The Second Race for Space: Colonialism Déjà Vu on the Anthropocene Frontier

We crave more. More clothes, more gadgets, more possessions to fill our lives. We browse TikTok Shop, load up our carts on Amazon, and venture to SoHo or the Upper East Side for shopping sprees. This endless desire fuels production, job creation, and economic expansion—a promise heralded by politicians and economists alike. Yet, we rarely pause to consider the limits of this pursuit. How far can we push an economy that relies on the Earth’s dwindling resources? Can it continue indefinitely when the very foundation it depends on is finite?

1. The Promise and Peril of Astromining Some elements are already slipping out of reach, either depleting rapidly or existing in concentrations too little to mine sustainably. Platinum group metals, vital for catalytic converters, are costly and difficult to recycle. Indium, a key component of touch screens, semiconductors, and solar panels, is found only in trace amounts within other mined ores (Kapilevich & Skumanich, 2009). There’s also lithium—the backbone of modern batteries. Demand for lithium has more than tripled since 2017 and is expected to increase tenfold by mid-century, largely due to the push for electric vehicles.

2. Global Inequities and Exclusion But beneath the optimism lurks a familiar story. The rush to claim extraterrestrial wealth bears an unsettling resemblance to imperialist countries’ past ventures into foreign territories to exploit material advantages. During the 19th-century Scramble for Africa, European powers seized vast territories, stripping them of their resources while leaving devastation in their wake. In Latin America, Spanish and Portuguese conquerors extracted gold and silver, fueling their own prosperity at the cost of local economies and environments. Today, the race for asteroid riches risks replicating these legacies. Wealthy nations and private corporations are leading the development of space mining technology, laying the groundwork for new legal frameworks that could allow them to extract resources from celestial bodies with little international oversight. Now, the race for asteroid riches threatens to unfold in much the same way—again this time with the wealthiest nations and corporations at the helm (Koch, 2008).

The cost of space mining is astronomical, limiting participation to the most powerful players. Among the leading asteroid mining companies, most are based in the United States and the United Kingdom. Astro Forge, a California startup founded in 2022, has raised over $55 million in funding. In February 2025, it partnered with another American company, SpaceX, to launch its first spacecraft, Odin, to image asteroid 2022 OB5, a near-Earth asteroid they hope to mine on their first extraction mission. Though communication failures limited the success of this launch, Astro Forge has planned test missions throughout the next decade to begin harvesting metal samples. Another California startup, TransAstra, is building a prototype that uses inflatable struts to open a soft-fabric bag around non-cooperative space matter and seals them inside for safe transport (Sims, 2025). Other nations investing in similar astromining technology include Russia, China, India, and Japan —all ranked among the world’s largest economies. Meanwhile, countries that once bore the brunt of colonial extraction are again at risk of being excluded. Ironically, many of the countries with the richest deposits of lithium, platinum-group metals, and indium have seen those very resources siphoned off by foreign firms. Bolivia, home to nearly a quarter of global lithium reserves, exports raw brine to China and Russia and lacks the refining plants or capital to build its own astromining infrastructure (Jamasmie, 2025). South Africa supplies over 80% of the world’s platinum-group metals yet has seen little reinvestment in local automation or robotics, leaving it without the high-precision tools needed for off-Earth extraction (Frazzoli et al., 2024). Without substantial public and private investment, technology transfer, and access to affordable capital, they cannot develop the spacecraft, robotics, and processing facilities needed for asteroid mining. Just as wealth was funneled into several oligarchic empires, the resources of space could become the property of a privileged few (Mallick & Rajagopalan, 2019).

3. Ethics, Law, and the Way Forward

From an engineering perspective, space mining poses significant dilemmas regarding sustainability, responsibility, and the equitable distribution of resources. The American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Code of Ethics emphasizes that engineers must “consider environmental impact and sustainable use of resources” (ASME). The principle of sustainability must be central to space mining, yet without international oversight, corporations may prioritize short-term profitability over responsible resource extraction. Space mining, if pursued recklessly, could exacerbate inequalities rather than provide solutions.

Complicating matters further, the legal framework surrounding space mining remains murky. The 1967 Outer Space Treaty forbids national claims over celestial bodies, yet it does not explicitly ban the extraction of resources. Article II states that “outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation,” but private companies have found loopholes, arguing that while no one can own an asteroid itself, they can own whatever they take from it (Listner, 2011). This echoes legal maneuvers used during the colonial era, when European powers justified their conquests through doctrines like terra nullius, which conveniently declared Indigenous lands as empty and open for the taking. Now, corporations may use the same logic to stake their claim in space, arguing that what is unclaimed belongs to those bold enough to seize it.

