I get to do something exciting today and answer a couple of questions that a reader sent me. I’d like to do this more in the future, so if you have a topic you’d like me to discuss, please let me know!
The first question asks how property law deals with unclaimed land, and in particular space. Two caveats before I get to that. First, I did OK in property but it was hardly my best subject and I don’t have any particular interest in it, so while I trust my sources I’m far from an expert. Second, as at all other times on boydfuturist, nothing I say here is to be construed as legal advice. So, if you’re planning on claiming an asteroid or something, consult a lawyer.
The fancy Latin term for unclaimed land is terra nullius. There are a few such places still here on Earth – Antarctica, parts of the international sea, and an area between Egypt and Sudan known as Bir Tawil. Essentially all of space remains unclaimed. Traditionally, land that is terra nullius may be claimed by occupation.
In 1967, several countries signed the Outer Space Treaty (or, more formally, Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, 1967 U.S.T. Lexis 613, TIAS 6347.) This treaty bans countries from claiming celestial bodies for themselves. Specifically, Article II states: “Outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means.” As of 2011, 101 countries have signed and ratified this treaty, including every major country.
This leaves few legal possibilities for countries to claim celestial bodies. One of the countries that has not signed this treaty could theoretically claim such land, but none of them are currently in a position to attempt spaceflight. More likely, countries that have signed and ratified this treaty might choose to ignore it. This is a problem generally in international law, and stems in part from the inability of the United Nations to enforce their own laws. If a major signatory of this treaty, like the United States or China, decided to start claiming the moon or asteroids there is precious little that the U.N. could do about it.
Perhaps more likely, the treaty might also be repealed as spaceflight becomes more capable. The U.N. (or a body acting similarly in the future) might decide that the solar system is not claimable, and perhaps other habitable planets are not claimable by a particular country, but asteroids and other planets, being so abundant, might well claimable through occupation, adverse possession, use, or some other traditional mechanism. After all, if there are hundreds or thousands of asteroids, does it really matter if some percentage of them are claimed? Mightn’t the ability to claim celestial bodies drive space exploration and mining?
Another possibility is that by the time claiming celestial bodies becomes practical the countries of the Earth will meld into a single government. Presumably a single body claiming a celestial body for all of Earth comports with the intent and words of the treaty. Of course, many other changes would come with such a unification so any commentary about the effects of a single government on a multi-country treaty is speculative at best.
The second question asks about a hypothetical first contact. Who should extraterrestrials speak to? Alternately, if Earthlings were space bound and found a pre-spaceflight civilization, who should talk to them?
To my knowledge, no specific first-contact plan exists. If the contact were to occur in outer space, then Article V of the treaty might guide the interaction. According to Article V, astronauts are considered envoys of mankind, and so presumably have the authority to at least arrange a meeting. The astronauts are directed to report to the Secretary General of the United Nations or any other state party to the treaty of “any phenomena they discover in outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, which could constitute a danger to the life or health of astronauts.” Presumably this could include aliens.
If aliens arrive on Earth, then first contact is likely to be determined by the aliens themselves. Presumably, whatever human happens to be around will become the first spoken to. However, ideally shortly after that some high ranking official (President, King, Secretary General, etc.) will initiate contact and purport to speak at least for their own country or organization.
If contact comes from a signal, at least one draft argues for a defined set of protocol. The Declaration of Principles for Activities Following the Detection of Extraterrestrial Intelligence has been indorsed by various international agencies, and operates are a guideline. (http://www.webcitation.org/6DA5fYxH3). To my knowledge, this is not been formalized into an actual treaty. Presumably an outpost that discovers an extraterrestrial signal will forward news of that contact to various superiors or peers to check for authenticity, and then calls will be made to those same high ranking officials.
The Committee on Space Research (COSPAR) has issued the leading guidelines intended to prevent contamination of other life forms by Earthlings. COSPAR tailors its specific recommendations to the types of missions being undertaken. The list is as follows:
- Category I: Any mission to the Sun, Mercury, other locations not of interest for studying prebiotic chemistry or the origin and evolution of life.
- Category II: Any mission to the Earth’s Moon, Venus, comets, Jupiter, Pluto/Charon, Kuiper Belt Objects, other locations of interest for studying prebiotic chemistry and the origin of life but for which there is an insignificant probability of contamination with Earth life.
- Category III: Flyby and orbiter missions to locations with the potential to host life and for which there is a possibility of contamination by Earth life; e.g., Mars, Europa, Titan or Enceladus.
