SRI IV WORLD CONGRESS

Jul

2026

SRIC4 Day 2: Philosophy, Governance and the Choices Shaping Humanity’s Future in Space

by Enes Beşli

The second day of Space Renaissance International’s Fourth World Congress brought together philosophers, policy specialists, lawyers and space advocates to examine the cultural foundations of spaceflight, the governance of future settlements, the proposed 18th Sustainable Development Goal and the prevention of conflict beyond Earth.

1 July 2026 — The Fourth Space Renaissance International World Congress continued on Wednesday with a programme examining the ideas, institutions and international agreements that will shape humanity’s expansion beyond Earth.

Following the opening day’s focus on civilization and quality of life, Day 2 shifted attention towards space philosophy and history, governance of extraterrestrial communities, the Space 18th SDG Coalition, lunar geopolitics and the prevention of weapons in space.

The discussions highlighted a recurring concern: while technological capabilities are developing fast and offer great opportunities to improve humanity’s quality of life, our immature ethical, political and legal frameworks are hindering us from taking profit of this glorious perspective. Participants underlined the importance of philosophical reflection: we cannot become a spacefaring civilization without science and technology, yet without philosophy we cannot conceive humanist requirements for vehicles, habitats, or governance, nor can we shape inclusive institutions and credible safeguards against potential conflict.

Recovering the Philosophical Roots of Spaceflight

The day opened with the session “Space Philosophy & History,” chaired by Dr. Marie-Luise Heuser.

Dr. Heuser explored the wave of public and intellectual enthusiasm for space that developed during the early twentieth century. She traced the cultural roots of space habitation through movements such as Russian Cosmism and Germany’s interwar “space fever,” discussing pioneers who imagined rotating habitats, artificial gravity and permanent human communities beyond Earth.

Her presentation showed that many concepts commonly regarded as products of the modern space age were already being developed by artists, philosophers, scientists and filmmakers during the 1920s.

The history of these ideas also served as a warning. Technological visions created for peaceful exploration can be redirected towards military or authoritarian purposes when their political context changes. Therefore, the presentation connected the history of spaceflight with the responsibility to protect its humanistic foundations.

Dr. Maria Harney examined a more contemporary challenge: the ethical governance of artificial intelligence in space. She argued that technological development often moves faster than the ethical systems intended to guide it, leading to a delay in “moral maturity” that may become particularly dangerous in remote and extreme environments.

AI-supported missions may require systems to make decisions concerning safety, health, privacy and access to resources. Yet human beings cannot be treated merely as components in an automated system. Dr. Harney, therefore, called for clearer principles concerning consent, human oversight, accountability and personal autonomy.

Dr. Julio Rezende presented the concept of “Astrodesertanism”, drawing on analogue activities in Brazil’s semi-arid and remote environments. He described how desert landscapes can function not only as training environments for future missions but also as places for reflecting on isolation, resilience, sustainability and the human relationship when exposed to extreme surroundings.

Amalie Sinclair addressed the identities and responsibilities of modern space philosophy. She argued that philosophy should not remain separate from practical policy but should provide leadership by clarifying the values and assumptions underlying space governance.

The session also included a contribution associated with Natale Viscomi on the spirit as an “invisible body” and its relationship with scientific construction, reason, beauty and cosmic consciousness.

Together, the presentations showed that space philosophy is not simply an abstract discussion. It influences how technologies are designed, how risks are understood, and what forms of society humanity may attempt to build beyond Earth.

Designing Governance while Settlements Are Built

The second session, “Space Policy,” examined the legal, political and socio-technical foundations required for future off-world communities.

Veronica Chiaravalli discussed the need to design inclusive operational and economic protocols for settlements in which humans, robots and intelligent systems work together. She argued that future space communities will require new forms of training, professional expertise and participatory design. Rather than adapting social arrangements after infrastructure has been constructed, future residents and stakeholders should be involved in shaping the systems through which settlements operate.

Emeline Paat-Dahlstrom examined the role of “space enablers” in creating sustainable space ecosystems. Drawing on examples from countries including Luxembourg, the Philippines and New Zealand, she described how cooperation among governments, private companies, universities and communities can create opportunities in regions without long-established space industries.

Poojan Chanjara presented a governance framework focused on civilizational continuity and political autonomy in future settlements. He raised questions about the concentration of authority, the relationship between terrestrial governments and off-world populations, and the need for adaptive institutions capable of evolving as settlements mature.

The session also considered symbolic questions of international cooperation, including the idea of placing a United Nations flag on the Moon. The proposal prompted reflection on how common human interests might be represented beyond Earth.

Dennis O’Brien addressed the legal status of settlements and extraterrestrial resources. The discussion distinguished between the prohibition of national appropriation under the Outer Space Treaty and the legal treatment of resources after they have been extracted.

Participants acknowledged that substantial disagreement remains regarding the application of the non-appropriation principle to private actors and permanent settlements.

Adriano Autino emphasized SRI’s opposition to colonial models of space-resource use, arguing that space resources belong to space settlers and should be used to build space infrastructures and sustain their communities.

Lars R. “Jones“ Vadjina examined algorithmic sovereignty, warning that artificial intelligence may become critical infrastructure for navigation, communications, logistics and decision-making. He argued that such systems will require transparency, auditability, resilience, human oversight and international cooperation.

The session underlined that governance should not be postponed until permanent settlements already exist. The rules governing human–robot relations, political authority, resource access and digital infrastructure must begin to be developed in parallel with the technology.

Reconsidering Sustainable Development Through Space

The third session focused on the “Space 18th SDG Coalition,” an initiative proposing that responsible space development be recognized as a new Sustainable Development Goal.

