing space hotels or colonizing Mars are considered feasible, then diplomatic collaboration with China should also be within reach.
Rubenstein’s broader concern centers on the current trajectory of space development, which she perceives as misguided. She categorizes science fiction into three genres: conquest narratives that promote national or capitalist expansion, dystopian tales that serve as warnings, and speculative fiction that envisions alternative societies with different values. She observes that current space initiatives predominantly align with the conquest model, missing opportunities to explore more equitable and just frameworks.
While significant policy shifts may not be imminent, Rubenstein identifies practical steps forward. Implementing stricter environmental regulations for space activities is crucial, as the impact of rocket emissions and re-entering debris on the ozone layer is not yet fully understood. Additionally, addressing the growing issue of space debris is imperative. With over 40,000 trackable objects orbiting Earth at high velocities, the risk of collisions increases, potentially rendering certain orbits unusable. This scenario, known as the Kessler effect, poses a threat to all space-faring nations and industries, making it a rare issue where interests align.
Rubenstein is developing a proposal for an annual conference that would bring together academics, NASA representatives, and industry leaders to discuss mindful, ethical, and collaborative approaches to space exploration. However, the political climate presents challenges. In July 2025, Congress introduced legislation to make the Wolf Amendment permanent, further entrenching restrictions on collaboration with China.
As startups project significant advancements in space within the next decade, and companies position themselves to exploit extraterrestrial resources, the ethical and legal frameworks governing these activities remain unsettled. The question of who gets to inherit the stars is not just a matter of technological capability but also of ethical responsibility and international cooperation.
