7 ms·

While I understand their concerns, it seems a bit crazy to think you have any right to tell people what to do or not do on the moon.

olesya1979 3y ago
[dead]
KyleBerezin 3y ago
I too am a libertarian moon-man.
- edgyquant 3y ago
  It’s not really a libertarian thing. Society has to balance more than just the wants or concerns of scientists and they have no more right than anyone else to dictate what we do with the moon.
  - KyleBerezin 3y ago
    Its a joke. It sounds like a normal libertarian argument, but on the moon. If you want a more serious answer though, we have multiple treaties and moratoriums on what is, and is not allowed in space and on the moon. They were agreed upon because we have mutual interests, and want to preserve humanities future of spaceflight and research. - https://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/introouterspacetreaty.html https://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/int... - https://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/introliability-convention.html#:~:text=Elaborating%20on%20Article%207%20of,to%20its%20faults%20in%20space https://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/int.... - https://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/introregistration-convention.html https://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/int... - https://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/intromoon-agreement.html https://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/int...
    - edgyquant 3y ago
      Treaties can be updated or even ignored if new economic or technological realities come into play.
      - KyleBerezin 3y ago
        The impermanence of law is a different discussion. I was just providing you with the precedent that such a rule would likely build off of.
    - cmrdporcupine 3y ago
      These kinds of threads are entertaining to me, to see how various strands of libertarian/techno-capitalist are confronted with explaining how apparently-immutable-and-eternal property rights originate. The ones where they basically admit it comes down to "who has the most guns" are the best.
    - nirav72 3y ago
      Are these treaties binding? I know there can be other repercussions for signatories for violating treaties. But usually there are no clear rules on what the repercussions should be. Also , since signatories are nation-states, not sure how individuals could be held accountable for any violations by the international community. Such as private corporations
A4ET8a8uTh0 3y ago
Admittedly, it is a slightly better set of reasons than 'because it is sacred[1]'. [1]https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/05/world/peregrine-moon-mission-navajo-nation-objection-human-remains-scn/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/05/world/peregrine-moon-mission-...
23B1 3y ago
[flagged]
erellsworth 3y ago
Serious question: What is the difference between telling people what they can and can't do on the moon vs telling people what they can and can't do on vacant land here on earth? If I go out to some remote area in the United States and start building houses, I'll almost certainly get into legal trouble, especially if I don't have any permits and definitely if I don't own the land. Who gets to own the moon? Is it just whoever has the resources to travel there and build stuff? Imagine if Space X decides to carve a portrait of Elon Musk into the face of the moon at a scale large enough it can be seen from the naked eye on earth. Would that be OK just because he had the money to do it?
- ToucanLoucan 3y ago
  I echo the sentiments of that famous tweet, that if I ever go outside one night and find an ad on the moon, I'm becoming a terrorist.
- nirav72 3y ago
  Probably because the moon doesn't have property lines and nation-state borders (For now). Vacant lots down here on earth are usually privately owned or by local or national governments.
- jerf 3y ago
  The Age of Exploration has ended so long ago that we have all collectively forgotten how it works. Almost every square meter of land on Earth is covered by one group or another of People with Guns. The only ones that aren't are ones so deeply undesirable that nobody cares. But it actually works in a fairly intuitive manner. People who get to the Moon can do as they like there. Anyone who wants to stop them is invited to go to the Moon and try. This does not mean immediately by shooting them. Talking is a classic option for many good reasons that won't be going anywhere. But if you can't get there at all, you have no stake. If you can't get to the moon, you will have no say. On Earth it is easy to forget that enforcement of laws requires enforcers to be able to get to the location where it will be enforced, because humanity conquered the task of getting from anywhere people are to anywhere people are at a reasonable speed a while ago. But this is still a base requirement. It hasn't gone anywhere. It has just been a long time since it was in question and people forget about it. Space exploration will modify this for some period of time because in the Age of Exploration, people could live on the land. While