Dr. Gülin Dede introduced the session, while Adriano Autino reviewed the coalition’s history and rationale. He argued that the existing 2030 Agenda does not adequately address the potential contribution of space development to energy, resources, environmental protection and long-term human resilience.

Dr. Gülin Dede chaired the Space 18th SDG Coalition session.

The proposal does not treat space as separate from sustainability on Earth. Instead, it suggests that responsible expansion beyond Earth could strengthen the existing Sustainable Development Goals through environmental monitoring, communications, disaster response, new resources and future space-based infrastructure.

Veronica Chiaravalli proposed an agile and human-centred formulation capable of adapting to rapid technological and societal change. She argued that a new goal should address challenges such as decentralized decision-making, cognitive safety, secure digital environments and access to emerging technologies.

Amalie Sinclair advocated a design-oriented and non-regulatory approach to international cooperation. She proposed an expert working group that would bring together contributors from different countries and political traditions while maintaining independence and broad international participation.

The session invited researchers, organizations and policymakers to contribute perspectives to the continuing development of the initiative.

Navigating Competition in Cislunar Space

The panel on Lunar Astropolitics examined the changing strategic environment between Earth and the Moon.

Participants considered the growing activities of the United States, China, Russia and other spacefaring actors, as well as the implications of expanding scientific, commercial and security interests in cislunar space.

Leonard David questioned whether existing treaties and institutions possess sufficient enforcement mechanisms to prevent geopolitical rivalry from extending to the Moon.

Alberto Cavallo compared contrasting national approaches to lunar activity, including cooperative language in Chinese policy and the United States’ emphasis on strategic leadership and the Artemis Accords. The discussion considered whether national ambitions could coexist with inclusive international governance.

Speakers also addressed lunar resource extraction, safety and rescue obligations, transparency, space traffic management and confidence-building measures.

Participants stressed that more scientific knowledge is needed before assumptions about the abundance and commercial value of lunar resources become the basis of policy. They also noted that competition does not inevitably lead to conflict if clear rules, communication channels, and shared safety practices are established early.

The panel concluded that no single safeguard will be sufficient. Peaceful cislunar development will require a combination of legal agreements, political dialogue, technical coordination, scientific transparency and ethical responsibility.

Preventing Space from Becoming a Battlefield

Dr. Gülin Dede organized and chaired the final panel, ‘A Ban on Space Weapons’ guiding the discussion across sustainability, governance, peace, dual-use ambiguity, and the prevention of conflict in outer space.

Starting the panel with a keynote speech from a distinguished astronautical voice, but as a true pioneer, Dorin Prunariu, the first and only Romanian Cosmonaut, a veteran of the Soyuz 40 mission, former Chair of UNCOPUOS, and the godfather of ATLAC (the Action Team on Lunar Activities Consultation at COPUOS). Dorin Prunariu discussed why outer space should be protected as a human environment and a domain of peaceful cooperation. The space infrastructure is enabling the many aspects of human life and capabilities on Earth, and the dangers to our orbit due to weaponization may not be easily reversible. If the law for the ban on space weapons is not comprehensive and enforced, it may lead to misuse in the future. The future settlements must not begin with such an environment but through peaceful uses and international cooperation.

Adriano Autino argued that outer space should be protected as a domain for humanity’s long-term civilian future rather than treated as a new strategic high ground. He warned that the deployment of weapons in orbit could threaten space infrastructure, increase debris and undermine the cooperation required for settlement and development.

Dr. Eligar Sadeh distinguished between the militarization and weaponization of space. Military organizations have relied on satellites for communications, navigation and observation for decades, but the deployment or use of offensive weapons represents a further and more dangerous development.

Dennis O’Brien reviewed existing international legal frameworks and the gaps that remain. While the Outer Space Treaty prohibits certain weapons of mass destruction in orbit, it does not establish a comprehensive prohibition of conventional or dual-use systems.

The panel discussed the United Nations process on the Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space and considered whether SRI should seek a more active role in related international discussions.

Joseph N. Pelton broadened the security discussion to include asteroids, comets and orbital debris. He argued that genuine planetary defense should prioritize shared threats to humanity and proposed greater attention to active debris removal and international liability arrangements.

Alberto Cavallo called for a general prohibition of space weapons and warned that existing civilian and military systems could be transformed into instruments of conflict.

Participants also explored the possibility of converting military technologies and industrial capacities towards peaceful space applications. Converting the military industry to civilian space might be the subject of a great campaign to boost both peace on Earth and civilian space development.

Public education, outreach to political leaders, and wider awareness of the Overview Effect were identified as possible elements of a broader cultural strategy for peace.

Institutions Must Keep Pace with Technology

Day 2 demonstrated that the future of space will be determined not only by what humanity is capable of building but also by the principles and institutions it chooses to establish.

The historical presentations showed that visions of space settlement have always carried philosophical and political assumptions. The policy discussions demonstrated that these assumptions will affect the rights of settlers, the distribution of resources, the role of artificial intelligence, and the relationship between Earth and future off-world communities.

The Space 18th SDG session connected these questions to sustainability, while the final panels confronted the geopolitical risks surrounding the Moon and Earth’s orbit.

Across the programme, speakers called for governance to develop before conflict, inequality or concentrated technological power becomes embedded in future space systems.

The challenge emerging from Day 2 was therefore clear: humanity must develop its ethical, legal and diplomatic capacities at the same speed as its technological ones.

