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.
[dead]
Why Scientists Are Calling for the Moon to Be Better Protected from Development
61–70 of 150 posts
Re: Why Scientists Are Calling for the Moon to Be Better Protected from Development
#62There 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.
The Reds were defending the actual existing microorganisms on Mars, that were guaranteed to lose out to lifeforms engineered to terraform the planet. It's a harsh position to hold when weighed against human life, but there's something there.
Re: Why Scientists Are Calling for the Moon to Be Better Protected from Development
#63Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
The cost to bring anything to the moon is completely prohibitive.
Re: Why Scientists Are Calling for the Moon to Be Better Protected from Development
#64While 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.
>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-valuab…
- the Moon is extremely large; if you mined the entire Moon and covered the Earth's surface with the material, including oceans, it would form a layer about thirty miles thick
- most of the Moon is made up of the same stuff as the Earth's crust (silica, alumina, etc) and has very little value, compared to the energy needed to get it off the Moon
- if humans remove material from the Moon, the rest of it doesn't "float off into the universe", it just stays in orbit unless it is actively pushed, which would take an insane amount of energy, something like the entire world's electricity consumption for a billion years
Re: Why Scientists Are Calling for the Moon to Be Better Protected from Development
#65There 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.
I don't think that's it. A lot of people find nature-—including barren landscapes--beautiful, and find immersion in it to be psychologically rejuvenating. Protection of ecosystems and other living things is, of course, important. But that's not the only reason to protect at least parts of the natural world from human development.
I don't claim that that these considerations should always (or even often) be decisive. But there is more going on than just resistance to change. Development of a pristine natural space destroys something of value, even when that space is barren. But, of course, it may create something of greater value.
Another dimension may be the sense that the human touch feels, in some sense, irreversible. So one might think we should be conservative when disturbing an environment that has been formed only by natural processes over millions of years. Once humans start digging and building there, we can't truly restore it to its former state. Maybe this is closer to mere resistance to change. But I think it's worth taking more seriously whether there is more to it than that. It's a much harder argument, though, when it's an environment that no living thing will ever really experience otherwise.
Edit: I (and, I think, many others) believe that we would enjoy the experience of gazing out onto a martian or lunar landscape, generalizing from our experiences with environments on earth. But I suppose it's interesting to contemplate the possibility that we're wrong. I guess I can't rule out the possibility that some aspect of the experience on the moon or Mars could prevent it from scratching the same itch as, for example, a desert on earth.
Edit 2: I recognize that these musings have basically nothing to do with TFA, which discusses scientists' concern over the potential destruction of sites with significant scientific value. They're certainly not just talking about the pretty views.
Re: Why Scientists Are Calling for the Moon to Be Better Protected from Development
#66There 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.
> “We need to preserve the far side for exciting science that includes measuring magnetic fields associated with potentially habitable exoplanets and uncovering the mysteries of the unexplored Dark Ages of the early universe—using low radio frequency observations” Does that sound completely crazy? Like... the fact that they want to study it before private companies destroy it for their own benefit? > Moving developme…
Once the market believes that gold or other precious metals will imminently be returned from space, the price will plummet, making many destructive mining operations unprofitable.
As a tangent, have you seen that gold rush show on discovery? Taking acres of lush and beautiful Klondike Forest and bulldoze it barren so they can maybe get a few oz of gold. It's terrible.
Re: Why Scientists Are Calling for the Moon to Be Better Protected from Development
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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-valuab…
If someone can mine the entire moon away I say let them. What a fantastical technical achievement that would be
This makes me wonder, would "mine the entire moon away" require new physics or simply require a monumental effort?
Re: Why Scientists Are Calling for the Moon to Be Better Protected from Development
#68There 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.
> preserve the planet in its pristine state
For those that have jumped straight to the comments this isn’t the flavor of TFA:
> The moon hosts several sites of extraordinary scientific importance (SESIs) to astronomy.
> Only within the last 20 years have astronomers discovered locations on the moon where conditions are ideal for the study of the early universe. The far side of the moon, for example, is one of the most radio-silent places in our solar system, as radio transmissions and interference from Earth are blocked. From there, radio telescopes can peer into the universe’s past to a time before the stars formed—or search for evidence of technologically advanced alien life, writes the Guardian.
> But because of the far side’s mountainous terrain, scientists say the installation of telescopes is possible at only three sites—and one in particular is rich in helium-3, which space mining companies have identified as a key element in quantum computers and fusion energy.
> Another scarce resource are the moon’s “cold traps,” located along craters near the north and south poles, where sunlight hasn’t been able to reach for billions of years. Among the universe’s most frigid places, they are the perfect location for infrared telescopes, which are specifically designed to operate at extremely cold temperatures. These could potentially collect images of Earth-sized exoplanets, and seismometers placed at cold traps could measure the moon’s own movement amidst gravitational waves.
Re: Why Scientists Are Calling for the Moon to Be Better Protected from Development
#69Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Presumably those who get to own the Moon will have people here on Earth who they love or care about. Following the "this is just how it is" logic, what's stopping a barrel of gun from being pointed at those people?
Re: Why Scientists Are Calling for the Moon to Be Better Protected from Development
#70There 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.
The Reds were defending the actual existing microorganisms on Mars, that were guaranteed to lose out to lifeforms engineered to terraform the planet. It's a harsh position to hold when weighed against human life, but there's something there.
They were defending rocks. They had not uncovered evidence of native martian life.
See more discussion here: https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/160959/is-or-was-t...