people living in space require an Earth footprint to maintain themselves, that will give people on Earth a mechanism for enforcing power over the moon based on that footprint. But science fiction is full unto overflowing of space colonies going to war with Earth once they are capable of being independent for a reason; it's not so much a "trope" as a plainly obvious consequence of independence. Better treatments observe that Earth will know this and take it into account as it tries to hamstring its colonies from being independent, but A: this will eventually take the form of overtly hostile acts if space colonization continues on that will provide abundant casus belli for the colonies and B: there's a huge economic incentive to make them as independent as possible because it will always be more expensive to supply space colonies from Earth than to supply them from space resources. Getting back to the original question, what will happen is this: Anyone who can get to the moon and stay there will have a say. Anyone who can't won't. Wringing hands, abtruse philosophical arguments, having hissy fits, screaming really loudly about "rights", complaining, none of it will matter. "Power comes from the barrel of a gun" is actually downstream of "power comes from being there". If you can't be there, you will have no power. Also, I'm not particularly celebrating or condemning this in this post. This is just how it is.
tw04 3y ago
>While I understand their concerns, it seems a bit crazy to think you have any right to tell people what to do or not do on the moon. Have you stopped to think what happens to the earth if the moon were just outright gone? Because that's ultimately what the debate is about. If anything valuable is found there, you can be assured someone will strip mine it until every last piece of value is removed, and the non-valuable thing is left to float off into the universe, not their problem. I think it's EVERYONE'S right to tell anyone trying to profit off of what is at the moon what they can and can't do.
- Am4TIfIsER0ppos 3y ago
  If someone can mine the entire moon away I say let them. What a fantastical technical achievement that would be
  - tw04 3y ago
    "If someone can cut down the entire Amazon Rainforest, I say let them. What a fantastical technical achievement." Whether you're trolling or not, what a horrible take unless you're hoping the human race just wipes itself out. With our current rate of technological progress, someone having the ability to mine the moon to nothing is at most 500 years away, maybe sooner if they find something under the surface that makes it financially attractive.
    - jasonjayr 3y ago
      If there's iron there, then there's the potential for Low-background Steel ...
      - firtoz 3y ago
        Well, until we drop some nukes on there.
      - ben_w 3y ago
        There's an unshielded nuclear reactor hanging in the sky just like bricks don't. I'm not a nuclear physicist so I may be orders of magnitude off, but my gut feeling is that being constantly bombarded with the solar wind might be putting into a very slightly radioactive equilibrium? (I'm thinking more along the lines of the story of the radioactive boy scout, not Trinitite, and I don't know how radioactive "normal" steel is compared to "low-background").
palata 3y ago
I understand: "Those people have valid reasons to tell people what not to do on the Moon, but I find it crazy that they could think there are valid reasons to tell people what not to do on the Moon". Is that what you are saying?
darby_eight 3y ago
[dead]
GolfPopper 3y ago
Is it any more crazy than thinking that some corporation, country, or individual has a right to do something on the moon?
- moffkalast 3y ago
  The moon is well outside anything one might define as anyone's jurisdiction, nobody has any rights or responsibilities there and disputes are resolved with who gets there first and has a big enough stick to keep others away. That's the reality.
  - redwall_hp 3y ago
    Nations can, and do, punish people for crimes they commit elsewhere on the planet. Nobody can get away with staking land out on the moon and declaring sovereignty, because it's impossible to exist on the moon without a massive support apparatus on earth enabling it. It's easy enough to throw those people in a cell. And either nations take care of the offenders and form treaties, or it leads to war at the worst.
  - MichaelZuo 3y ago
    The moon is under the jurisdiction of the UN in writing, or at least the supermajority of member states claim so.
    - moffkalast 3y ago
      De jure so is Antarctica, but nobody seems to give a fuck in practice.
- AlgorithmicTime 3y ago
  [dead]
antegamisou 3y ago
> people You mean the arrogant billionaires that think they can buy everything and anything and mostly ruin them? Cause these are the only ones that have expressed interest, instead of, you know, contributing to more menial tasks like food/water shortage, environmental protection etc.
mort96 3y ago
And the mining companies are better because they wouldn't be telling people what to do, they would just destroy any possibility of doing what the scientists want to do?