- Category IV: Lander or probe missions to locations with the potential to host life and for which there is a possibility of contamination by Earth life; e.g., Mars, Europa, Titan or Enceladus.
- Category V: Any earth return mission. Missions returning samples from locations with the potential to support life are considered ‘Restricted Earth Return’ and returned samples must be contained at levels more stringent than Biosafety level 4. Samples from locations judged unlikely to support life are considered ‘Unrestricted Earth Return’ and merit no constraints for planetary protection purposes.
Presumably, the sort of mission that would find a pre-spaceflight organization would fall into a Category III or IV classification. The specifics of these requirements are not readily available, but include at least documentation and some suggested protocol. (http://cosparhq.cnes.fr/Scistr/Pppolicy.htm) Further, this Planetary Protection policy is focused on accidental contamination, not with initiating intentional contact.
For my part, I think that if intentional contact is to be made with a pre-spaceflight civilization at all (and the Star Trek Prime Directive, allowing for natural progression into spaceflight capability might be wisest) then it ought to be made by the Secretary General of the United Nations as an ambassador of all of Earth (or an ambassador assigned by the Secretary General) or whatever the equivalent title is if the political landscape undergoes substantial changes by then.
Ladies and Gentlemen, Boydfuturist is back.
So much has happened in the last few months that I scarcely know where to start. Although I’ve been away longer than I’d anticipated, it was for a good reason: I was writing tons on content for school. This is both good and bad.
The good thing is that much of the content that I wrote for school is topical, and will fit right in here at boydfuturist.
The bad thing is that I hope to get it published, so I can’t just paste my work here. Also, much of it is dozens of pages long, so it’s probably not suitable for a blog post in its current form.
I can, however, fix both of these problems by giving you a synopsis of my papers – a boydfuturist first look. Today’s topic: Artificial Intelligence and Augmented Reality and their impact on the law.
Watson showed, in dramatic form, the capabilities of current computers when it (he?) defeated the two best Jeopardy! Players in the world almost two years ago. If Kurzweil’s law of accelerating returns holds, Watson ought to be about twice as efficient as it was then. Further, while the Jeopardy! win was impressive, what happened behind the scenes was more impressive. Watson learned, by reading natural language texts, how to find the answer to a Jeopardy! questions in but a few seconds.
Lawyers, also, use natural language documents to figure out the answers to questions. Just as Watson is being taught to answer questions in the medical and financial contexts, it seems that Watson could likewise help lawyers in the legal context. By scouring cases (helpfully in electronic form already) Watson ought to be able to learn legal theory and discern precedent much as lawyers do already.
When Watson is combined with other software, a truly comprehensive legal system begins to emerge. Lawyers find facts through a process called “discovery.” Among other things, discovery involves asking questions of witnesses, searching through computer systems and hard-copy file systems, and gathering expert opinions. Already e-discovery software exists that can help automate some of this process. Additionally, Watson could record client interviews and distill facts from the recordings. With access to the facts and the legal precedent, Watson could draft a brief through currently existing article writing software. With additional software, Watson can also help with negotiations.
Yet, despite Watson’s capabilities, there are some things for which an A.I. just isn’t suitable. While clients might not balk at a computer listening in to their interview, most are going to want to tell a real human being their troubles. That is – clients are unlikely to want to talk with a computer when seeking legal advice. Yet, it remains true that computers (including Watson, and the internet more generally) greatly assist attorneys, and that they could be of great benefit in these situations.
The answer to this dilemma lies in augmented reality. Through wearable computing like Google Glass, networked A.I. systems like Watson can continue to provide information to attorneys even when those attorneys must put in face-time with clients and others. The union of artificial intelligence and augmented reality makes portable the case-searching capabilities of the artificial intelligence and allows the A.I. to access areas otherwise off-limits to computers. Imagine a lawyer able to bring up a line of precedent in court without having to remember it off the top of his or her head.
Other software programs are able to detect emotion and lies. By combining these programs with A.I. and augmented reality, attorneys interviewing witnesses or the opposition can get a better read on when they are being deceived. The same combination can make an attorney more charming by feeding the attorney facts about the person he or she is talking to, and by detecting the subjects current emotional state and offering hints about how the attorney can bring the subject into a desired emotional state.
The interweaving of computers and professionals is well on its way, and there is little reason to think that the legal field will remain untouched. Attorneys who embrace technology are likely to have an advantage at first, and will remain competitive as more attorneys embrace technology. Eventually, it may be necessary to person one’s job.