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

Bury me on the moon, preferably on the far side

scientificamerican.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 140 posts

Re: Bury me on the moon, preferably on the far side

#71

Post by jfactorial »

WalterBright wrote: post #12

> so why not agree to leave it unmarred by any obvious act of humanity, forevermore? How some people hate humanity. Personally, I'd love to see the lights from a lunar colony on the moon. This reminds me of the people who don't want to "pollute" Mars. Sheesh, it's a dead rock. There is no environment to pollute. It could desperately use people on it, just like the moon. The solar system is ours, and we can and should…

I don't hate humanity but I'm firmly on the side that says the lit side of the moon should be left untouched from here on out. The night sky belongs to all of Earth's inhabitants. None of us has any right to decorate the moon anymore than a technocrat with the means could claim the right to make all the oceans glow.

If we do allow building on the lit lunar surface though, props to the first telescope company to build a sign that says "You'd be able to read this better with a Celestron."

Re: Bury me on the moon, preferably on the far side

#72

Post by itishappy »

fsckboy wrote: post #27
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it's a dead rock. There is no environment to pollute I used to share this view until I read Kim Stanley Robinson's Red Mars . There is aesthetic value to preserving Mars in its pristine form, within reason, if only so future generations can enjoy it. That doesn't mean full space NIMBY, as this article suggets. But it does argue against being cavalier about an alien landscape simply because it's lifeless.

that aesthetic value of preservation exists basically in every choice we make. Or maybe we can stop believing the ancient superstitions that consider us not to be part of nature.

Would you consider NYC as a candidate for a new national park?

> National parks are designated for their natural beauty, unique geological features, diverse ecosystems, and recreational opportunities, typically "because of some outstanding scenic feature or natural phenomena."

Fits the bill, don't it?

Re: Bury me on the moon, preferably on the far side

#73

Post by s1artibartfast »

freejazz wrote: post #66
s1artibartfast wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but why do you think that matters unless the two are in major competition?

Because one is an urgent need, the other isn't and also presupposes a solution to the first problem. Perhaps you can explain why this doesn't matter.

I dont see that way at all. Space exploration in no way hampers or restricts our ability to improve earth. The two can be done in parallel.

Do you think that all non-urgent activities should/must be halted until the earth is improved?

Re: Bury me on the moon, preferably on the far side

#74

Post by vacuity »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #60
giraffe_lady wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Manifest destiny but with secular scientism this time.

> Manifest destiny but with secular scientism this time Manifest destiny without pre-existing sapient life. Like, the problem with manifest destiny wasn't the expansion. Nobody is running around decrying the Polynesians for the deigning to exist on more than one island. Primordial humans weren't monsters for leaving Africa.

Sure, if humans will not needlessly harm any sapient life, I think there would be a lot less reasonable complaints around. Whether on Mars or on Earth, let's do that, shall we? Oh wait...now I see the longstanding problem with conquest and "might makes right". Sounds to me like we'll have an acceptable Mars civilization...for a bit. Or is it fine if they aren't pre-existing life?

Re: Bury me on the moon, preferably on the far side

#75

Post by JumpCrisscross »

itishappy wrote: post #67
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is it "hating humanity" to mourn this loss a little, to want to preserve something like it for future generations? It strikes me as naively presumptuous more than hateful. We don't have the capability, today, to ruin a celestial body by any reasonable defintion of those terms. Maybe we figure out what we can do and what's over there before we loop in the space NIMBYs. > it would suck to burry the evidence for abiog…

> We don't have the capability, today, to ruin a celestial body by any reasonable definition of those terms. I don't think we all agree here. The author seems to think that lights would be inappropriate, and Native American tribes have claimed that burials and even human waste desecrates the moon. I'm of a somewhat different mind, I think seeing lights would be neat, but I can't justify blasting the eye off the man-i…

> author seems to think that lights would be inappropriate

If they're "visible with the naked eye from Earth." From what we can tell, no lights on Earth are visible from the Moon. So sure, when MGM is developing the Luxor Mare Imbrium, we can talk.

> Native American tribes have claimed that burials and even human waste desecrates the moon

With all due respect to the Navajo Nation, I'm putting this one the wrong side of reasonable. (It's remarkably close to the extraterritorial projection of ownership and demand for control that cost them their lands in the first place.)