olesya1979 3y ago

[dead]

KyleBerezin 3y ago

I too am a libertarian moon-man.

edgyquant 3y ago
It’s not really a libertarian thing. Society has to balance more than just the wants or concerns of scientists and they have no more right than anyone else to dictate what we do with the moon.
- KyleBerezin 3y ago
  Its a joke. It sounds like a normal libertarian argument, but on the moon. If you want a more serious answer though, we have multiple treaties and moratoriums on what is, and is not allowed in space and on the moon. They were agreed upon because we have mutual interests, and want to preserve humanities future of spaceflight and research. - https://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/introouterspacetreaty.html https://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/int... - https://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/introliability-convention.html#:~:text=Elaborating%20on%20Article%207%20of,to%20its%20faults%20in%20space https://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/int.... - https://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/introregistration-convention.html https://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/int... - https://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/intromoon-agreement.html https://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/int...
  - edgyquant 3y ago
    Treaties can be updated or even ignored if new economic or technological realities come into play.
    - KyleBerezin 3y ago
      The impermanence of law is a different discussion. I was just providing you with the precedent that such a rule would likely build off of.
  - cmrdporcupine 3y ago
    These kinds of threads are entertaining to me, to see how various strands of libertarian/techno-capitalist are confronted with explaining how apparently-immutable-and-eternal property rights originate. The ones where they basically admit it comes down to "who has the most guns" are the best.
  - nirav72 3y ago
    Are these treaties binding? I know there can be other repercussions for signatories for violating treaties. But usually there are no clear rules on what the repercussions should be. Also , since signatories are nation-states, not sure how individuals could be held accountable for any violations by the international community. Such as private corporations

A4ET8a8uTh0 3y ago

Admittedly, it is a slightly better set of reasons than 'because it is sacred[1]'. [1]https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/05/world/peregrine-moon-mission-navajo-nation-objection-human-remains-scn/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/05/world/peregrine-moon-mission-...

23B1 3y ago

[flagged]

erellsworth 3y ago

Serious question: What is the difference between telling people what they can and can't do on the moon vs telling people what they can and can't do on vacant land here on earth? If I go out to some remote area in the United States and start building houses, I'll almost certainly get into legal trouble, especially if I don't have any permits and definitely if I don't own the land. Who gets to own the moon? Is it just whoever has the resources to travel there and build stuff? Imagine if Space X decides to carve a portrait of Elon Musk into the face of the moon at a scale large enough it can be seen from the naked eye on earth. Would that be OK just because he had the money to do it?

ToucanLoucan 3y ago
I echo the sentiments of that famous tweet, that if I ever go outside one night and find an ad on the moon, I'm becoming a terrorist.
nirav72 3y ago
Probably because the moon doesn't have property lines and nation-state borders (For now). Vacant lots down here on earth are usually privately owned or by local or national governments.
jerf 3y ago
The Age of Exploration has ended so long ago that we have all collectively forgotten how it works. Almost every square meter of land on Earth is covered by one group or another of People with Guns. The only ones that aren't are ones so deeply undesirable that nobody cares. But it actually works in a fairly intuitive manner. People who get to the Moon can do as they like there. Anyone who wants to stop them is invited to go to the Moon and try. This does not mean immediately by shooting them. Talking is a classic option for many good reasons that won't be going anywhere. But if you can't get there at all, you have no stake. If you can't get to the moon, you will have no say. On Earth it is easy to forget that enforcement of laws requires enforcers to be able to get to the location where it will be enforced, because humanity conquered the task of getting from anywhere people are to anywhere people are at a reasonable speed a while ago. But this is still a base requirement. It hasn't gone anywhere. It has just been a long time since it was in question and people forget about it. Space exploration will modify this for some period of time because in the Age of Exploration, people could live on the land. While people living in space require an Earth footprint to maintain themselves, that will give people on Earth a mechanism for enforcing power over the moon based on that footprint. But science fiction is full unto overflowing of space colonies going to war with Earth once they are capable of being independent for a reason; it's not so much a "trope" as a plainly obvious consequence of independence. Better treatments observe that Earth will know this and take it into account as it tries to hamstring its colonies from being independent, but A: this will eventually take the form of overtly hostile acts if space colonization continues on that will provide abundant casus belli for the colonies and B: there's a huge economic incentive to make them as independent as possible because it will always be more expensive to supply space colonies from Earth than to supply them from space resources. Getting back to the original question, what will happen is this: Anyone who can get to the moon and stay there will have a say. Anyone who can't won't. Wringing hands, abtruse philosophical arguments, having hissy fits, screaming really loudly about "rights", complaining, none of it will matter. "Power comes from the barrel of a gun" is actually downstream of "power comes from being there". If you can't be there, you will have no power. Also, I'm not particularly celebrating or condemning this in this post. This is just how it is.

