A Lunar Klondike?

techcentralstation ^ | 7/9/03 | Glenn Reynolds

[Brett66]

A Lunar Klondike?

By Glenn Harlan Reynolds 07/09/2003

It's happening again. With commercial interest in space exploration beginning to pick up steam, scientists are complaining that someone is stepping on their turf, as an article (sadly, not available on the Web) from last week's Financial Times makes clear:

But one man's science fantasy looks considerably less attractive to others. Richard Steiner, a professor and conservation specialist at the University of Alaska, is deeply concerned at the prospect of any country granting licenses for lunar exploitation without proper international consultation.

"The moon is owned by everyone," he says. "A farmer in Zimbabwe should also have a say. This has huge historic importance." While this first commercial launch seemed "relatively innocuous", Mr Steiner says it sets a dangerous precedent for more intrusive projects, such as strip-mining.

Calling for clearer international rules, he is also campaigning for the moon to be named a World Heritage Site. When asked about the prospect, to some incredulity, the UN said that was legally impossible.

Yes. You see, the Moon is a different, er, World. And, as earlier critics also failed to note, the grant of licenses to private companies to commercially exploit the Moon isn't lawless. Instead, it's governed by the Commercial Space Launch Act and specifically involves the regulators ensuring that international obligations are complied with. The 1979 Moon Treaty represented an effort to enact Steiner's views into law, but it failed miserably and was not joined by any space power.

But the complaints of people like Steiner -- like those of so many critics of U.S. action -- don't really have much to do with law, as the U.N.'s incredulous reaction makes clear. (It's revealing, too, that Steiner, like most such critics, seems to regard international law as a potent wish-fulfillment tool without bothering to see what it actually requires.) Rather they seem to stem from a fear of change, and a visceral opposition to doing something. (Forget the Zimbabwean farmer -- nobody's offering him a veto on the European Union's restrictive policies regarding genetically modified foods, after all, despite its far more significant impact on his life. He's just there to provide a bit of multi-culti camouflage. And what's wrong with "strip mining" on the Moon? The complaint about strip mining on Earth is that it leaves the landscape "looking like the Moon." The Moon already looks like the Moon.)

I think that this sort of opposition -- like the anti-American sentiment with which it is often, though not always, coupled -- stems from a visceral dislike of human progress, and the notion that humans are some sort of cancer on the Universe, that that the Universe would be better off without. As I wrote here a while back:

It is always a surprise to me that people who view humanity as a cancer somehow continue to live, and even to raise children, rather than committing the honorable suicide that self-diagnosis as a cancer cell would seem to call for, but the human mind is entirely capable of holding contradictory views as it operates. And this view does describe a certain part of the environmental movement: the part that seems to be motivated more by a view of human works as evil than by a desire to preserve nature.

I believe that it is this aspect of the environmental movement that will play the biggest role in opposing terraforming efforts, and that -- by speaking out against the terraforming of a dead Mars, or even a Mars inhabited by bacteria and lichens -- those people will be forced to show their true colors. After all, one may be motivated to protect a sequoia forest either by hatred of loggers or by love of trees. But when one opposes development of rocks and sand, it is pretty obviously not action in the cause of life. So pay attention to who denounces proposals for Martian terraforming as they begin to appear more frequently in mainstream discourse. It will not only be of interest in itself, but will tell you something about how you ought to view the denouncers' other positions.

I don't regard human works as evil. I rather doubt that farmers in Zimbabwe do, either. Those views seem to be held largely by pampered Westerners more interested in striking moral poses than in helping humanity. The good news is that their influence is steadily declining. The bad news is that their complaints are growing steadily more tiresome. At least, I'm certainly tired of hearing them.

[Brett66]

Space ping.

[Support Free Republic]

Strong Conservative Forums Help Prevent Candidates Like This From Winning Elections
	Finish Strong. Donate Here By Secure Server Or mail checks to FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794 or you can use PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD- It is in the breaking news sidebar!

[tet68]

Only a complete cretin and idiot would use a Zimbabweian farmer as an example, considering the current status of same.

[RightWhale]

Bush's campaign said they would be looking into the matter of private property rights in outer space once they were in office. They have not done so. Sure, he has other things to do, but a campaign promise has not been fulfilled or even begun.

The 1967 UN Outer Space Treaty needs to be withdrawn from. Without private property rights in outer space, nothing will happen and we will be stuck on this backwater mudball forever.