SRI does not advocate a two-step strategy in which humanity must first become socially mature before expanding into space. On the contrary, we maintain that expanding into space can itself become one of the drivers of humanity’s maturation. In this sense, Gaia may be understood as a metaphor for Earth giving birth to a wider spacefaring civilization. If that birth takes place amid conflict, exclusion, or unsustainable development, it will be painful and dangerous; if it is pursued peacefully, inclusively, and sustainably, it can become a hopeful civilizational transition. As humanists, we regard this as a primary responsibility.

See the recorded videos of SRIC4:

Day 2: https://www.youtube.com/live/Z0eZOV_MC9c
Day 1: https://www.youtube.com/live/7r80QYrcHwQ

Follow the Congress the next days!

Here are the links to the YouTube livestream for each day: https://spacerenaissance.space/event/the-sri-4th-world-congress-30-june-4-july-2026/

ATTENTION PLEASE!!! All the new SRI Members registered during the Congress will get a special edition membership card! Join SRI now!

https://spacerenaissance.space/membership/international-membership-registration/

Jul

2026

SRIC4 – The Quality of Life on Earth and Beyond – the Congress 1st Day

by Enes Beşli

The first day of Space Renaissance International’s Fourth World Congress brought together space leaders, philosophers, engineers, lawyers and advocates to examine how civilian space development could improve quality of life on Earth and support humanity’s future beyond it.

30 June 2026 — Space Renaissance International (SRI) opened its Fourth World Congress, SRI4C, on Tuesday with an appeal for greater international cooperation, peaceful space development and a more human-centred vision of expansion beyond Earth.

Held online and broadcast internationally, the five-day congress is organized around the theme “The Quality of Life on Earth and Beyond.” Its opening day combined keynote addresses from prominent figures in the international space community with presentations examining the condition of human civilization and discussions about SRI’s future structure and priorities. The official programme divided the day into keynote speeches, the session “Status of Civilization and Quality of Life,” and a concluding with the session “Space Renaissance International Organization, Structure and Planning.”

Opening the congress, SRI representatives presented civilian space expansion not simply as a technological objective, but as a possible response to the environmental, economic and social pressures facing humanity. SRI founder Adriano V. Autino argued that civilian space development is the only way to revert the global crisis, defuse resource wars, and offer hope and practical opportunities to future generations, while Congress Chair Robert S. Katz emphasized the importance of moving from broad aspirations towards coordinated action.

SRI President Bernard Foing reviewed the organization’s recent activities and its efforts to connect education, culture, policy and technology. The opening remarks established a theme that would be repeated throughout the day: space should not be treated as a distant arena reserved for governments, large corporations, but as an emerging domain whose development should benefit wider society.

From the Overview Effect to International Cooperation

Space philosopher Frank White framed the opening discussions through the Overview Effect, the change in awareness often reported by astronauts when viewing Earth from space. White described Earth as a shared planetary system whose inhabitants must increasingly think and act as one crew.

His address placed cooperation above political and national division, suggesting that the perspective gained through space exploration could contribute to a broader transformation in how humanity understands itself.

Johann-Dietrich Wörner, former Director General of the European Space Agency, continued the theme of international cooperation through his long-standing vision of a Moon Village. Rather than describing a single settlement or a limited controlled programme, Wörner presented the Moon as a platform through which different countries, institutions and commercial actors could cooperate while pursuing their own objectives.

Gabriella Arrigo, President of the International Astronautical Federation and Director of International Affairs at the Italian Space Agency, highlighted the importance of international professional networks and forums in maintaining dialogue across the global space community.

The keynote programme also featured Gregg Li, President of the Orion Astropreneur Space Academy in Hong Kong, who focused on education, entrepreneurship and the development of new generations of space professionals. Paul Werbos examined the relationship between space technology, artificial intelligence and global sustainability, while Rick Tumlinson called on civil society and space advocates to take a more active role in shaping humanity’s future in space, with an heartfelt call to ban weapons in space.

Isaac Arthur, president of the National Space Society, underlined the urgent need to invest in research for life and health protection in space, in the frame of a general paradigm shift from space exploration to civilian space settlement.

Several speakers, including Sam Coniglio – cofounder of the Space Tourism Society – advocated for a space design conceived for humanity, for civil travelers and residents, based on comfort, ergonomics, beauty, and suitable for a thriving society, not only surviving.

Across these contributions, speakers repeatedly highlighted to the need for peaceful cooperation and for preventing geopolitical warlike confrontation from defining the next era of space activity.

What Kind of Civilization Will Expand into Space?

The first main congress session, “Status of Civilization and Quality of Life,” moved the discussion from institutional cooperation to a more fundamental question: what kind of civilization is humanity building, and what values will it carry beyond Earth?

Adriano Autino presented SRI’s first congress thesis, which argues that civilian expansion into space will help address pressures created by resource consumption, energy demand and environmental limits. The proposal included the development of orbital habitats, space-based energy systems and infrastructure capable of supporting increasing numbers of civilian population beyond Earth.

The session was intentionally interdisciplinary to incorporate different perspectives. Alberto Cavallo reconsidered Maslow’s hierarchy of needs in the context of human expansion into space, arguing that psychological development, altruism and personal responsibility must accompany technological progress.

Veronica Chiaravalli examined the human and organizational capabilities needed to build a multi-world civilization, particularly the changing relationship between people, robotics and intelligent systems.

Alastair Brown addressed the potential of extraterrestrial resources to reduce terrestrial competition over scarce materials. His presentation considered whether responsible space-resource development could provide an alternative to resource conflict on Earth.

Eligar Sadeh discussed the broader political and civilizational transformation associated with becoming a spacefaring society.

