Space Settlement: What’s the Rush? James S.J. Schwartz * Abstract In this paper I argue against several common objections to space set- tlement: that duties to future generations are incoherent; that humanity is not worth preserving; and that space settlement would lead to a “dis- posable planet” mentality. I provide a novel argument against space settlement—that it would interfere with the conduct of space science— that I claim is persuasive (at least over sub-millennial timescales). Thus my objection is not to space settlement as such, but rather, to those claiming an urgent need to instigate space settlement. 1 Introduction A common theme of space advocacy 1 is the idea that space exploration is uniquely well placed to satisfy a number of large-scale duties associated with the maintenance, preservation, and growth of human society. One such duty—to ensure the long-term survival of the human species—is said to implicate space settlement directly. Indeed, given the inevitable expan- sion of our sun into a red giant, there is a finite bound on the amount of time—measured in billions of years—during which Earth will remain hab- itable. Meanwhile, over shorter timescales, any number of threats might herald humanity’s end: meteorite impacts; solar flares; nuclear holocaust; global pandemics; Donald Trump’s second term, etc. Thus, the establishment of a permanent, self-sustaining extraterrestrial settlement would improve humanity’s chances of surviving a global terrestrial catastrophe, and conse- quently it appears we are morally obligated to pursue such settlements. The basic argument for space settlement, then, runs roughly as follows: 1. We have an obligation to extend human life (in the sense of species propagation) where possible. * Department of Philosophy, Wichita State University, USA. Email: james.schwartz@wichita.edu. 1 Including a past version of myself—see (Schwartz 2011). 1