Yet Another Stealthy Space Meeting In Washington, DC

1. How does one decolonize something that hasn’t been colonized?

   1. Shhh!

   2. “Decolonization” is a reference to the potential expansion of colonialism. I’m sure Dr. Walkowicz is aware there are no colonies/settlements on Mars.

      1. Except it already has a specific meaning, and associated literature, that Dr. Walkowicz seems to be have ignored in using it.

         https://www.britannica.com/…

         “Decolonization, Process by which colonies become independent of the colonizing country.”

         http://www.un.org/en/decolo…

         The concept and literature on it go back to the 1830’s and Lord Durham’s report to Queen Victoria. It is really sad how many space experts seem to work in a vacuum without even trying to learn anything about relevant topic areas. Also the challenges of developing a post colonial governance model for space settlements has been discussed well in the United Societies in Space journal “Space Governance” founded by the late Declan O’Donnell. This is not a new idea or research area but one that has been around a while. I wonder if they invited any of the existing experts to the “unconference” or will involve them in the September meeting.

2. “Decolonize” in this sense refers to colonialism, not space colonies. It typically means dismantling or not recreating the political or economic systems of colonialism, and is usually applied to more earthly concerns. They don’t mean not settling Mars (although maybe some do), but more like a different philosophy of settlement.

   My sense from Twitter was that it was more journalists and academics than government people. I didn’t know it was convened by the LOC, so I don’t know what’s up with that or the attendance list.

   1. The model used will need to be different simply because Article 2 of the OST prohibits the Sovereignty which is required for Merchantile Economics which was its foundation. The model that emerges will likely be more like the one used in the American West, but without the negative ethical elements that came from Manifest Destinity and the Racism that were part of Westen Cultural in the 19th Century. But what this gathering seems to be doing is trying to apply the principles of extreme “Deep Ecology” to space.

3. Let me get this straight, the admin of Trump is holding a secret meeting to discuss not using the word “colonize” as it relates to space exploration? What’s wrong with this picture?

   1. There is no evidence this has anything to do with the Trump
      Administration. This is an event hosted by the Library of Congress.

      1. Why would the Library of Congress restrict access to an open meeting? Is this acceptable behavior?

         1. A good point. Does it fall under any of the open meeting laws? Does the LOC do this often?

            1. See Dr. Walkowicz’s comment above. This is addressed.

            2. Actually it dosen’t answer any of the legal questions. Also if someone like Keith failed to hear about it implies that the nomination process was not as open as it sounds. Social media has the potential to be very restrictive and narrow if you keep the network “closed” to outsiders.

               Since the topic was decolonization it would also be interesting to know if any of the historians. economic historians, anthropologists and political scientists who specialize in that field were invited, or as so often happens on space topics, was it merely a group of space policy experts and space scientists discussing a topic in a vacuum unaware of the extensive work done in other fields that would have relevance.

            3. How about a proposal to video stream meetings for what seems avid public attention in the subject. This eliminates venue crowding and will witness the attendees on their best behavior. This video would be free for members of the conference and to those who have demonstrated an interest. Moreover, the conference will have an at-length time period for questions to respond to issues brought in the presentations. The discussion of the subject should be a part of the unedited record.

            4. I’m not an attorney (eew) That being said I think have not found any evidence that the conducting a private meeting is possible under meeting laws. That is state law. If the meeting was held in DC, the meeting falls under law which is loathe to permit a private meeting concerning a topic of such public concern.
               Dave

            5. The Library of Congress is a federal government agency and its facilities are owned by the federal government and their operation is paid for with federal taxes. Staff paid with government funds ran this meeting in that government facility which was organized under the auspices of a program co-funded by LOC and another government agency, NASA.

            6. Also public meetings are listed as one of the requirements of Scholar in Residence program.

               https://www.loc.gov/item/pr…

               “The Library of Congress collections include unique legislative material, which can provide primary resources on the international and domestic policies governing human exploration of space” says Walkowicz, who will also convene public meetings, bringing together the brightest, most diverse minds working at the intersections of space and society today, to explore paths towards becoming an interplanetary species that enhances access to space, rather than mirroring our Earthbound inequalities.”