Speakers including Isaac Arthur, President of the National Space Society (NSS), argued that civilian space development should make space not only a site for scientific research, but also a place where people can work, build businesses and establish communities.

Sam Coniglio brought attention to the practical and human details of living beyond Earth. His work on “creature comforts” highlighted the need to design future habitats for ordinary citizens rather than only highly trained astronauts. The discussion covered factors such as food, recreational activities, social life, comfort and psychological well-being. These elements are often treated as secondary in early mission planning but essential for permanent communities.

Governance Must Develop Alongside Technology

Legal and political questions featured prominently throughout the opening day.

Space-law expert Prof. Sergio Marchisio discussed the increasing importance of sustainability principles, international guidelines and capacity-building as commercial and governmental activity grows in Earth orbit and beyond. He warned that congestion, space debris and unequal access cannot be managed by technology alone.

Joseph N. Pelton, Chairman of ACES Worldwide and Dean Emeritus of the International Space University (ISU), similarly identified orbital debris as one of the most urgent challenges facing the international community.

Giuseppe Reibaldi, President of the Moon Village Association (MVA) and Executive Secretary of the Global Expert Group on Sustainable Lunar Activities, presented ongoing efforts to coordinate lunar activity and develop shared practices for sustainable operations on the Moon.

Steve Wolfe, President of the Beyond Earth Institute, considered how commercial lunar development could move beyond conventional government contracting. He called for policies that create genuine opportunities for private investment, infrastructure development and in-situ resource use while maintaining appropriate governance.

Space lawyer Michelle Hanlon addressed the legal foundations of future off-world communities, including questions surrounding property, access, responsibility and the rights of people living beyond Earth. Her intervention underlined that many concepts frequently used in public discussion about space do not yet provide clear legal answers for permanent communities.

Together, these contributions demonstrated a shared concern: engineering may make sustained human activity beyond Earth possible, but legitimacy, stability and public trust will depend on governance developing at the same time.

SRI Looks Towards Its Next Organizational Phase

The final part of the day turned inward, focusing on how Space Renaissance International should organise itself during the next five years.

Dr. Gülin Dede presented a strategic framework for SRI built around three broad areas: culture, ethics and civilizational futures; policy, governance and institutional strategy; and engineering and applied systems. The proposal included a directorate-based organizational model supported by stronger executive coordination.

Bernard Foing outlined possible leadership portfolios covering strategy and partnerships, education, policy and legal affairs, engineering, culture, intercultural cooperation, youth engagement and the development of an international network of Space Ambassadors.

Public Outreach Coordinator Enes Beşli presented a communication strategy aimed at increasing SRI’s visibility, strengthening public trust, encouraging collaboration and improving public understanding of civilian space development. Proposed actions included building dedicated social-media and website teams, engaging SRI’s volunteer network and relaunching the organization’s website ahead of the 2026 International Astronautical Congress.

The organizational session reflected one of the clearest conclusions from Day 1: ambitious ideas must be supported by durable institutions, consistent communication and opportunities for members and volunteers to contribute.

From Vision to Action

The opening day of SRIC4 covered an unusually broad range of subjects ranging from the Overview Effect and lunar cooperation to resource use, habitat design, space law and to organizational reform. Most notably, a common argument connected the discussions: space development should be assessed according to how it improves human life, strengthens cooperation and contributes to a sustainable future.

Participants presented expansion into space as a necessary solution to terrestrial problems: without expanding into space, civilization is condemned. Yet, they argued, its outcome will depend on the political choices, ethical principles and institutional structures established now.

As the congress moved towards its second day, the challenge facing delegates was therefore not merely to imagine a spacefaring civilization, but to identify the policies, partnerships and practical actions needed to build one peacefully and responsibly.

See the recorded video of SRIC4 Day 1: https://www.youtube.com/live/7r80QYrcHwQ

Follow the Congress next days!

Here are the links to the YouTube livestream for each day: https://spacerenaissance.space/event/the-sri-4th-world-congress-30-june-4-july-2026/

Apr

2026

GERARD K. O’NEILL WAS NOT HONORED AS DESERVED, SO FAR… BUT MAYBE IT’S NOT TOO LATE!

While doing research during the works of the SRI 4^th World Congress, I am trying to deepen my knowledge of the immense work done by Gerard K. O’Neill and his Space Studies Institute (SSI) during the second half of the past century.

Gerry took the work where Tsiolkovsky, Oberth, von Braun, and others had left it, on the great theme of rotating habitats in free space. And more, the SSI, founded by him, has developed an incredible amount of very high-profile studies about space manufacturing [1], covering many aspects of living in free-space habitats. Not only scientific and technical issues. According to the O’Neill teachings—as his main references, like Krafft Ehricke and others, had done—human requirements, attention to life and health protection, human rights, and social needs informed all of the developed studies and conceptual design.

Great outreachers like Isaac Asimov, Arthur Clarke, and Stanley Kubrick were ready to follow O’Neill and promote his concepts in their artworks and in their interviews to TV and media magazines.

Not so the space agencies. While making studies and keeping research activities on the O’Neill’s themes, his “Islands” in space never got real priority in NASA’s plans. Supporters of space expansion, including those with influence at the agency, have not pushed this issue hard enough. More than 50 years after the publication of the High Frontier [[2]], no experimentation with simulated gravity was initiated, or even just planned.

Many trillions of dollars are being wasted each year on death weapon systems! Our civilization seems unable (culturally? morally? both?) to properly honor its highest profiles and to allow them to help real sustainable development.

