The Space Amendment

The Space Amendment

How The United States Can Prevent International Conflict Sparked By Its Newly Proposed Space Corps.

The recent announcement that the United States proposed to create a new branch of the military known as the Space Corps marks a point in history that not only represents the first creation of a new military branch since 1947, it also marks the first military apparatus designed specifically for space. This potential of the militarization, and by extension weaponization, of space poses a threat to the rest of the world by violating the international treaties against the militarization of space; which threatens humanity itself by creating circumstances of self-destruction through technological advances driven by stupidity and ignorance.

In anticipation of preventing any potential future that leads to international conflict driven by the militarization of space must be stopped as a means of ensuring national security. By doing any other measure, national security becomes immediately compromised. Therefore, a constitutional amendment prohibiting the weaponization of space, and ensure that all space oriented apparatuses, including the Space Corps, are designed for the preservation of the human species in an organized expansion into space. This amendment can be extended also to deal with the current violation of the Outer-Space Treaty (OST) occurring by US legislation (known as the SPACE Act of 2015) allowing for the privatization of astroids and other celestial bodies; the OST affirms that no nation or private individual can lay claim to any planet or celestial body beyond Earth. The notion of extending privatized perceptions of property into the infinity of the cosmos is beyond asinine and seeds only potential conflict of a pointless materialistic nature in the future.

We can continue to be foolishly narrowminded and willfully ignorant to the realities of the infinity of the cosmos; or we can wise up to acknowledging that militarizing and privatizing the cosmos is a fools gambit. It is a physical impossibility to rationally attempt to lay materialistic claim in a privatized format the infinite resource potential of the cosmos. A common critique of capitalism is that it is based on a notion of infinite growth; a critique largely attributed by the reality that capitalism has perpetuated the environmental destruction that has been occurring over the 20th and 21st century. The mismanagement and incompetency of this philosophy that privatizes the world into materialistic potential is shown to be hollow in philosophical rationality because the notion of legitimately controlling capital in manners that are comprehendible to an individual is impossible and one cannot calculate the impact that individual decisions create as actions ripple out into the depths of time. Collective decision-making in terms of economic management is the only capable methodology of organizing resources for the purpose of human civilization in a manner that can expand humanity beyond the limitations of our home planet.

The waste of time and energy through competitive decision making of nations and corporations seeking to gain material rights to resource rich astroids or the implementation of strategic weapons will not result in positive repercussions for our species. The collective efforts of our species, however, has the potential to expand into space in a responsible and rapidly efficient manner that can utilize the coordination of military organizing and planning; as well as the drive to gain access to resources beyond our planet that can help our civilization in a variety of matters, including populating other celestial bodies. It is time to wise up and utilize our technological capabilities to unify current human populations of all nationalities and utilize the fruits of our materialist advantages for the betterment of all.

Cover Image Credit: Future Wikia

Popular Right Now

'As A Woman,' I Don't Need To Fit Your Preconceived Political Assumptions About Women

I refuse to be categorized and I refuse to be defined by others. Yes, I am a woman, but I am so much more.


It is quite possible to say that the United States has never seen such a time of divisiveness, partisanship, and extreme animosity of those on different sides of the political spectrum. Social media sites such as Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter are saturated with posts of political opinions and are matched with comments that express not only disagreement but too often, words of hatred. Many who cannot understand others' political beliefs rarely even respect them.

As a female, Republican, college student, I feel I receive the most confusion from others regarding my political opinions. Whenever I post or write something supporting a conservative or expressing my right-leaning beliefs and I see a comment has been left, I almost always know what words their comment will begin with. Or in conversation, if I make my beliefs known and someone begins to respond, I can practically hear the words before they leave their mouth.

"As a woman…"

This initial phrase is often followed by a question, generally surrounding how I could publicly support a Republican candidate or maintain conservative beliefs. "As a woman, how can you support Donald Trump?" or "As a woman, how can you support pro-life policies?" and, my personal favorite, "As a woman, how did you not want Hillary for president?"

Although I understand their sentiment, I cannot respect it. Yes, being a woman is a part of who I am, but it in no way determines who I am. My sex has not and will not adjudicate my goals, my passions, or my work. It will not influence the way in which I think or the way in which I express those thoughts. Further, your mention of my sex as the primary logic for condemning such expressions will not change my adherence to defending what I share. Nor should it.

To conduct your questioning of my politics by inferring that my sex should influence my ideology is not only offensive, it's sexist.

It disregards my other qualifications and renders them worthless. It disregards my work as a student of political science. It disregards my hours of research dedicated to writing about politics. It disregards my creativity as an author and my knowledge of the subjects I choose to discuss. It disregards the fundamental human right I possess to form my own opinion and my Constitutional right to express that opinion freely with others. And most notably, it disregards that I am an individual. An individual capable of forming my own opinions and being brave enough to share those with the world at the risk of receiving backlash and criticism. All I ask is for respect of that bravery and respect for my qualifications.

