Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why Scientists Are Calling for the Moon to Be Better Protected from Development

smithsonianmag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 150 posts

Re: Why Scientists Are Calling for the Moon to Be Better Protected from Development

#21

Post by jfengel »

I personally don't much care what we develop on the moon. It's a rock.

I'm more concerned with Mars. Mars potentially had life, once. There's even a vague chance that it might still, somehow. Evidence for either would be extremely precarious. Unlike the Moon, every bit of waste vented into the atmosphere is going to be carried around the entire planet by the wind, tainting everything.

If it were up to me, I'd declare a moratorium on humans being on Mars. Not permanent, but, say, 100 years. Enough time for us to send lots of robots to explore the planet without mixing our biology up in it.

Build up whatever automated support is needed for that. It's industrial and ugly, and surely dumping out its own non-biological pollution, but that doesn't risk breeding the way the way our microorganisms do. And everywhere we go, we spread microorganisms, lots of them. (In theory they'd be contained, but accidents happen.)

I'd settle for 50 years. Or even 20 years past the point where we'd be capable of the kind of rockets required to build an industrial infrastructure. Just gather a crapload of data from the planet as pristinely as we can, just because we're never going to get another opportunity. Use that time to build whatever you want on the Moon.

Of course it's not up to me. There will surely be astronauts on Mars well before I think it's a good idea. It will certainly be exciting and produce a lot of great data fast. I'll just cross my fingers that they can get it while it's still there to get, before every test turns up "We found DNA on Mars... oops, it's us again."

Re: Why Scientists Are Calling for the Moon to Be Better Protected from Development

#23

Post by jessriedel »

d_burfoot wrote: post #16

There was a similar theme in Kim Stanley Robinson's book Red Mars - a lot of the initial crew of colonists actually wanted to preserve the planet in its pristine state. I thought this was completely crazy. There are no ecosystems to protect, no endangered species, no green living things. Moving development from Earth into space should count as an overwhelming win for the environment.

I like seeing these attempts because it draws out that the motivating factor often is (as you say) not protection of any nature/environment nor the human experience thereof. It's just a gut instinct a lot of people have to change and development.

Re: Why Scientists Are Calling for the Moon to Be Better Protected from Development

#24

Post by jerf »

erellsworth wrote: post #12
basisword wrote: post #2

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.

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…

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.

Re: Why Scientists Are Calling for the Moon to Be Better Protected from Development

#25

Post by rufus_foreman »

erellsworth wrote: post #12
basisword wrote: post #2

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.

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…

>> Who gets to own the moon?

Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin were the first to the moon and they planted the US flag on it in 1969, so that technically made it US territory. But then when they took off in the lander, the blast blew the flag over. I don't know if that affected the legal status or not.

Re: Why Scientists Are Calling for the Moon to Be Better Protected from Development

#26

Post by KyleBerezin »

jfengel wrote: post #21

I personally don't much care what we develop on the moon. It's a rock. I'm more concerned with Mars. Mars potentially had life, once. There's even a vague chance that it might still, somehow. Evidence for either would be extremely precarious. Unlike the Moon, every bit of waste vented into the atmosphere is going to be carried around the entire planet by the wind, tainting everything. If it were up to me, I'd declare…

I think if we find DNA on mars, it would be pretty trivial to identify if it is terrestrial. There would be some crazy evolutionary divergence by now.

Re: Why Scientists Are Calling for the Moon to Be Better Protected from Development

#27

Post by cassianoleal »

erellsworth wrote: post #12
basisword wrote: post #2

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.

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…

> carve a portrait of Elon Musk into the face of the moon

I don't think the moon rabbit would let that happen.

Re: Why Scientists Are Calling for the Moon to Be Better Protected from Development

#28

Post by jessriedel »

m3kw9 wrote: post #20
d_burfoot wrote: post #16

There was a similar theme in Kim Stanley Robinson's book Red Mars - a lot of the initial crew of colonists actually wanted to preserve the planet in its pristine state. I thought this was completely crazy. There are no ecosystems to protect, no endangered species, no green living things. Moving development from Earth into space should count as an overwhelming win for the environment.

Maybe the way there is no regulations, gonna look like dumping grounds everywhere except the developed areas

The cost to bring trash (or even nuclear waste) to the moon is completely prohibitive, so the only thing it will be a dumping ground for is trash generated on the moon. And for the foreseeable future it will be entirely appropriate to dump lunar trash where ever it is most convenient.

Re: Why Scientists Are Calling for the Moon to Be Better Protected from Development

#29

Post by BasilPH »

I can highly recommend "A City on Mars"[^0], which I recently read.

The authors go into fascinating detail about what it takes to build planetary settlements, and they not only focus on the engineering questions but make a point to talk about the legal aspects of space settlement as well.

[^0]: https://www.acityonmars.com/

Post reply on HN