Re: Bury me on the moon, preferably on the far side

#76

Post by JumpCrisscross »

vacuity wrote: post #74
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Manifest destiny but with secular scientism this time Manifest destiny without pre-existing sapient life. Like, the problem with manifest destiny wasn't the expansion. Nobody is running around decrying the Polynesians for the deigning to exist on more than one island. Primordial humans weren't monsters for leaving Africa.

Sure, if humans will not needlessly harm any sapient life, I think there would be a lot less reasonable complaints around. Whether on Mars or on Earth, let's do that, shall we? Oh wait...now I see the longstanding problem with conquest and "might makes right". Sounds to me like we'll have an acceptable Mars civilization...for a bit. Or is it fine if they aren't pre-existing life?

> let's do that, shall we? Oh wait...now I see the longstanding problem with conquest

That it's irrelevant to this conversation? Conquest means conquering. To conquer means to take possession of a foreign land by force [1]. There are no Moon Men our rovers are waging war with. Lunar colonisation is manifest destiny in the way my dog peeing on a fence post is. (Practically speaking, less so.)

> we'll have an acceptable Mars civilization...for a bit. Or is it fine if they aren't pre-existing life?

Making nonsense arguments doesn't exactly advance your point.

[1] https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/conqu...

Re: Bury me on the moon, preferably on the far side

#78

Post by vacuity »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #68
vacuity wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would be (grudgingly) fine with populating Mars if I felt that we as a race were remotely trying our best to improve Earth. By opening up Mars, incentives are wrong and we will probably become even more lax.

Why do you thinking settling mars would have any impact on our efforts to improve earth? What are the incentives that are wrong with Mars?

My belief is that many people will think "Oh good! A safe harbor where we can fix our mistakes!" My problems with this: 1) Is everyone going to Mars in a reasonable time frame, or are people going to be left behind? Permanently? 2) Are we actually going to fix the Earth? Let's assume many people will be there for a while longer. 3) Are we going to not wreck Mars?

Re: Bury me on the moon, preferably on the far side

#79

Post by jfactorial »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #50
vacuity wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you saying that farmland production is unnecessary (at least at its current rate) but spce colonies aren't? If your concern is that humans need the latter to live, shouldn't the former be justified too? Is the Earth too doomed for the former to work? I don't follow.

> Are you saying that farmland production is unnecessary (at least at its current rate) but spce colonies aren't? When we cut down forests for farmland, we're saying our (human) need for that land supercedes the needs of the creatures living on it. That the needs of humans trump those of other living things. (While cute to debate, this isn't ever actually in doubt. Effective arguments for conservation, et cetera , co…

> When we build a colony on the Moon, we aren't taking land from Moon people

I think the key distinction in this discussion is your view that the Moon belongs to no people yet, versus the opposing view established by the Outer Space Treaty that the Moon belongs to all people.

Re: Bury me on the moon, preferably on the far side

#80

Post by JumpCrisscross »

jfactorial wrote: post #79
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Are you saying that farmland production is unnecessary (at least at its current rate) but spce colonies aren't? When we cut down forests for farmland, we're saying our (human) need for that land supercedes the needs of the creatures living on it. That the needs of humans trump those of other living things. (While cute to debate, this isn't ever actually in doubt. Effective arguments for conservation, et cetera , co…

> When we build a colony on the Moon, we aren't taking land from Moon people I think the key distinction in this discussion is your view that the Moon belongs to no people yet, versus the opposing view established by the Outer Space Treaty that the Moon belongs to all people.

> the Moon belongs to no people yet, versus the opposing view established by the Outer Space Treaty that the Moon belongs to all people

You're describing the Moon Treaty, which was never ratified [1]. It would have made the Moon the common heritage of all manking [2]. The Outer Space Treaty is far less restrictive [3].

And even if the Moon Treaty were in effect, it still wouldn't make lunar colonisation an assertion of human privilege. It would be an assertion of certain humans' privileges over others. But there is no non-human concern in play to any practical effect.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_Treaty#Provisions

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_heritage_of_humanity

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty#Provisions

Post reply on HN