SpaceX
Yes, we deserve to colonize Mars and keep our “light of consciousness”
Elon Musk has spoken previously about having a duty to maintain the “light of consciousness” of humanity as the main rationale for multi-planetary habitation, or why we should colonize Mars specifically. It’s a pretty simple concept, really. Eventually the Earth will no longer be able to host human life as we know it, suffering from some sort of malady which will wipe out our species. Pick your poison: Asteroid attack, the Sun’s Earth-engulfing expansion, or even climate change. Something will bring us down, someday, unless we are proactive in our approach to survival.
Unfortunately, facts are fun things that don’t always help with solving problems (and annoyingly so), but it seems there’s also a crowd that doesn’t disagree with the facts and instead questions whether we even “deserve” to respond to them altogether.
In her recent TechCrunch article titled “The Ethics of Colonizing Mars”, Shivika Sinha cited Elon Musk, NASA, and the progress being made towards Mars and then asked the question, “Do humans deserve to be multi-planetary?”
Her argument framed capitalism and consumerism as co-conspirators of our modern societal woes, and her conclusion was that we need to change our “parasitic” ways before exporting them to other planets in the universe. The whole argument was really just the human-shaming version of “fix Earth first”, a common objection to deep space colonization.
Interplanetary Transport System by SpaceX
As a perfect, imperfect example of one of billions of humans on this planet, I will quite willingly admit that we are not a perfect species; however, I don’t understand why there’s so much guilt felt for merely existing in certain sects of society. It’s your choice whether to like who you are, but remember that you cannot live without living. You cannot stop pursuing the long-term survival of the species simply because you do not approve of its current state. Why aspire to be more if we are telling ourselves we are not even good enough to be such?
Behavior takes time to adjust. We do not live in a controlled, variable-limited scientific model society wherein our survival mechanisms are neatly categorized into “good” vs. “bad” choices. And more still, since when did survival become a question of worth? Many of humanity’s greatest accomplishments in societal evolution have been those which expand the ability to survive. Indeed, a huge part of compassion in our value system is the belief that everyone has the right to a life that is so much more than simply surviving. Given the consequences of not eventually going to colonize another planet, how does the logic compute that our species is suddenly not worthy of existence whatsoever?
Sinha points to the flaws in our system which are in contradiction with the natural world, destroying it specifically, yet she doesn’t credit the source of the flaws to begin with: That same natural world. We were born in it, raised in it, and learned to survive based on those experiences. Somewhere along the line, we developed consciousness as a result of that process of surviving. We didn’t suddenly arrive on a beautifully balanced Earth ecosystem and begin sucking resources to feed our ravenous appetites. We fought hard to get here, and as an evolved species of this planet, we have the right to fight to continue to survive – just as every other living creature on Earth has done.
But that’s not the line of discussion I wanted to flesh out here.
Instead, I’d like to suggest that multi-planetary habitation is actually quite compatible with Sinha’s (and others like her) perspective because colonization is more than just a survival plan: It’s a tool for evolving our consciousness towards a value system which includes “conscious consumerism” by default.
We evolved with the resources available in our Earth environment, and we’ve often taken them for granted because they were always there and available to us. When we take our species to colonize Mars, we will be doing just the opposite by transforming its environment to provide resources we need to survive. The very act of creating an environment fit for our survival will transform us into hyper-aware custodians. Every resource will be valued right down to the tiniest amounts measurable because even the most minute amounts will be important. Every action we take will have reactions that we must carefully calculate if we hope to survive.
Taking the human race into deep space is so much more than “exporting” our consumerism once we’ve outgrown its birth place. It’s evolving who we are, increasing our awareness, and forcing us to understand the environments we will depend on and cannot risk taking for granted. We will be conscious of every choice we make as a matter of survival, and those lessons we learn in the early days of exploration will set the stage for the next phase of human colonization.
In the end, I think we’re all on the same page as far as long-term “colonize Mars” goals. The difference is simply in perspective. Taking our species to places like Mars isn’t an act based on some sort of contrived selfishness. It’s answering something we’ve had calling to us since the beginning of time: The stars. We came from them, and it’s to be expected that eventually we will want to return. Mars is the next step.
Onwards.
Elon Musk
SpaceX secures win as US labor board drops oversight case
The NLRB confirmed that it no longer has jurisdiction over SpaceX.
SpaceX scored a legal victory after the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) decided to dismiss a case which accused the company of terminating engineers who were involved in an open letter against founder Elon Musk.
The NLRB confirmed that it no longer has jurisdiction over SpaceX. The update was initially shared by Bloomberg News, which cited a letter about the matter it reportedly reviewed.
In a letter to the former employees’ lawyers, the labor board stated that the affected employees were under the jurisdiction of the National Mediation Board (NMB), not the NLRB. As a result, the labor board stated that it was dismissing the case.
As per Danielle Pierce, a regional director of the agency, “the National Labor Relations Board lacks jurisdiction over the Employer and, therefore, I am dismissing your charge.”
