The Ethical Implications of Dismantling the Planet Mercury

George Dvorsky's article about How to Build a Dyson Sphere was absolutely fascinating and I feel the concept deserves much further exploration.

"By enveloping the sun with a massive array of solar panels, humanity would graduate to a Type 2 Kardashev civilization capable of utilising nearly 100% of the sun's energy output. A Dyson sphere would provide us with more energy than we would ever know what to do with"

Now, this is the kind of ridiculous, overambitious idea that that really captures my imagination. It would be a hyper structure, like the Hoover dam but on steroids, where we would create unfathomable devastation, calling on the skills and labour of thousands, enduring the harshest that nature can throw at us in order to tame it - all in the name of energy. Where the Hoover dam transformed a country, this would transform our entire solar system. But it's not without cost. And that's what I want to discuss.

In order to get the materials to build this monolith of human achievement, we're going to have to make some sacrifices. Namely, the planet Mercury.

But what are the ethical implications of dismantling an entire planet for our own purposes?

One might argue that it's an otherwise useless planet, a burning chunk of iron and rock with no desirable real estate or even aesthetic value. But does that make it Ok to take it apart for spares?

What will future generations think about dismantling the planet Mercury? They will probably be a lot more conscious about the implications of such vast resource exploitation, given that they may be growing up in a world devastated by it.


Mercury of course raises another issue that may throw a spanner in the works, that of legal rights. Who owns Mercury? Does anyone? Even if someone did own it - this might not stop someone who has the facilities to get there from taking it from someone who can't. 

We could put it to a democratic vote, involving the whole world, but could you imagine the political nightmare a worldwide vote would be? Coordinating the political process across different cultures, legal systems, technology levels, ideologies, and population sizes would be a logistical task comparable to dismantling a planet.

How Decisions are Made in the Real World

At the end of the day whether or not something is ethical has very little bearing on whether it goes ahead. What matters is the decision making mechanism of the time.

Right now, our decisions are based on finances. What is wrong or right is always superseded by the potential to make money, save money, or the liability to cost money. If it would be profitable to dismantle the planet Mercury, all it takes is someone with enough power to get the idea into their head and it will happen. I'm not sure that currently, there is any business or government in the world with enough money or resources to put this idea into practise yet, but that may change in the future.

Perhaps by the time a Dyson sphere becomes feasible, society will be running on a different modus operandi. Perhaps there will be a different currency other than money, something else that holds value but is traded in a similar way. If this currency was directly related to the Dyson sphere, for example, if it was energy, then this might also drive the Dyson sphere's production and supersede any moral concerns about dismantling planets. If the currency was something else, such as art or community help, then production might not be pursued as the need for the Dyson sphere wouldn't be reconciled by the needs of the people. But the project will always remain a possibility as long as energy holds value, and it probably always will, the question would be how much.

Practical Implications

As well as the ethical and legal implications, we would also have to consider the practical ones, as these may also have ethical implications of their own. For example, what about the effect on the gravity of the whole solar system? If something went wrong, the Earth could end up falling into the sun or flying off into space - these are pretty serious ethical concerns! Of course there would need to be some extremely accurate calculations before we attempted to commence resource extraction of this scale.

A Responsibility

After all the negative ethical dilemmas brought about when deciding whether or not to dismantle Mercury, It could very well be argued that it is actually our responsibility to uplift humanity, to alleviate suffering. That it's humanity's purpose to advance our technology, our civilisation, our place in the universe. To do this, we need to use all the resources we have available to us. It would be unethical not to.

The question would then be, what will be the return on this mother of all investments?


IgorVujcic said…
It is hard to imagine the power that could throw Earth into the Sun, and dismantling of Mercury would play no part in that process (if it is possible).
The thing which I believe is important to emphasize is that in spite of your point that it's an overambitious project, it is something that we must. We're using up our fossil fuels, and, like it or not, in order to advance as civilization, we NEED energy. And using solar energy is the best possible option, and also, not destructive at all. In fact, I believe that after creating this megastructure, future generations would live in a world with less pollution because we will not need coal or oil. Just imagine how this project could improve not just our technology, but also, our struggle for world peace.
Stuart said…
I agree Igor, and I ended the post to this effect - I think it would be wrong not to do whatever possible to uplift humanity.
Unknown said…
I think one of the other things we must consider is in what form we transport the energy. Transporting it from around the solar system to earth and other "hubs" of civilisation would be problematic at best. The best way i can think of so far is transport via laser. But then is it such a good idea to shine down a constant beam at earth with the power of a star?
Anonymous said…
Energy gathered by the Dyson Sphere would mostly be used by the sphere itself. I think most artist conceptions of the Dyson Sphere involve populations actually living on and inside the sphere. Earth might end up being leftover as a kind of museum of humanity. We could stop extracting natural resources from Earth, since we are getting all the energy we need from the Sphere, therefor the Earth could heal itself and become a paradise. Humanity could spread out all over the solar system, leaving Earth, our home planet, alone.
Stuart said…
+Adam Nadeau So what you're saying is a Dyson sphere is basically an array of artificial planets... :\

Popular posts from this blog

Guns Might Be the Least of Our Worries

Living Longer - A World of Wisdom?