 I will directly hand over to Daniel as you described. We managed to project the usual human complexity in space while we are not yet there. So, and that creates a few questions because I understood we have a sovereign question, we have military question, we have intelligence question, we have a commercial exploitation of space all together. So, how do we handle this, Daniel? Thank you, Patrick. The ethicist's job is not to provide answers but to set up the conditions under which these issues can be discussed. So, as we've heard, space is a great promise, but it's also a great threat. In fact, I would say that space is a mess and a dangerous one. Now, how come? How come has it come to this? Haven't we been under the protection for half a century by the Outer Space Treaty, which my colleague did not even mention, probably because he thinks it's so outdated. And for other United Nations treaties or conventions whose purpose was to establish law and order in space activities. So, admittedly, they've aged, I think, when they first went into effect, Elon Musk wasn't born. And he was eight years old. When the last one, the Moon Treaty, was put forward. Musk is just a metaphor for the sea change brought about digitalization. Obviously, in the late 60s and early 70s, you had to be quite a visionary to imagine everything that has happened essentially since the beginning of the 21st century. So, reality has caught up with distant possibilities as we heard just now, and the treaties, as the five UN treaties aren't equipped to deal with the present situation, where actors, as we've just heard, have multiplied in number and variety with many countries, including Luxembourg, non-state actors and private businesses challenging the historical space powers. And where, again, as we've just heard, I'm only repeating, we're commercial and vastly expanded military interests compete with scientific ones. So, perhaps what is called for is just an update. Now, if we run through the issues we have to face today, so we've just heard a number of them, how to administer the lower earth orbit, which is something of a wild west. We have the debris problem, which presents us with a threat that we don't actually know how to stave off, due to both, and that's interesting, both technical and legal problems. We have a cluttering problem with fleets of satellites competing for orbits and no accepted principles or priority. Second, how to regulate the military and security systems located in space in the absence of a universally accepted use bellow that applies to space, as we've just heard again, and with a threat of hybrid attacks made possible by what might be called the violation of the reverse distinction principle, according to which military and civil systems should be kept separate, so that a legitimate attack on the former, the military, does not jeopardize the latter, the civil. Then we have space tourism to technical and economic feasibility justify the expenditure in economic and human resources, the damage, actual and potential to the outer space environment. Next we move to mining, mining for metals, mining for water, constructing on the moon, on Mars, on neighboring asteroids, so we have the issue of ownership with attention between the outer space treaty and the recent Artemis Accords, which are more or less papered over, but they are in deep tension, in fact, just look at the internet. The internet is supposed to belong to no one, but we see what's happened. The internet belongs to a few large corporations. Issues of jurisdiction, alteration of the environment, preempting by constructing on the moon or on Mars, in a way we foreclose future options that we haven't yet had time or the imagination to think about, and of course damages because no system is perfect. Then we move one step over, terraforming Mars. Is it feasible? At what cost? And if it's feasible, is it legitimate? Do we have some sort of general duty as humankind to respect Mars? What does it mean to respect Mars? What does it mean to respect microgeolife on Mars if it exists? Can we impose life on Mars, on human populations if we have a city on Mars? Well, people will be living there, being born, dying there. Is that a legitimate goal for humankind? Won't we be creating a new form of inequality between two human populations, those that dwell on Earth, and those that dwell on Mars? Then we have traveling to distant planets. Is it okay to submit space travelers their lifetime on a spaceship and to the enhancements which make it physically and cyclically bearable? So, will an update of the five treaties allow us to deal with these issues? Well, I think as we go down my list, we feel intuitively that what is needed is a new shot of fundamental ethics, basically. But what kind? Or rather, what stage of ethics? In many areas of applied ethics, such as environment, business ethics, or to take ongoing conversations, AI ethics, genetic engineering ethics, ethics is mostly taken at what I call a crystallized stage where the norms of good and evil are good and bad. The rules of acceptable and acceptable behavior are already settled. And where what you might call the ethics brigade job is to identify areas where principles are at risk of being ignored, neglected, or deliberately violated, and to uphold these well-defined norms of good and bad, in particular by minting legislation such as the five treaties updated. Now, I think that space governance needs something more drastic. It calls for what I propose to call fluid ethics. It's just a fancy word for what professional philosophers