The NMB typically oversees airlines and railroads. The NLRB, on the other hand, covers most private-sector employers, as well as manufacturers such as Boeing.
The former SpaceX engineers have argued that the private space company did not belong under the NMB’s jurisdiction because SpaceX only offers services to “hand-picked customers.”
In an opinion, however, the NMB stated that SpaceX was under its jurisdiction because “space transport includes air travel” to get to outer space. The mediation board also noted that anyone can contact SpaceX to secure its services.
SpaceX had previously challenged the NLRB’s authority in court, arguing that the agency’s structure was unconstitutional. Jennifer Abruzzo, the NLRB general counsel under former United States President Joe Biden, rejected SpaceX’s claims. Following Abruzzo’s termination under the Trump administration, however, SpaceX asked the labor board to reconsider its arguments.
SpaceX is not the only company that has challenged the constitutionality of the NLRB. Since SpaceX filed its legal challenge against the agency in 2024, other high-profile companies have followed suit. These include Amazon, which has filed similar cases that are now pending.
Elon Musk
SpaceX blocks unauthorized Starlink terminals used by Russian troops
Ukrainian officials confirmed that Starlink terminals believed to be used by Russian troops were disabled after coordination with SpaceX.
SpaceX has taken steps to block unauthorized use of its Starlink satellite internet network, a move Ukrainian officials stated is already disrupting Russian military communications.
Russian units lose a key communications tool
As per a report from The Guardian, Ukrainian defense officials have confirmed that Starlink terminals believed to be used by Russian troops were recently disabled after coordination with SpaceX. The move reportedly affected frontline communications and drone operations, especially in areas where traditional military radios are unreliable or easily jammed.
For months, Russian units had relied on large numbers of illicitly obtained Starlink terminals to stay connected along the front. The satellite internet service allowed faster coordination and more precise drone use for Russian forces.
Several Russian military bloggers close to frontline units have acknowledged the impact of the Starlink shutdown, with some describing sudden connectivity problems in the satellite internet service.
Russia lacks comparable replacement
Russia does not have a satellite internet system that matches Starlink’s speed, coverage, and ease of deployment. Alternatives such as fiber-optic lines, short-range wireless links, and digital radio systems take longer to install and work inadequately for fast-moving units.
Russia does operate limited satellite communications through state-linked providers, but those systems rely mainly on geostationary satellites, which are notably slower. Coverage is uneven, and data capacity is far lower than Starlink’s low-Earth-orbit network.
For now, Ukraine has stated that it has introduced a verification system that allows only approved Starlink terminals to connect. Devices believed to be linked to Russian forces are blocked from the network. That being said, Ukrainian officials have also claimed Russian units are trying to work around the restrictions by asking civilians to register Starlink terminals in their names.
Elon Musk
Elon Musk pivots SpaceX plans to Moon base before Mars
The shift, Musk explained, is driven by launch cadence and the urgency of securing humanity’s long-term survival beyond Earth, among others.
Elon Musk has clarified that SpaceX is prioritizing the Moon over Mars as the fastest path to establishing a self-growing off-world civilization.
The shift, Musk explained, is driven by launch cadence and the urgency of securing humanity’s long-term survival beyond Earth, among others.
Why the Moon is now SpaceX’s priority
In a series of posts on X, Elon Musk stated that SpaceX is focusing on building a self-growing city on the Moon because it can be achieved significantly faster than a comparable settlement on Mars. As per Musk, a Moon city could possibly be completed in under 10 years, while a similar settlement on Mars would likely require more than 20.
“For those unaware, SpaceX has already shifted focus to building a self-growing city on the Moon, as we can potentially achieve that in less than 10 years, whereas Mars would take 20+ years. The mission of SpaceX remains the same: extend consciousness and life as we know it to the stars,” Musk wrote in a post on X.
Musk highlighted that launch windows to Mars only open roughly every 26 months, with a six-month transit time, whereas missions to the Moon can launch approximately every 10 days and arrive in about two days. That difference, Musk stated, allows SpaceX to iterate far more rapidly on infrastructure, logistics, and survival systems.
“The critical path to a self-growing Moon city is faster,” Musk noted in a follow-up post.
Mars still matters, but runs in parallel
Despite the pivot to the Moon, Musk stressed that SpaceX has not abandoned Mars. Instead, Mars development is expected to begin in about five to seven years and proceed alongside the company’s lunar efforts.
Musk explained that SpaceX would continue launching directly from Earth to Mars when possible, rather than routing missions through the Moon, citing limited fuel availability on the lunar surface. The Moon’s role, he stated, is not as a staging point for Mars, but as the fastest achievable location for a self-sustaining off-world civilization.
“The Moon would establish a foothold beyond Earth quickly, to protect life against risk of a natural or manmade disaster on Earth,” Musk wrote.
Tesla adds a new feature to Navigation in preparation for a new vehicle
Tesla stock gets latest synopsis from Jim Cramer: ‘It’s actually a robotics company’
