Euclid, SpaceX, Musk, Twitter and Brazil's right to sovereignty

Euclid launch via SpaceX on the 01 of July 2023. Credit: SpaceX

Almost two years ago, I had the privilege of publicly expressing my concerns about Euclid being launched by SpaceX through an open letter on Prof. Peter Coles' In The Dark Blog.  The letter focused on the potential EDI (Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion) challenges the Euclid Collaboration could face by investing around US $50 million in Musk's private space project. Given the Collaboration's commitment to addressing EDI issues and Musk's efforts to undermine such initiatives on a global scale, it felt important to voice this concern publicly. As expected, the letter was met with strong resistance from some sectors of the academic ruling class, but that is a topic for another post.

    In my original post on Peter's blog, I pointed out some personal reasons why, as one of the very few Brazilians—or even Latin Americans—in the collaboration, giving such a vast amount of money to a company mostly owned by Musk deeply bothered me on a personal level:

"Personally, as one of the few Latin Americans involved in Euclid, it feels like a slap in the face to know we will be doing business with him. Musk has zero respect for the fragile democracy we have in our southern continent. In 2020, for example, Musk said “We will coup whoever we want. Deal with it” about the coup against the elected president Evo Morales in Bolivia. For context, the coup was mainly motivated by gaining access to Bolivia’s Lithium reserve. I find this statement absurdly disturbing. Reminiscent of a (hopefully) long gone colonial epoch."

Now, two years after that post, and almost two years since Musk was bascially forced to buy Twitter , a lot has happened that made this open letter about SpaceX, Musk, and Euclid resurface in my mind. The metaphorical slap in the face I felt then now feels much, much harder.

    If you've been living under a rock the past couple of weeks, the Brazilian Supreme Court ruled that Twitter (it will never be X) should be blocked in the country for failing to appoint a legal representative after "failing" to respect Brazilian law. Of course, the story runs far deeper than this headline. Musk no longer hides that he's positioning himself as some sort of leader in the new wave of far-right fascism sweeping the globe. For Musk, his relentless attacks on the Brazilian judiciary and the current center-left government serve as a laboratory for weaponising his ownership of Twitter in service of the far-right. It’s clear to most Brazilians and the international mainstream media that our Supreme Court did not overstep its powers. What we’re dealing with is a megalomaniac billionaire on the loose, and Brazilian sovereignty is just his first test target.

    Now, with all of this unfolding, and despite the toll Musk's ownership of Twitter has taken on the AstroTwitter community, I can't stop thinking about Euclid. Sure, our beautiful golden boy needed to fly as soon as possible. I understand that careers were on the line (mine included at the time). But was it worth it? Was it worth giving all that money and prestige to a company mostly owned and controlled by a far-right maniac? Where is our social responsibility? Is being a scientist just about doing science at any cost, without considering these things? Any money given directly or indirectly to Musk serves the purpose of consolidating his leadership position and straightening the new fascist wave.

    Science is politics, and science is political. Neoliberalism has worked hard to sever our understanding (and concern) about the connection between the two. And to be honest, it succeeded. We need to remember that, at least in astronomy and physics, most of our funding comes from the public. We have a social responsibility in how we use this money and how we give back knowledge to society. A piece of graffiti on the walls of my university in Brazil used to ask a question at the entrance: "For what (or whom) does your knowledge serve?" I once more ask myself the same. What and who are we serving by sending space telescopes into orbit, "no matter what or who" pays the price? Doing science whatever it takes?

A similar graffiti to the one I used to see everyday in the entrance to UFRGS saying "For what (or whom) does your knowledge serve?". Taken from here.

    The worst part of all of this, when it comes to Euclid, is that Twitter wasn't the only company Musk has been using to undermine Brazilian democracy, the rule of law, and our sovereignty. Starlink, operated by SpaceX (the same company we paid to launch Euclid), initially refused to comply to the Brazilian Supreme Court, breaking the law by continuing to allow access to Twitter through its service. Although they've since reversed their stance on violating our laws, for a time, all I could think about was how I was part of a scientific collaboration (to which I had contributed for many years) that paid money to a company actively working to undermine democracy in my country. And let's not even begin to discuss Starlink's role in the genocide of the Yanomami people. I will leave you this link here to a great article by Brasil de Fato titled "Find out how illegal miners in the Amazon use Elon Musk's internet to evade surveillance". 

   

    Even though I had zero decision-making power in sending Euclid to space via SpaceX, I now feel, more than ever, the weight of my social responsibility as part of a collaboration that handed over so much money to a maniac who is consistently attacking the sovereignty of my home country. We must consider how we can undo the damage we've contributed to with the knowledge we’ll gain from Euclid. Our net societal impact must be positive. This is the only thing that must be done "at all costs." Hopefully, we can give more back to society. But I am not optimistic—the damage has been immense.

    I want to close this text with an appeal. I currently have no decision-making power in the academic world. My only choices are to starve or sell my labor to whoever will allow me to "do cosmology for food." But those who do have decision-making power must start considering that we cannot continue doing science at any cost, whatever it takes.