The concentration of power in the hands of a few could have consequences beyond mere wealth accumulation. If a handful of corporations control the flow of asteroid-sourced platinum, rare earth elements, and other essential materials, they could dictate prices, destabilizing economies that rely on Earth-sourced counterparts. Countries without spacefaring capabilities may find themselves dependent on foreign suppliers, much as colonial economies were structured to serve European markets. The parallels are striking: a new frontier, a race for resources, and a system that ensures the benefits flow in one direction.

Furthermore, the ASME Code of Ethics calls for engineers to “act in a manner that enhances the honor, integrity, and dignity of the engineering profession” (ASME). Extracting resources from space solely for private profit, without international agreements ensuring fair distribution, contradicts this fundamental duty. A technology designed to serve all of humanity should not be monopolized by a few.

As history has shown, resource competition can breed conflict. During the colonial era, rival empires fought for control over resource-rich lands, leading to territorial disputes and wars. The same tensions could play out beyond Earth’s atmosphere. Nations might position themselves to secure the most lucrative asteroids, and as space infrastructure advances, competition could escalate into military posturing—or worse (Bourbonnière & Lee, 2007). In a realm where the rules are still unwritten, power struggles could determine who gets what, and at what cost.

Yet for all its promise and peril, space mining is not the root of the problem—it is a symptom. The deeper question is not whether we should extract resources from asteroids, but why we feel compelled to keep extracting in the first place. Our reach beyond this planet reflects an unwillingness to accept limits, a belief that growth must continue indefinitely. But the truth is, no amount of expansion will change the fundamental problem of overconsumption.

Rather than looking outward for the next source of exploitation, we should focus on what can be done here on Earth. Advancing recycling technologies, reducing waste, and shifting toward circular economies would allow us to preserve the resources we already have. Investing in sustainable energy solutions and materials science could reduce reliance on finite elements. The future of human progress should not rest on how far we can go in pursuit of more, but on how wisely we can manage what we have.

If space mining is to proceed, it must be under a strict international framework—one that prioritizes the collective good over corporate interests. Resources beyond Earth should be seen not as commodities for the highest bidder, but as a shared opportunity for humanity as a whole. The question is not just about the fate of asteroids; it is about the lessons we choose to learn from history. Will we repeat the patterns of the past, or will we chart a new course—one defined not by conquest, but by responsibility?

References

1. Bourbonnière, M., & Lee, R. J. (2007). Legality of the deployment of conventional weapons in Earth orbit: Balancing space law and the law of armed conflict. European Journal of International Law, 18(5), 873–901. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chm047 2. Davies, R. (2016, February 6). Asteroid mining could be space’s new frontier: The problem is doing it legally. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/feb/06/asteroidmining-space-minerals-legal-issues 3. Frazzoli, C., Bocca, B., Battistini, B., Ruggieri, F., Rovira, J., Nwadiuto Amadi, C., Offor, S. J., & Orisakwe, O. E. (2024). Rare earth and platinum group elements in sub-Saharan Africa and global health: The dark side of the burgeoning of technology. Environmental Health Insights, 18(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/11786302241271553 4. Jamasmie, C. (2025, March 13). Bolivia’s lithium deals with China, Russia in limbo. Mining.com. https://www.mining.com/boliviaslithium-deals-with-china-russia-in-limbo/ 5. Kapilevich, I., & Skumanich, A. (2009). Indium shortage implications for the PV and LCD market: Technology and market considerations for maintaining growth. IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/PVSC.2009.5411461 6. Koch, J. S. (2008). Institutional framework for the province of all mankind: Lessons from the International Seabed Authority for the governance of commercial space mining. Astropolitics, 16(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/14777622.2017.1381824 7. Listner, M. (2011, October 24). The Moon Treaty: Failed international law or waiting in the shadows? The Space Review. https://www.thespacereview.com/article/1954/1 8. Mallick, S., & Rajagopalan, R. P. (2019, January 24). If space is ‘the province of mankind,’ who owns its resources? Observer Research Foundation. https://www.orfonline.org/research/ifspace-is-the-province-of-mankind-who-owns-its-resources 9. Sims, J. (2025, March 23). Are we on the verge of mining metals from the asteroids above Earth? BBC Future. https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20250320-how-close-arewe-really-to-mining-asteroids 10. Tedesco, M. (2023, January 18). The paradox of lithium. State of the Planet. Columbia Climate School. https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2023/01/18/the-paradox-oflithium/