called ethics. That's ethics in the making, whose purpose is to identify ethical issues not covered by or agreed upon principles of good and evil, and to initiate a deliberation in which nothing is left off the table. All relevant factors, including the uncertainties and risks, are considered with due diligence, a deliberation in which all stakeholders take part, a deliberations which proceeds under methodology that has itself been discussed rather than be preimposed by tradition or rules of power. A deliberation which aims for a clear decision about the here and now, given that no demand, not even the blanket demand for resources for space activities can be taken for granted and that a balance is all we can aim for. So once reached, a decision under those conditions obligates old parties because they took part in the decision and they have an understanding of its rationale. So if I can continue with a couple of minutes, so this may sound either banal and hence, no chose or idealistic and then unconnected to down to earth or maybe down to Mars, issues which are the bread and butter of professional experts in international relations and politics, diplomacy, economics, military affairs, and last but not least, technology. Now these experts which are around me obviously have a seat at the table, an important seat at the table and should keep it. But I fear that on their own, they will not help us out of the predicaments I listed a moment ago any more than they have up to now for at least two reasons. First, they rely on a crystallized ethics which does not have the necessary conceptual and moral resources. And second, they keep the public out at the local and the global scale. Let me illustrate both points. Crystallized ethics says, among other things, that outer space activities should benefit mankind. That's crucial words. And mankind is indeed the main stakeholder here because it is faced with the next existential threat, there's climate change for example, or maybe several and maybe on the one hand a disaster in space whether caused by the Kessler effect or by sabotage by rogue non-state actors or a military flare up could lead to unheard of damage to humankind. Well, on the other hand, some influential people believe that terraforming Mars is the way, possibly the only way to salvation. So mankind is the main stakeholder and it should have a seat at the table. But how does one make that happen? How does one put mankind at the house? Does one give a seat at the table to mankind? So an important first step is to involve the public in the global sense. And I could elaborate on this, various viewpoints. That's very interesting when you look at speculations about space exploration. You hear that many different viewpoints, for example, religious viewpoints or viewpoints from very different cultures from the modern technological culture bring forth an image of our place in space in the cosmos, which is quite different and which should be taken into account. So that by itself, of course, bringing in these various communities and viewpoints is, of course, extremely important. But by itself, that won't make mankind the sort of stakeholder which the usual methodology of crystallized ethics, say, as practice in genetic engineering or AI, knows how to implicate. So what it's called for is a collective reflection at a more fundamental level, perhaps akin to what the thinkers of the Enlightenment achieved in the 18th century. And this kind of deliberation could lead us, for example, to turn away resolutely and unanimously from mining projects because they are too dangerous to the environment or from the terraforming project because it consumes too much of our resources and diverts us from more immediate concerns. But this could only emerge from the deliberation I'm recommending and which could actually lead to a different decision. So let me simply conclude by urging that fluid ethics, ethics in the making, both advances shared understanding of the issues and their interconnectedness and that it keeps the search for collective wisdom open as it crucially needs to be by making ample room for public and global involvement. And this leads me to one last question, which was taken up indirectly by Professor Suzuki. Where can the enterprise of fluid ethics of outer space be conducted? Can it be distributed over many venues or does it require an independent outer space authority, UN or other? I think that's a false dilemma, perhaps. We may need both a distributed discussion of these issues everywhere and a collective reflection in the framework of some independent outer space authority. Thank you. Thank you, Professor Anglaire, for this description and yet drawing our attention on the fact that space is, as we've seen with the first rocket, from an engineering standpoint, we could never test a rocket before launching it. So that was an engineering challenge, and you're telling us from an ethical standpoint, it's exactly the same. Well, it's not just one area of the human activity we have to address. By projecting ourselves in space, we project the entirety of humanity into that. Thus, the complexity of the ethical challenge is at that scale. And I like your notion of fluid ethics. I just need to understand how this will work, but you ask for a governance body, but certainly you're right. That's a very, very fundamental question. Complex one, we should start to address very, very rapidly, but we don't have the framework right now, as I understood you. But the questions are well said. So thank you very much for this inspiring contribution.