Words are powerful. They can be used to inspire, unite, and revolutionize. Yet, they can be abused, and too comfortably are. Opening a dialogue of political debate by confining me to my gender restricts the productivity of that debate from the start. Those simple but potent words overlook my identity and label me as a stereotype destined to fit into a mold. They indicate that in our debate, you cannot look past my sex. That you will not be receptive to what I have to say if it doesn't fit into what I should be saying, "as a woman."

That is the issue with politics today. The media and our politicians, those who are meant to encourage and protect democracy, divide us into these stereotypes. We are too often told that because we are female, because we are young adults, because we are a minority, because we are middle-aged males without college degrees, that we are meant to vote and to feel one way, and any other way is misguided. Before a conversation has begun, we are divided against our will. Too many of us fail to inform ourselves of the issues and construct opinions that are entirely our own, unencumbered by what the mainstream tells us we are meant to believe.

We, as a people, have become limited to these classifications. Are we not more than a demographic?

As a student of political science, seeking to enter a workforce dominated by men, yes, I am a woman, but foremost I am a scholar, I am a leader, and I am autonomous. I refuse to be categorized and I refuse to be defined by others. Yes, I am a woman, but I am so much more.

Related Content

Connect with a generation
of new voices.

We are students, thinkers, influencers, and communities sharing our ideas with the world. Join our platform to create and discover content that actually matters to you.

Learn more Start Creating

You're Not Too Smart To Be A Teacher

What, do they want dumb people teaching their kids?


One of the most common and paradoxical things I've been told about my plans for the future is "Oh, but you're too smart to be a teacher!" The people who say it always mean well (it's generally my friends, or family, or other teachers), but it's always hurt just a little bit. It's as if I'm being told, "You're wasting your potential," or, "You should be doing more," or, "Being a teacher is not enough."

Why, though? Isn't teaching one of the most idealistic careers? Teachers have the ability to change the world for their students. Good teachers can inspire a love of learning in their class that can last a lifetime. For every genius that history remembers in science or art or mathematics or writing or anything else, I can guarantee that there are a couple of very good teachers in the shadows.

So why this stigma about smart people going into education? Is it not enough to inspire the next generation, give them the tools to reach greatness? Where is the line for how smart is too smart? Does every smart person need to go find the cure for cancer, or translate ancient books, or become president? What if all I want to do is teach children? Is that so much of a crime?

The problem isn't that I'm too smart for teaching. In fact, if I press people about this question, and ask if they're implying teachers should be dumb, they tend to backpedal and say that of course teachers should be smart because children can't learn if the person teaching them doesn't know what they're talking about. The problem is that I am too smart to be a teacher, personally, because I could be far more successful somewhere else.

The thing is, a lot of this stigma is a very well-meant "I don't think you'll be very successful as a teacher." Your friends and family tell you this because they want you to be able to support yourself. Your teachers tell you this because they know it's at times a really difficult job that doesn't pay well. Sure, if you're in life for the money, teaching may not be very rewarding for you. Everyone knows that a teacher's salary is pretty low. Financially successful people aren't teachers. However, they are lawyers. They are politicians. They are scientists and artists and doctors and anyone else who is really good at something and focused on it in their career. Smart people can make good money, and often that's at the heart of your friends and family's well-meaning doubts.

So there's the problem. Teachers can't be successful, can they? This is less about the impacting the world and more about impacting yourself. Your family is worried about you, that you won't be able to get by (which, if we're being honest, isn't TOO much of a concern, if you're savvy with money). They think that you could be more successful doing something else.

I'd like to challenge this idea that the only way you can be successful in life is to have a six-figure paycheck.

You see, success today generally means having money, fame, power, a nice house, a good car, no debt, etc. More generally, though, success is just the accomplishment of your goals. So what success is to you is really based on what your goals are in life. If your goals are to get as much money as you can, then they're right: you will not get success as a teacher. But if your goals are to impact the world, inspire the next generation, and create change, then there are few other careers where you can succeed quite so meaningfully.

In today's world, controlled by greed and money, we need smart teachers. We need smart people who feel a passion for something other than money. We need smart people who want to help others and recognize that one of the best ways to do that is to give the next generation the tools it needs to make a better world. We need people who look at this world's definition of success and reject it, people who decide to make their own definition.

I am smart, and I want to be a teacher. I am smart, and I want to use that to help others. My definition of success is being a light in the lives of my future students, giving them a love of learning and a safe environment in which to learn. My dream is to change the world by inspiring others and giving them the tools they need to make the world a better place. My goal is to give the next generation a chance to do amazing things.

I challenge you to make your own definition of success. At the end of the day, this is only my definition of success. What matters is that you can answer this question: what's yours?


Related Content

Facebook Comments