tw04 3y ago

>While I understand their concerns, it seems a bit crazy to think you have any right to tell people what to do or not do on the moon. Have you stopped to think what happens to the earth if the moon were just outright gone? Because that's ultimately what the debate is about. If anything valuable is found there, you can be assured someone will strip mine it until every last piece of value is removed, and the non-valuable thing is left to float off into the universe, not their problem. I think it's EVERYONE'S right to tell anyone trying to profit off of what is at the moon what they can and can't do.

Am4TIfIsER0ppos 3y ago
If someone can mine the entire moon away I say let them. What a fantastical technical achievement that would be
- tw04 3y ago
  "If someone can cut down the entire Amazon Rainforest, I say let them. What a fantastical technical achievement." Whether you're trolling or not, what a horrible take unless you're hoping the human race just wipes itself out. With our current rate of technological progress, someone having the ability to mine the moon to nothing is at most 500 years away, maybe sooner if they find something under the surface that makes it financially attractive.
  - jasonjayr 3y ago
    If there's iron there, then there's the potential for Low-background Steel ...
    - firtoz 3y ago
      Well, until we drop some nukes on there.
    - ben_w 3y ago
      There's an unshielded nuclear reactor hanging in the sky just like bricks don't. I'm not a nuclear physicist so I may be orders of magnitude off, but my gut feeling is that being constantly bombarded with the solar wind might be putting into a very slightly radioactive equilibrium? (I'm thinking more along the lines of the story of the radioactive boy scout, not Trinitite, and I don't know how radioactive "normal" steel is compared to "low-background").

palata 3y ago

I understand: "Those people have valid reasons to tell people what not to do on the Moon, but I find it crazy that they could think there are valid reasons to tell people what not to do on the Moon". Is that what you are saying?

darby_eight 3y ago

[dead]

GolfPopper 3y ago

Is it any more crazy than thinking that some corporation, country, or individual has a right to do something on the moon?

moffkalast 3y ago
The moon is well outside anything one might define as anyone's jurisdiction, nobody has any rights or responsibilities there and disputes are resolved with who gets there first and has a big enough stick to keep others away. That's the reality.
- redwall_hp 3y ago
  Nations can, and do, punish people for crimes they commit elsewhere on the planet. Nobody can get away with staking land out on the moon and declaring sovereignty, because it's impossible to exist on the moon without a massive support apparatus on earth enabling it. It's easy enough to throw those people in a cell. And either nations take care of the offenders and form treaties, or it leads to war at the worst.
- MichaelZuo 3y ago
  The moon is under the jurisdiction of the UN in writing, or at least the supermajority of member states claim so.
  - moffkalast 3y ago
    De jure so is Antarctica, but nobody seems to give a fuck in practice.
AlgorithmicTime 3y ago
[dead]

antegamisou 3y ago

> people You mean the arrogant billionaires that think they can buy everything and anything and mostly ruin them? Cause these are the only ones that have expressed interest, instead of, you know, contributing to more menial tasks like food/water shortage, environmental protection etc.

mort96 3y ago

And the mining companies are better because they wouldn't be telling people what to do, they would just destroy any possibility of doing what the scientists want to do?