For the last sixty years of the space age, space exploration has been primarily about scientific discovery, aspiration, and international cooperation. The integrity of this vision of space exploration is being tested as the human technosphere expands into outer space: first low Earth orbit and eventually the Moon and possibly Mars. Although I am in favor of space development and find a future with humans in space more optimistic than one without humans in space, I argue that for now the priorities in deep space should be planetary science and exploration. Essentially, we need to do our homework so we can survive and thrive in the space environment. There is another increasingly relevant reason that we should focus on the scientific exploration of space and that is cognitive security against the temptation to create harmful versions of artificial general intelligence (AGI). With advancing capabilities in robotics and AI, it becomes tempting to see the universe as blank canvass or warehouse of raw materials rather than having intrinsic value. If we lose sight of the intrinsic value of the space environment, we are setting ourselves up for creating AIs that see the universe, and eventually humanity itself, the same way.
Recently, I had two conversations about the role of planetary science in the future of space development. In one conversation, my friend had been in planetary science but with advances in artificial intelligence now wondered whether we should focus on AI for now and AI could explore the universe later on our behalf. In another conversation, where we were talking about the importance of seeing intrinsic value in the space environment as space entrepreneurs make plans to mine the moon and asteroids, another friend asked why space conservation should be a focus. He was much more concerned about the threat of super-intelligent AI wiping out humanity.
In the 2014 book Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies, the philosopher Nick Bostrom outlined a scenario where an AI programmed to make paperclips becomes so focused on its single task that it makes the entire universe into paperclips. This is a common example of an artificial super-intelligence choosing an arbitrary task that harms humanity that cannot be stopped. This scenario seems less like science fiction to experts in AI research now than it did in 2014 due to developments such as the Mythos incident and the recent release of Claude Fable earlier this year (2026).
What is striking about the paperclip example is that is highlights the reason that planetary science and similar endeavors are essential to deterring the development of dangerous or non-aligned AI. Seeing the universe as being a marvel worth exploring encourages us to see the natural world as intrinsically valuable and thus more likely to create AI models that have the same attitude.
The scientific revolution was good in many ways. In addition to giving us a better understanding of the cosmos and our place within it, modern science has enabled us to heal previously incurable diseases, reduce famine, and create unprecedented levels of material prosperity. On the other hand, an 18th-19th century reductionist materialism led to the natural world primarily being seen either as an inanimate object to be dissected or as an economic resource to be exploited.
A result of this development is that there is a tendency in Western thought and now more broadly our currently global civilization to see nature as a blank canvass or warehouse of resources for humans to shape the universe as they see fit. Arguably, the environmental crisis of the mid-20th century and the ongoing climate crisis has challenged that view. Modern science now has a better understanding of Earth as being fragile and interconnected and that it is possible for our civilization to change the Earth in ways that are potentially harmful.
Interestingly enough, space exploration played an indirect role in this since it was viewing Earth from the moon for the first time during the Apollo 8 mission on December 24, 1968 that drove home the point of Earth’s fragility and uniqueness. For the first time, humanity saw Earth in true perspective and grasped that planet is finite and vulnerable in a vast unforgiving cosmos. The image of Earth above the Lunar surface helped inspire the environmental movement. Fifty-eight years later, a similar image was taken from the Artemis II spacecraft on April 6, 2026.
Carl Sagan’s celebration of the “pale blue dot” also has been a source of inspiration for valuing the planet we call home. The idea of Earth as being intrinsically valuable, fragile, and more than just a source of raw materials was extended to the outer space environment itself early in the Space Age. This is reflected even before the Earthrise image in the Outer Space Treaty (1967), which forbids activities that would harmfully contaminate the outer space environment or Earth itself (Article IX).
The pre-eminent advocate of human space exploration Carl Sagan also interestingly was critical of space development efforts that did not regard the integrity of the space environment. In his book Pale Blue Dot, inspired by image of the same name, Carl Sagan specifically criticized more extreme approaches to terraformation (like blasting away the whole atmosphere of Venus or nuking the ice caps on Mars) as being too brute force and disruptive to a planetary surface environment and its unique geology and characteristics. In the same book, Sagan also said that if there is life on Mars that we should not settle Mars. Mars would belong to the Martians.
In contrast, more recent space advocates don’t always seem to appreciate the intrinsic value of the space environment. Elon Musk is certainly interested in making Mars a future home for human civilization but has said very little about the value of Mars apart from its potential as a colony. Dr. Robert Zubrin of the Mars society has ridiculed the idea that we should avoid contaminating Mars with invasive Earth species even though astrobiologists consider this to be a major concern for both verifying that genuinely extraterrestrial life has been found and to avoid causing a mass extinction of a native ET ecosystem before we can discover it.
How does this relate to AI? If we just see the universe as warehouse of raw materials or as a passive stage for human history to play out, what is to stop us from creating an AI with the same attitude that ends up doing the very kind of thing that the AI in Nick Bostrom’s thought experiment does? After all, it could be argued that humans are already acting like paperclip generators as we cut down primeval rainforests to mine critical minerals for electronics essentially transforming rainforests into smartphones. I am not against technological development or mining, but if we don’t believe that at least some rainforests shouldn’t become smartphones, what is to stop us from building an AI with the same attitude? Also, if an AI only sees the universe as a source of raw materials, what is to stop them from seeing humans that way as well eventually (while technically aliens, this is the plot of All Tomorrows by C.M. Kösemen)?
While not the solution by itself, inspiring wonder through planetary exploration can be a form of cognitive security because it deters us from both becoming paperclip maximizers ourselves and from creating AI with the same attitude. Conversely, if we intrinsically value the space environment as well as Earth’s environment, it is more likely that we will create an AI that values the natural environment (and humans) as well.
Thank you for reading my Substack! If you like what you read, please share or subscribe and thank you again if you already have.
If you would like to support independent planetary science research, you can become a paid subscriber and double thanks if you already have.