Humanity has now initiated to ask artificial intelligence oracles for giving responses to many high-profile and trivial questions. Yet, we are still not able to use some responses given by some very great human intelligences, like Gerry O’Neill.

Isn’t that a shame? Shouldn’t we get down to working flat out to recover this huge delay??

Institutions are reluctant to move from the old space exploration-only paradigm to the new one, encompassing space settlement. Yet, history is moving ahead. The ARTEMIS and the ILRS coalitions are working to establish permanent human bases on the Moon and to kick off the cislunar economy.

Shouldn’t O’Neill’s concepts and the SSI’s works be part of such a great development??

We, at SRI, are doing our best. And we call the whole space community O’Neill’s pupils to join us in this worthy activity.

In our SRI 4^th World Congress (SRIC4), taking place virtually from 30 June to 4 July, we have several sessions and panels discussing simulated gravity and free-space habitats. Hopefully we’ll come up with good proposals and planning for the next 5 years.

Also see this documentary: “Colonies in Space – The High Frontier: The Untold Story of Gerard K. O’Neill”^[3]

*****

https://spacerenaissance.space/sric4-registration/

Let’s work together to make a great congress!

Join the Space Renaissance!

[1] https://ssi.org/ssi-conference-abstracts/

[2] O’Neill, Gerard K. “The High Frontier: Human Colonies in Space” https://www.amazon.com/High-Frontier-Human-Colonies-Space/dp/1686872720/

[3] “Colonies in Space – The High Frontier: The Untold Story of Gerard K. O’Neill” https://youtu.be/TGtbHn76HwU

Also download a pdf version of this article.

Feb

2026

THE 4TH SPACE RENAISSANCE INTERNATIONAL WORLD CONGRESS June 30 – July 4, 2026

Welcome to the newsletter for SRI’s 4th World Congress, an online event held every five years. The Congress takes care of required business (e.g., the selection of directors) but is otherwise devoted to the development of policies and the practical steps needed to promote and implement them. We will also draft a Final Resolution and Congress Theses that will be submitted to the membership for approval and provide guidance for the next five years.
The discussion will be anchored by presentations during the Congress. To that end we have issued a Call for Abstracts. Please follow the link to see how sessions are being organized, then click “Submit an Abstract” to do so. You can also click on “SRIC4 Registration” to register for the Congress (or use links below). All sessions are free, but only members will vote on what we adopt as ongoing SRI policies.
There have already been some Congress-related presentations this year, part of SRI’s online Academy. The latest was by Dr. Marie-Luise Heuser on Space Romanticism. Our next presentation is February 17 (9pm CET), Data Centers in Space: An Update, by Alberto Cavallo. For a list of videos and links, please visit SRI’s YouTube channel.
We will also be discussing SRI’s work at the UN’s Committee on the Peaceful Use of Outer Space (COPUOS). SRI became an official Observer in 2024 and has been presenting technical reports during sessions of the Committee, the Scientific & Technical Subcommittee (we’re there now), and the Legal Subcommittee. Our focus has been on a critical review of the UN’s Space 2030 Agenda and SRI’s proposal for an 18th Sustainable Development Goal – Civilians Space Development. Please click on the link for more information about the 18th SDG Coalition (currently 116 organizations) and how your organization can join.
We will be sending updates as needed concerning the Congress and related work. Thank you for your interest in Space Renaissance International and the important issues facing humanity as we prepare to leave the home world.
– Prepared by Dennis O’Brien, Co-chair, SRI Space Policy Committee

https://spacerenaissance.space/sric4-abstract-submission/
https://spacerenaissance.space/sric4-registration/

Dec

2025

End of 2025, lost in fog for 2026 (my Christmas thoughts)

Dear SRI Friends and Supporters,

I don’t feel to wish you anything for the next year, since Wishes are obvious, when war drones are flying in the near skies, and too many times Wishes were unfulfilled.On the contrary, I am calling for help. Don’t be afraid, this time I am not asking for money, though money is always indispensable to NGOs, and my activist’s duty is to remember that you know how to do it, by the proper forms on the SRI website main menu (Funding and SRI Crew).

Straight to the point. You likely know that 2026 is the year of the SRI IV World Congress (30 June – 4 July). As you likely know from our past 3 World Congresses, since 2011, every 5 years, we inflicted on ourselves a very hard and ambitious task: to assess the status of civilization, and indicate our priority goals to solve the main global issues. Of course, if you follow SRI, our papers, our campaigns and activities at UN COPUOS, IAF, outreach and public events, you know what our analysis and proposed strategy are. We already described them in our 2021 thesis document. Those forecasts are now more than confirmed – civilization risks an irreversible implosion – and the strategy to avoid such a scary fate is only one: to kick off civilian space development before 2030, relaunching economic growth at 2 figures, and making Earthly resource wars obsolete.

But, comparing today’s situation with that of 2021, we see enormous changes and differences. Terrible wars and genocides have begun, and don’t promise to end, in the heart of or at the neighbors of the “advanced” world, and many other forgotten conflicts are killing thousands of unreplaceable human lives, a clear symptom that the implosion already started.

Terrific technological advances are developing, first of all, artificial intelligence, so full of promises and threats.

The space economy is going to lead the possible sustainable development. Yet, both the mentioned vectors, AI and Space Economy, can be sustainable and lead the global sustainable development, only if civilian space development really starts. Yes, of course, the Space+AI investors could even point once again only to automated orbital and Moon development: that would be just another illusion, destined to bring about further economic “bubbles” to explode, reiterating further stages of the global development crisis. Why? Because Planet Earth cannot tolerate the current and growing level of anthropogenic pressure. That should be clear nowadays, but it is not. So, our main task is to develop proper outreach and explain it in simple and understandable words.

