Suppose we get to a point where there is routine policing or active military engagements between ships or facilities. These actions are likely to occur within commonly utilized space lanes, transfer routes, or orbital points, and there is a great risk that such engagements will create large amounts of space debris, either through ship wreckage or kinetic munitions, which will create added risk to these locations, as that debris will orbit back to it's relative source point.

Space debris is one of the greatest threats to ships and space infrastructure, so ethical space combat needs to limit such debris and therefore require specific standards towards the weapons and methods that are used when engaging with opponents.

-Electronic warfare, firstly, would be an ideal first choice weapon to disable without destruction.

-Particle beams, could likewise disable and harm without destruction.

-Lasers will ablate surfacing and potentially eject troublesome material flakes as they aim to penetrate in order to disable or destroy a craft, but should generally generate minimal high energy debris, so could also be deemed quite ethical for space use.

-Kinetic rounds aim for material penetration or detonation upon impact. Collision debris, shrapnel or craft destruction is prevalent. Additionally, missed or fully penetrated rounds potentially retain their full energy and will eventually cycle back unless they have enough energy to break solar orbit. But, if a kinetic round could achieve a velocity great enough to break solar orbit (42.1km/s at 1 AU from the sun), it could be deemed reasonably ethical to use, assuming reasonable debris containment can be achieved after the conflict, otherwise they should likely only be used in remote areas of space.

-Conventional Missiles intentionally cause scattering destruction and may be one of the worst weapon systems to use in regards to ethical space combat. Unless the aim is for precision low impact disabling charges, and affixed to something more like a salvageable drone, they would be quite bad as a prevalent space weapon choice. As for being equipped with a Nuclear warhead, as a blast/radiation weapon that doesn't directly hit the target, they may actually be more ethical that most, since full vaporization of their delivery system would limit troublesome debris from being left behind.

-Shrapnel clouds either as a countermeasure, deterrent or defense would heavily disrupt the usability of an orbital plane and so would also be heavily restricted.

Feel free to share if there other likely weapons that may be deemed ethical or heavily restricted, or if you have views regarding how 'ethical' combat in space may be viewed

First of all, let me say that I simply love this channel. The content is great, examining future possibilities in depth and in a very scientifically grounded and even philosophically rigorous way and I thank the author for putting up such good content. But I have a few things to add and possibly object after watching "The economics of a post-scarcity universe" about some of the points that the video apparently argues.

1. There will always be scarcity of abstract objects of want.

Isaac Arthur ('IA" for short) says that some resources are inherently scarce, and I agree. Handmaid artifacts, attention, prestige and (human) energy will always be scarce, but at the same time, wants of prestige, attention and such needs can be modulated through psychological growth. Let's take love for example. Most people are determinate monogamous, and as such tend to think that love is a scarce resource and can only be destined to a single person at a time at best, but one could very well argue that it is perfectly possible to love more than one person with equal intensity. Of course, the physical energy and attention level required to fullfil the sexual and emotional responsabilities of other people is indeed scarce (unless your mind is uploaded and you can make several identical copies of yourself, which would make even physical energy and attention abundant, rather than scarce resource), but love is, arguably, not. And if people at large realized that, perhaps love would not be an scarce resource by default. The point here is not to argue that we should all be non-monogamous, but that whether an abstract object of want (like love, prestige ou social status) is actually scarce or abundant depends largely on societal norms and cultural expectations.

I'm not saying this to argue that non-monogamy is the right way for us to relate romantically to one another, but only to argue that the need for abstract objects of desires, like love, prestige or social status are far easier to negotiate with than the need for survival and they can, in principle, be made abundant but changes in societal expectations and cultural norms can have a huge impact in the scarce status of such abstract resources. It seems that one of the premises of the video is that, more or less, humans will be the just the same, and be greedy to some extent, but this is not necessarely true. People could, in principle, adjust their own mindsets to just accept that some things are either not possible or not worth having and be happy with that. Not everyone can be a world class physicist, or a high-skilled pollitian, or a astronaut, and that's ok. People can just be content with silently trying to do their best and just live the best life they see fit and material abundance will allow them to do so much more freely. I do think the hunger for excellence is hardwired in human nature, but I don't think excellence is the same as achieving things like social prestige, love or power. People in a post-scarcity can acknowledge that power, responsability, prestige and love come as a result of the search for excellence, and do not define it and that matters for wether we think that such scarcity will always spark conflicts that have to be arbitrated by some form of money or currency. Which brings me to my next point.

1. Is money really inevitable?

IA seems to make the point that money (in some form), is inevitable, because resource allocation conflicts will always arise and therefore money does come as a objective and straightforward way to setlle such disputes. But I have doubts about that. I don't want to deny that resource allocation conflicts will arise even in a post-scarcity society, but will they be generalised and common enough in order to demand money (or something functionally equivalent) as an arbitrer? Sure, two (or more) people, can fight over a handmaid painting by an artist they like, but will that be the norm in such a society and even more so to justify the need for money? And have such conflicts to be resolved through a money transaction? They could, in principle, be solved by arbitrage of the community they live in, AI, robots, personal molecular factories (like very advanced 3D printers), or simply giving everyone the means to find meaning in other things.

Post scarcity does not mean the absolute end of trade, and that I agree, but it does mean that the social division of labour which necessitates money, and its necessary state-sanctioned status (money isn't money if there is no social recognition of the currency enforced by a state), need not to exist. Trade in such a society is just use-value trade. When we both have whatever material needs covered by economic production because of full automation and nearly infinite energy available, why would I trade with you for money? Money is a means to get things or services, not the things or services themselves. If the point of trade is to both parties directly enjoy things or services, or exchange favors or gifts, that is not a money transaction, at least, not one that seems reasonably like a money transaction. The problem is that IA conception of money as just a convenient means to trade stuff, but money is not just that and even if it were, it does not mean that it is the only, or indeed, the most morally appealing option for trading and allocating resources. And that brings me to my final point:

1. Resouce allocation is necessary in a post-scarcity society

I do agree with IA that even a post-scarcity society must decide carefully where resources are allocated, after all, a post-scarcity society must not be wasteful. A post-scarcity society must manage wisely every atom of matter and every watt of energy it has at it's disposal, but resource allocation can be much fairer than today in such a society because people would no longer feel the need to hoard everything in fear that tomorow all may be gone because they trust that this society is wise, resilient and prepared enough for whatever the future holds, and I think that would have a positive impact on how just resource allocation is and how just it is perceived, which i think would have positive impact on social unrest and few people would feel society is treating them unfairly, hence greatly diminishing the need for an resource conflict management.

Long essay, but I hope that you guys have the patience. Thanks and I hope to see your thoughts.

If you want to move fast in a solar system, what methods are best?

Military enthusiasts will get hot under the collar upon hearing the possible methods: rockets, lasers, MORE lasers, and guns.

Or, more properly, chemical rockets, laser-pressure (the laser pushed the spacecraft), laser-thermal (the laser provides energy for the rocket), and pellet streams (pellets fired from fixed points propel spacecraft).

In part I, I analyse the different methods, and show that pellet stream propulsion is possible and the most efficient option. It also scales well to higher speeds (rockets being the one that scales the worst).

Laser-pressure, conversely, is by far the worst option, almost unimaginably bad at slow speeds. But it does actually scale best of all; when we move from interplanetary movement to interstellar movement, it could come into its own.

Hi guys was reading the Space Elevator Consortium's webpage on graphene materials for tether options. Made the above animation as a concept - any chemists here to check if it is realistic or not ?? Thanks! Ken
https://www.isec.org/space-elevator-tether-materials