         2. if you read the comment from the Dr. Walkowicz, who was the organizer of this event, this is addressed. The event’s access was not restricted in the sense I think you mean. It was open nomination-based attendance and had a cap based on the venue’s space.

            1. It was not open to taxpayers. It was open to whom the organizers thought should attend. There is a big difference.

4. Sounds like the environmentalists are getting together with the planetary protection folks to stop space development.

   1. *Scientist who are worried about tainting our ability to study Mars without being tainted with human activity. A settlement at this point would keep scientists from studying the planet in its currently untouched form. I’m sure some of the views shared were from environmentalists, but I think it should be obvious to assume actual scientists (who have actually have authority on the subjects you’re bemoaning) have more of a stake in planetary conservation over the reckless activity of private companies. Take a second to consider whether you’d be happy with federally funded science supporting private companies.

      1. We won’t know since the meeting was closed to news media and no minutes were taken. Were you there “Vacation Paste” (I assume that is your real name).

5. The web site also describes this as an “unconference”, and I get the impression it’s part of some series experimenting with conference formats and organization. Oddly, the site describes an “unconference” as:

   Unconference Basics
   An un-conference is any event where the agenda is set by those who attend.
   The rules of an un-conference are simple:
   Rule #1: Whoever shows up are the right people
   Rule #2: Whatever happens is fine (within the Code of Conduct)
   Rule #3: Whenever it starts is the right time
   Rule #4: It is over when it’s over

   I’m curious how rule #1 can be reconciled with an invitation-only meeting.

   1. the meeting was not invitation only. See the organizer, Dr. Walkowicz’s comment.

6. This unconference may have not been public, but the people who attended certainly are chatty on Twitter about the content, including showing what the sessions were entitled and who suggested them. There’s to be a public version in September, listed on their web site. It seems like a real mashup of different perspectives and concerns, many of which appear to be painfully innocuous. https://www.decolonizemars….

   1. It seems that one of the tracks, Beat 3: Alternative Futurisms, will focus on Manifest Destiny in terms of space exploration and development. It will be interesting to see how they approach it. And who they invite to discussion it. But the focus on it is interesting. It seems that they are focusing on undermining the roots of the space movement. Does anyone know if Kim Stanley Robinson is involved as this has been his recent focus, especially in his recent novel “Aurora” where those desiring to spread humanity throughout the Galaxy are shown as fools and the villains of the story.

7. Hi all! I’m Lucianne Walkowicz, the current Chair of Astrobiology at the Library of Congress. I’m not sure why Keith didn’t use my name above— we worked together on the ISEE-3 Lunar Flyby public event a few years ago. Hi Keith ? anyway, I’m seeing a lot of misconceptions about the event in both the blog post above and in the comments, so I thought I’d offer to do a little Q&A on here. Here’s a brief FAQ— if you want to ask other stuff, please reply to this thread! If you ask today I’ll try to address your question (I can’t promise to do so indefinitely, as tomorrow I’m traveling to celebrate my partner’s birthday, and our engagement!). Without further ado:
   – I’m not a government employee— I’m an academic doing research at the Library (just like the previous four Blumberg astrobiology chairs).
   – the meeting had open nominations, and self-nominations were encouraged. The main reason to have nominations (rather than sign-ups) is that our meeting space has a finite size, and I did almost all the logistics and purchasing of supplies (like name tags, etc) on my own, out of my own pocket. The Library kindly provided some food, and of course, the meeting space. We also had a number of teen attendees from Urban Alliance (a jobs training and mentoring program) in on Friday, so I had to make sure we had space to accommodate different numbers of attendees on different days.
   – the attendee list was private for security reasons. I get harassed a lot, and because I work in public institutions and do a lot of public outreach, I have to be cautious about my safety. That means that I’m also considerate that that might be a concern for attendees, too— though I actually asked everyone yesterday whether they’d be okay with the attendee list being public now, so barring major objections, it should be soon.
   – regarding media: because the meeting format was focused on discussion and personal interaction, the science writers who attended the meeting were asked to please focus on participating as individuals, rather than recording (as one would if solely there to cover an event for the press). The only person who nominated themselves to attend and did not receive an invite was a reporter who just wanted to report on it and not participate, for whom the public event in September is a better venue.
   – which brings me to… the public event in September! It’s on 9/27, from 9-5, and you can attend in person or watch online, and I hope you will! I’m confirming our panelists now, and will be posting them once everyone is confirmed, so stay tuned.