The point is not that our home planet is now poor in resources, though this is also true. Yet we have already seen that new fossil reserves are being discovered, and new (terrestrial) energy sources are also discovered, like vegetal fuels, photovoltaic, etc. Yet we have already seen that the energy demand coming from supercomputers to support AI, electronic money, and electric mobility is not sustainable by terrestrial sources. And the main point is that, even if terrestrial sources were available, the needed large industrial extraction processes are not sustainable. That’s why we need to move outside, developing data centers in space, and the main industrial development, too. To produce what? For which customers? For Earthly markets only? That would not relieve the pressure; that would even increase it. Any growth limited within Earth’s boundaries is unsustainable. Let alone the wars… Wars are over any criteria of sustainability, and a global war as it is nearing is simply incredible, worthy of psychiatric treatment for its main dealers.

Coming to my today concerns and sleepless nights. Are we, at SRI, able to draw a realistic description of today’s civilization status? And, even more important, are we able to define an actualized strategy, the best priorities to be pursued, to help humanity pass the 2025-2030 “Eye of the Needle”?

For some weeks, the SRI Board and the Space Renaissance Academy have been tackling this terrific task. And I have the thankless duty to try assembling different contributions and drafting a coherent thesis paper. I confess that any approach seems to me too poor, neglecting some important points, or giving too much relevance to some not really important ones.

Now, the Space Renaissance movement is larger than the SRI Board, Academy, and Membership. Very interesting discussions are raised each month in our SRI Open Forum. I have the very great pleasure and am proud to see that our Forum is also used by other sister organizations, such as AIAA, NSS, and other communities.

So I have decided to open this discussion and to ask all sincere space humanists to provide help on some key questions and issues.

We titled our Congress “The Quality of Life, on Earth and Beyond”. Clearly, we are talking about a 360° concept of quality of life, from the basic needs (food, clothes, shelter), to social and belonging needs, to the highest needs (self-realization and transcendent aims). What is your idea of the Quality of Life? Yes, my idea includes not only the acknowledged needs (physiological, social, and cultural). I might also refer to a famous slogan that says: “We don’t need only the bread, but also the roses!” Meaning that the superfluous is necessary. A hedonistic Western vision? Maybe, but nothing wrong, if we can provide a beautiful life for everybody… And that’s the concept that I had in mind, proposing the Quality of Life topic for our congress: space will make possible a beautiful life for everybody. Not just to survive, but to thrive, and to improve our quality of life.

Yes, I have proposed using Maslow’s criteria to try to read the reality, how the quality of life changed over the last 50 years. Some colleagues argumented that Maslow’s “pyramid of needs” suggests a hierarchical stratification of society, implying that one cannot achieve higher levels if one has not achieved the lower ones. Maslow never said that. He proposed his classification of human needs on a probabilistic statistical basis, not at all as a values classification. My personal opinion is that Maslow’s human needs classification is more complete than the Marxist one, which only focuses on the achievement of the basic needs (or maybe, being Marx’s literary production so large, let’s say that his epigones mainly focused on class differences, related to the basic needs).

However, it was said that there are many other philosophers and anthropologists who have provided tools to analyze and measure the progress or regress of civilization. Since I don’t aim to defend Maslow as our unique reference, I am first of all asking for some more references. Please provide concepts and useful tools for reading reality, not just authors. However, I’d like to point out that I consider Maslow’s philosophical and anthropological controbution relevant, though his studies were on psychology. And, however II, psychology is determinant for philosophy and human history (also think about Isaac Asdimov psychohistory).

It was also said that some excellent cases testify that reaching the highest self-realization goals is possible even in very poor conditions. Sure, in human history, we have saints, geniuses, and artists who were able to sublimate their poor living conditions and donate great philosophical concepts, beautiful artworks, or great cultural contributions. Yet, should we indicate those cases as a social model? Often, those great people deprived their families of the necessary things in order to pursue their ideals. I don’t want to denigrate their sacrifice, but neither would I like to suggest a model of society where people aiming high are constrained to renounce their basic needs to pursue their highest ideals. This is exactly the point where humanity’s expansion into space comes in, breaking the zero-sum game of a closed-world society!

When I proposed the Quality of Life as a title for our incoming congress, I had not Saints or Bohemians in my mind, but normal, average people. Normal, average people, at least in the so-called advanced societies, thanks to the industrial revolution and technological progress, were allowed to become aware of their cultural interests, and perhaps cultivate some cultural or artistic high-level objectives. That achievement, together with better housing, clothing, food, health systems, and the possibility to make their children study to achieve a higher social condition, improved their quality of life. Is such a process continuously going ahead in the present? Is it steady, or has it even inverted the march, heading now to social regression? I’d like to assess: has such improvement continued during the last, say, 20 years? Or has the progress in the closed world reached the bars of the cage? What are the main “key performance indicators” to assess the quality of life and social progress/regression? Number of graduates? Quality and availability of Health systems? Quality and availability of Education systems? Ease of establishment and access to the business environment for startups? Employment and opportunities for business?

Btw, my research evidenced a quite disappointing evaluation, made, not by us, but by the UN itself, about the achievement of the 17 SDGs, 10 years after the publication in 2025. 3 SDGs are showing clear regression (including the most worrying one, 16 Peace), 12 are steady, and only 2 show weak progress.

