Thanks for that perspective on the LEAG (Lunar Exploration and Analysis Group) meeting. The term "all humanity" which derives from the Outer Space treaty, was from the beginning an ambiguous term, leading to a wide spectrum of interpretation. Herein I believe, from reading your post, is the issue. The Apollo 11 plaque proclaimed "We came in peace, for all mankind", which we metaphorically meant to say, all humankind. Such is the way that word definitions themselves change over time, or are redefined to provide greater clarity or the perspectives of a new generation.
The NASA folks at an LEAG meeting (and NASA itself) is dominated by scientists who have science as their lifeblood and livelihood. For many in NASA, to use an example, would quite proudly proclaim that finding life on Mars would be beneficial to all humanity. However, there are entire subcultures on the Earth that would see this as a contradiction to their closely held beliefs, and thus would exclude them as part of "all humankind". Others would welcome this. Another example might be, what if we found on Mars and Venus definitive scientific proof that the climate change is driven by variation in solar output and not CO2 as is the scientific consensus (not arguing that, just stating it as a postulate). The global political ramifications would be enormous. Some, if not most, would argue that the truth will out, and that if this was the case, then so be it. However, there are wide swaths of advocates around the world that would reject this as not beneficial to humankind, no matter the scientific proof. There is even a school of thought that is popular in some circles that the very concept of industrial civilization is wrong, bad for the planet, and thus by extension, anything we do in space is not for all humankind and indeed is acting against the interests of all humankind. (I see this argument all too often online).
Thus, it would be interesting, and I would ask you, to exposit on what your thoughts are regarding "benefits for all humankind". Often it is the case that we must establish a common definition of a term before fruitful discussion of the implications of that term/definition can be more than shouting across the room at one another.
Thanks for that perspective on the LEAG (Lunar Exploration and Analysis Group) meeting. The term "all humanity" which derives from the Outer Space treaty, was from the beginning an ambiguous term, leading to a wide spectrum of interpretation. Herein I believe, from reading your post, is the issue. The Apollo 11 plaque proclaimed "We came in peace, for all mankind", which we metaphorically meant to say, all humankind. Such is the way that word definitions themselves change over time, or are redefined to provide greater clarity or the perspectives of a new generation.
The NASA folks at an LEAG meeting (and NASA itself) is dominated by scientists who have science as their lifeblood and livelihood. For many in NASA, to use an example, would quite proudly proclaim that finding life on Mars would be beneficial to all humanity. However, there are entire subcultures on the Earth that would see this as a contradiction to their closely held beliefs, and thus would exclude them as part of "all humankind". Others would welcome this. Another example might be, what if we found on Mars and Venus definitive scientific proof that the climate change is driven by variation in solar output and not CO2 as is the scientific consensus (not arguing that, just stating it as a postulate). The global political ramifications would be enormous. Some, if not most, would argue that the truth will out, and that if this was the case, then so be it. However, there are wide swaths of advocates around the world that would reject this as not beneficial to humankind, no matter the scientific proof. There is even a school of thought that is popular in some circles that the very concept of industrial civilization is wrong, bad for the planet, and thus by extension, anything we do in space is not for all humankind and indeed is acting against the interests of all humankind. (I see this argument all too often online).
Thus, it would be interesting, and I would ask you, to exposit on what your thoughts are regarding "benefits for all humankind". Often it is the case that we must establish a common definition of a term before fruitful discussion of the implications of that term/definition can be more than shouting across the room at one another.