   1. Thanks for your reply. I most certainly know who you are 😉 As for visibility for this event – I knew nothing about it until it was underway. I asked NASA HQ and they were in the dark as well. Since your chair title says “NASA” in it and compensation is provided by the US government I was somewhat baffled as to why this event was not more widely publicized. I run astrobiology.com which regularlyranks 2nd-4th in Google searches for “astrobiology” and I live a 50 minute Metro ride away – yet no one invited me. I am writing a book on Astrobiology and I’d have been happy to just participate. As for the harassment issue – yea, I know that it is very real and not taken seriously by a lot of people. Indeed, FWIW, I did not use your name since my commentary had nothing to do with you individually. That said, I am hard pressed to recall a meeting like this in DC that was as cloistered as this. Indeed virtually every astrobiology event I have been to – starting with the original organizing meetings in 1996/1997 – were wide open. A scientific discipline that closes itself off is not going to thrive.

      1. Fair enough, but the nomination form was distributed widely on Twitter, in addition to being readily available on the website until about a month beforehand (I had to order name tags and finalize numbers). Also a handful of people from HQ were invited/nominated themselves (including Jim Green), so at least some folks were aware. I do realize that there’s a lot going on and it’s easy to miss events. As to openness, it’s true that lots of meetings are open, but lots aren’t– they just don’t have websites or the ability to nominate one’s self or others to attend, so you don’t know about them (I certainly don’t know about all of them either!). Ironically, it’s the attempt at openness that you’re calling out for being cloistered, when I think what I’m hearing is just that you might have liked to attend 🙂 FWIW, we’re working on a newsletter (which you can sign up to receive here: bit.ly/DecolonizeSpace) and thinking about have another meeting sometime, hopefully next year (probably elsewhere however, as my term here ends in the fall). Also, please feel free to send me an email if you would like to have a coffee at the LOC, since you’re in the area– it is far more direct than writing a blog post 🙂

         1. A simple media advisory sent out in the traditional fashion would have reached those of us who did not happen to be looking at Twitter the moment the tweet(s) went out. Indeed I would have been able to amplify the nomination process had I been given a heads up. Had I known about this event so close to my home and easy to get to I would have attended and participated to the extent people were interested in my participation or not. If it was webcast I would have certainly tuned in and told others about it.

            1. In that case, I look forward to seeing you at the event in September, for which there will be a media advisory, and which is open to all, and will be streamed online. You may disagree, but I think there is room in the world for multiple forms of gatherings, and this particular meeting format doesn’t really lend itself to live broadcast. I realize we all live partly online these days, but sometimes, there has to be room for people to talk face to face, without mediation from the internet. That’s my $0.02, which you can take for whatever it’s worth 🙂

            2. Thanks. I will keep a eye open. The other meeting was held in an official capacity so it really did need to be more open even if it was only face-to-face and not webcast.

         2. As I posted above, the academic field of decolonization has been around for decades and has quite a different focus.

            https://www.britannica.com/…

            “Decolonization, Process by which colonies become independent of the colonizing country.”

            http://www.un.org/en/decolo…

            Creating a news letter that misuses that name is likely to cause confusion.

            What it seems you are trying to do, based on the very limited information released, is to hold a conference discussing possible post colonial models for space settlement. It is a interesting topic and one individuals have been writing about for years under the terms of space governance and space economic development. It would be good to see your conference build on such past efforts.

            Also, since your conference seems to be exploring ways to protect possible planetary ecosystems it might also be useful to include the researchers who have been writing for decades on environmental ethics as applied to space. You might want to look especially at the work of Dr. Eugene Hargrove in this area.

8. I’m still a little vague on what was discussed. maybe someone who was there can give us a rundown. It might be that because of the highly nontrivial cost, colonizing Mars is impractical, at least for the present, and maybe indefinitely. But I don’t feel that it is existentially or phylosophically wrong.

Comments are closed.