It was also observed that the sentiment of having no future, as described by some youth movements, e.g., “We don’t have planet B”, is prevailing in the western post-industrial world, while the emergent eastern Countries – India first – are quite different. Hope in the future and faith in progress are the most common feelings among the young generations in those Countries. Therefore, it seems that we need good contributions from the East of the world (of course, even to call it “East” is an Eurocentric geographic concept…), to get a really holistic view of the Civilization situation, and maybe different outreach strategies for different continents (not on the substance, but on the narrative style…).

However, it is very clear that the assessment of the status and perspective of Civilization is all but based on numbers and economic figures. Our future depends on the psychological perception of reality. The global data about the economy, ecology, climate change, progress, regression, and sustainability are the same at all latitudes, yet our perception is very different. We are facing a cusp in human history, but it is perceived differently in different parts of our world. How can we get in touch, discuss, and collaborate with all the sincere humanists of Planet Earth?

I know, my list of questions is largely incomplete! Please also suggest more criteria.

Answers are very welcome on our Forum (just ask to enter if you’re not already in): https://groups.google.com/g/sri-open-forum

Your paper abstracts for the Congress are very welcome too: https://2026.spacerenaissance.space/index.php/call-for-papers-abstract-submission/

Ad Astra! (hopefully)

Adriano V. Autino

Dec

2025

THE BRAVE AND THE COWARDS – SRI Newsletter December 2025

As the geopolitical climate shifts, we increasingly hear warmongering pronouncements that tend to resurrect popular sentiments we naïvely believed had been buried by history.Among these is the claim that Europe is weak and cowardly, unwilling to cross the threshold between adolescence and adulthood. Maturity, according to this narrative, demands rearmament and a head-on confrontation with the challenges of the present historical moment. Yet beneath this rhetoric lies a far more troubling transformation.

We are witnessing a blatant attempt to replace the prevailing moral framework—until recently ecumenically oriented toward a passive and often regressive environmentalism—with a value system founded on belligerence. This new morality defines itself against “enemies” of presumed interests, whether national, ethnic, or ideological.

Those who expected a different kind of shift—one that would abandon regressive policies in favor of an active, forward-looking environmentalism—have been rudely awakened. The self-proclaimed revolutionaries sing an old and worn-out song: war. These new “futurists” embrace a technocratic faith that goes far beyond a legitimate trust in science and technology—long maligned during the previous ideological era—and descends into open contempt for human beings themselves, now portrayed as redundant or even burdensome in the age of the supposedly unstoppable rise of artificial intelligence.

What we face is a dramatic ethical and cultural regression, from which some expect to profit greatly.

Why is this a cultural regression? Because it reintroduces fierce intraspecific competition as the proposed solution to our civilization’s challenges—or worse, without any concern for global challenges at all. The rearmament policies now spreading across the world almost entirely ignore environmental considerations, which until less than a year ago were presented as the dominant justification for largely regressive degrowth policies.

Why is this also an ethical regression? Because ethics, as lived and understood by societies, is neither fixed nor immutable. While profound ethical insights can indeed be found among ancient philosophers, humanity’s moral judgments regarding murder, massacre, genocide, exploitation, torture, ethnic cleansing, and war itself have undeniably evolved over centuries and millennia. Technological and social progress have steadily reduced the objective necessity of ruthless competition, opening the possibility of a world in which losers need not perish, but may still benefit from collective advancement—and perhaps find future opportunities for success.

Even within sacred traditions, this evolution is visible: from biblical narratives that recount massacres, divine favoritism toward specific ethnic groups, and concepts of women as property, to the evangelical message, which introduces a far more humanist vision—one that still resonates deeply today.

From both cultural and ethical perspectives—two dimensions that should never diverge—the realization, around the middle of the twentieth century, that humanity was consuming more resources than Earth could provide was itself a positive step forward. The responses to that realization, however, have been deeply flawed. Passive environmentalism and degrowth policies have paved the way for today’s grim prospect: the annihilation of much of humanity in a global war of all against all.

But here lies the central point.

Until little more than a century ago, space technologies did not exist. Human competition was confined within planetary boundaries, and the stakes were the control of Earth’s resources. Did this reality make war acceptable—or even virtuous? For centuries, poets and historians glorified heroes and conquests, embedding war deeply within educational systems that still emphasize victories, battles, and the demonization of the defeated.

Yet once humanity began to imagine expansion beyond Earth—and the possibility of accessing extraterrestrial resources—a different sensibility emerged. From the artistic movements of the twentieth century to the global upheaval symbolized by 1968, war increasingly came to be seen for what it truly is: an immense waste of lives and resources, an intolerable deviation from the path of civilized progress, and—almost always—a violent appropriation of land and wealth. An ethical and cultural wound that has become unbearable, especially now that a viable alternative exists.

Today, at the beginning of the second quarter of the twenty-first century, space technology—now closely and inextricably linked to the development of artificial intelligence—is on the verge of a true quantum leap. It is paving the way for the civilian development of space, beginning with the Moon and the cislunar domain.

It would seem logical to concentrate our collective efforts on this extraordinary goal. Humanity appears to stand at the threshold of a potential golden age, one in which all people—nations, cultures, ethnic communities, and peoples of Planet Earth—can contribute and share in the benefits. The resources of the solar system and the vast spaces available for industrial and residential development are so abundant that they naturally reduce greed and brutality, encouraging cooperation and fair competition instead. The development of global communication has progressively shown that all people of the world are really very similar in their daily life, hopes, concerns, projects, love for their children, struggle to get better life conditions… not easy for the warmongers to force Terrestrians to see monsters in foreign countries, and hate each other. We may be approaching a new romanticism: one in which looking down on Earth from orbit, and outward into the universe from the Moon and beyond, evokes a profound sense of shared destiny—what Frank White so aptly described as the “overview effect.”