[KevinDavis]

I wouldn't worry about the UN Treaty right now. The un can't even do squat on Earth let alone in space. I believe Bush is pro space.

[demlosers]

3M = Martian Mining & Manufacturing

[demlosers]

Yeah, but I wouldn't worry too much about that idiot treaty. As soon as it's viable to exploit space for natural resources, say goodbye to the UN Outer Space Treaty :)

[Centurion2000]

Richard Steiner, a professor and conservation specialist professional idiot at the University of Alaska, is deeply concerned at the prospect of any country granting licenses for lunar exploitation without proper international consultation.

"The moon is owned by everyone," he says

The moon is owned by anyone with the capability to take, hold and defend it, so far that means America.

[RightWhale]

Bush is pro space

He needs to do some things in this regard. He has done nothing so far. NASA was in bad shape when he got it, and it still is. The Space Shuttle navel contemplation will do nothing to promote private development of outer space resources.

It's easy:
1) withdraw from the 1967 UN Outer Space Treaty;
2) Open an Office for registering outer space claims;
3) Clear the red tape from private space launches and product delivery.

[RightWhale]

I wouldn't worry too much about that idiot treaty

It's the main legal impediment to private investment in space devlopment.

[demlosers]

Mr Steiner says it sets a dangerous precedent for more intrusive projects, such as strip-mining.

I can't think of a better desolated place to strip-mine. What an idiot.

[RightWhale]

un can't even do squat on Earth let alone in space

The UN Treaty has nothing to do with the UN. It is an international treaty.

[Physicist]

The moon is owned by anyone with the capability to take, hold and defend it, so far that means America.

Not even remotely.

[demlosers]

I wonder if it has an 6 month notice to withdrawl clause, like the ABM treaty?

[irv]

It's the main legal impediment to private investment in space devlopment.

Who's going to enforce it? Space cops?

Go. Strip mine to your heart's content.

[Desmond]

I largely agree. International law should recognize private property in space, probably determined by use. Anyway, whoever goes to a piece of land in space, sets up shop, and defends it will essentially "own" it for as long as he can defend it (legally and/or by force).

I do dissent on your remark regarding the terraformation of Mars, in particular. First, it's not practical or even feasible on any reasonable timescale even if we assume extraordinary effort and technological advances. 200 years is a barely reasonable timescale, but 20,000 years most certainly isn't. There's also the question of the living conditions during the terraformation process as well as unintended consequences.

Second, I do not think terraforming Mars is desirable in the first place. Mars is (could be) completely habitable in artificial environments with just the assumption of current technology (we did it on the Moon and do it in near-Earth orbit at this very moment). Technological advances would be more intelligently directed in this effort, in my opinion. Enclosed domes covering canyons and craters, better surface and sub-surface buildings and vehicles, etc. Advanced materials and technology would make Martian environmental suits increasingly more convenient and comfortable, and so on.

The technology is much less and much simpler than that required to shape an entire planet. It's also immediate, it's known territory, and it would probably have to be done before terraforming occurred anyway. I think it's enough to support a population of any size we desire in great comfort.

Finally, I like Mars the way it is. Similarly, I simply like the beach, the valley, and the mountains around my home the way they are, generally. I also look forward to visiting the desert in the Midwest and the forests in the Northwest in the distant future.

On the other hand, I'm certainly not some idiot "environmentalist" who rates rocks and frogs over human life and standard of living. I would absolutely love to see millions of people inhabiting Mars (and everywhere else). If given an absolute choice, I would take a 100% paved downtown Manhattan over a primitive pygmy tribe "in tune with nature" (gag) without hesitation. But, I also don't think it's an absolute choice. After all, we have some of the worlds greatest forests, mountains, deserts and so forth coexisting with the worlds highest standard of living, despite "environmentalists'" bizzare efforts to destroy both.

I compare the terraformation of Mars to boiling all the Earth's oceans in order to acquire more land to live on. Not realistically possible, and pretty damn stupid when you can just build underwater anyway (and still have that pretty ocean to enjoy, which is pretty nifty).

[RightWhale]

it's a one year notice.

[RightWhale]

Who's going to enforce it?

Won't get that far without investment capital. No legal protection = no investment

You'll need $ billions, and you won't get it anywhere.

[dasboot]

No; centurion is spot-on. Merely an extension of Common Law , Natural Law, and common sense.