This is not fantasy. It is a path of evolution firmly grounded in centuries of technological, cultural, and moral progress.

And yet, some of those to whom we have entrusted—by vote—the responsibility of leading our nations seem to believe that we must instead relish the prospect of death and destruction, and devote absurd quantities of public resources to this insanity.

In this surreal narrative, those who refuse rearmament are branded as weak and cowardly. In reality, the opposite is true. In today’s world, with the immense potential now within reach, it is precisely the weak and the fearful who turn to war. The brave and the generous do not resign themselves to killing their brothers over dwindling planetary resources. They aim higher. They look beyond Earth, toward new frontiers and new resources for all.

I am convinced that many of us—explorers and pioneers—already exist. What remains is for us to step forward and to begin replacing unsuitable political directions with others that are culturally sound, ethically mature, and worthy of humanity’s future.

The “Space for Peace” concept is at the core of the SRI IV World Congress preparation: “Quality of Life, on Earth and Beyond”. The Congress will take place, virtually, from 30 June to 4 July 2026. Some of the key tracks:

Status of civilization and quality of life
Civilian Space Development, a factor of Peace on Earth and Beyond
Space resources: who are the owners? We speak for Space Settlers!
Human rights in space
The permanent space revolution: 100% inclusivity
Protection of life and health in space
Beauty and ergonomics of habitats as an essential life requirement
Space to Space transport vehicles
Orbital Debris recovery and reuse
Cloud computing and big data centers in space
Producing fuel in space

Check the Call for Papers, and submit your abstract(s)!

Register here.

To understand more about the Congress symposia, sessions, and proposed topics, also watch the SRIC4 #00: “Announcing the 4th SRI World Congress”, on the Space Renaissance YouTube channel!

Let’s work together to make a great congress!

Join the Space Renaissance!

Watch and subscribe to the Space Renaissance YouTube channel.

Also download a pdf copy of this article.

Nov

2025

SUPPORT “HI” EVERYWHERE! – SRI Newsletter November 2025

Artificial Intelligence and Civilian Space Development: A Call for Synergy, Not Substitution!

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is rising at an extraordinary speed, emerging as an entirely new industrial pillar. Leading corporations—NVIDIA, Apple, Microsoft, Alphabet—are achieving unprecedented revenue growth, reshaping global markets in just a few years. According to market analysts, the global AI market is likely to overtake the space market before 2030.

Today, the global space market is valued at roughly $512–613 billion (2025) and is projected to grow to $800–1,000 billion by 2030, with continued expansion expected through 2034. Growth drivers include next-generation satellites, launch services, and escalating commercial and governmental investments. Analysts from Grand View Research, the Space Foundation, and GlobalData forecast the space economy surpassing $1 trillion in the early 2030s.

Yet these projections are increasingly compared with the explosive ascent of the AI sector—a sector still in its infancy. This raises several important questions.

Is AI drawing investment away from the space industry?
Will AI accelerate or hinder humanity’s expansion into space?
Can AI sustain its current growth pace—or are we witnessing another bubble?
And, critically: can Earth-based energy and water resources support AI’s massive supercomputing demands?

Elon Musk recently voiced doubts about the sustainability of Earth-bound AI growth, pointing to limited terrestrial energy capacity and the enormous cooling-water requirements of data centers. He suggests that space may offer a more suitable environment for large-scale AI development, providing limitless solar energy and superior cooling potential.

There is no question that AI is an extraordinary tool for addressing human challenges. But confined within Earth’s physical limits, AI could also unintentionally slow the opening of the space frontier—much like previous technological revolutions (industrial automation, the internet, robotics) that gave humanity the illusion it could restart development indefinitely while remaining on a closed planet. Each time, the resurgence of global crises revealed the truth: no long-term progress is possible without expanding into the high frontier.

For the first time in history, we are aware that the new revolution—AI—cannot sustain itself within Earth’s resource limits, particularly energy and water. This presents a stark dilemma:

Continue developing AI exclusively on Earth, risking the implosion of its economic potential as resource bottlenecks emerge.
Shift main AI development into geo-lunar space, using AI to build the space infrastructure, and support civilian space settlement.

The warning has been raised. AI and space development are not adversaries; they can be profoundly synergistic. The question is whether political leaders will act in time. Space advocates have the responsibility to amplify this message before it is overlooked.

Meanwhile, the broader global crisis is hitting younger generations hardest. The COVID-19 pandemic confined them indoors, depriving them of essential social development. In many countries, students were directed to rely solely on remote schooling, undermining both learning and socialization. Today’s geopolitical climate—marked by nationalism, war, and international tension—further restricts opportunities for young people to explore the world and define their path. Increasingly, they are presented with a worldview where survival outweighs culture, and loyalty to narrow national or ethnic identities is valued above global human cooperation.

At SRI, we strongly reject this trajectory. We believe human intelligence exists everywhere—across all nations, cultures, and faiths—and that Human Intelligence (HI) shall remain ascendant over Artificial Intelligence (AI). Our goal is to find and support HI wherever it lives. Rather than attempting to build an artificial superhuman mind to replace our own, we choose to search for the real Einsteins and Mozarts of tomorrow. We know that genius may be found in a child living in a slum, playing football with a ball made of rags. We champion Human Intelligence—and we continue to use AI as a powerful tool, not a substitute for human insight, creativity, and vision.

The above concept is at the core of the SRI IV World Congress preparation: “Quality of Life, on Earth and Beyond”. The Congress will take place, virtually, from 30 June to 4 July 2026. Some of the key tracks: