Own the moon? - Property rights on celestial bodies

Ad Astra · 2003-11-18 21:46:51

There is a pressing need to determine property rights of celestial bodies. The Outer Space Treaty does not allow for property claims. This document, ratified by the US and Russia, establishes the moon and other bodies as being pristine territory that cannot be claimed (similar to Antarctica.) This agreement does quite nicely for the scientific exploration of these bodies.

The Outer Space Treaty reaches the end of its usefulness when people begin to use the moon and other bodies for profit. The UN thus drafted the Moon Treaty, which would allow the UN to manage profits derived from celestial bodies. Neither the Americans nor the Russians nor any other space faring nation has ratified this treaty, and it looks to be a non-starter.

The Moon Treaty needs to be replaced once the moon and Mars are explored by humans. I do not believe that we should establish a single, eternal policy regarding celestial bodies. The policy should change as societal values change. But the policy should ensure that no country monopolizes the moon, and that space-faring nations not be excessively hindered by the desires of non space-faring nations.

What I propose for the near term is legal recognition to property claims extending a certain radius from a landing site. This radius would be equal to the exploration radius of a lunar rover, but that distance may change as future needs dictate. Whenever possible, natural features should be used to determine the boundary of a claim.

Bill White · 2003-11-18 23:16:57

For a few years I was quite pre-occupied with this topic. I agree 100% that the resolution of space property rights is essential for humanity to become a spacefaring species.

That said, I am also a cynical believer in the "golden rule" - - whoever ends up writing the "golden checks" to put humans in space will have the greatest influence in writing the rules governing property rights.

Remember - - possession is 9/10ths of the law. The trick will be get there first and then hire clever lawyers to fashion arguments that persuade the majority of humanity that your claim is legitimate and just.

Free Spirit · 2003-11-22 19:38:02

The Moon deserves special recognition as a heritage object that shouldn't be developed under any circumstances, especially the side that faces Earth. Countless people, cultures, religions, etc. incorporate the moon and no small gaggle of rich busy bodies has a right to destroy it for their own aggrandizement. Seriously, would you support some rich corporation going up there and defacing the moon? Would you want to see their "handywork" everytime you looked up at that once beatiful orb?

Palomar · 2003-11-22 21:17:05

*Egad. This is one of those issues I probably shouldn't be trying to tackle after a long day on the computer, my head's starting to pound, etc....

I'm hoping (and suspect) this will turn out to be a non-issue. The fact that the moon has so very little moisture on it will probably ensure "property rights" on the moon remain a non-issue (much less people living on it and defacing it to an extent, i.e. Free Spirit's concern).

I do have a problem with "property rights" as celestial bodies go. I want mankind to be able to move out into space WITHOUT acting like everything's a pie, i.e. to be cut up into little sections and declared, "That's mine, you stay off." The planets and moons are not anyone's "territory"...yet. I do admit I'd like it to remain that way. I suppose it's futile and dreaming to hope Mars (and other celestial objects possibly habitable some day) will be considered shared priviledge...not "my/our property." It's nice to think of our Solar System as being free...no portions of it "belonging" to any one person or groups of people. When it's no one's, it's everyone's.

And now I'm feeling sentimental so I'd better stop.

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2003-11-22 21:27:04

It's nice to think of our Solar System as being free...no portions of it "belonging" to any one person or groups of people. When it's no one's, it's everyone's.

And conversely, when it belongs to everyone, it belongs to no one. Property rights are essential if we are ever to spread off-world. No one is going to put up billions of dollars to develop a shared heritage of mankind celestial body that they can never derive any profit from. No development, no colonization. And if we are never going to do anything in space why even bother studying it?

Palomar · 2003-11-22 21:45:05

And if we are never going to do anything in space why even bother studying it?

*I see this as a separate issue.

We can study space (and even move into it) without the "Grab It and Growl" mentality overtaxing everyone's brains and ruining things. A little thinking and planning ahead can work toward a more sane future.

Do you want humans to move into space with higher ideals and goals -- and acting upon them -- or behaving like slobbering lunatics grasping at anything they can get their hands on for profits and exploitation? I prefer the former.

And just what's wrong with my "shared privilege" ideal versus the "it's mine/ours -- you stay off" mentality? Huh? HUH?

I did admit my hopes in this regard are probably futile (some credit, please?).

And we should continue studying it, regardless.

And my brain is about frazzled from a long day...good night all, see you later! We've got some super-terrific discussions going on...

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2003-11-22 22:45:45

Do you want humans to move into space with higher ideals and goals -- and acting upon them -- or behaving like slobbering lunatics grasping at anything they can get their hands on for profits and exploitation? I prefer the former.

Yes, but I expect we'll need a bit of the latter first.

And just what's wrong with my "shared privilege" ideal versus the "it's mine/ours -- you stay off" mentality? Huh? HUH?

Nothing is inherently wrong with it, unless one wants to colonize space. This grand, celestial communism results in the same problems as the more mundane terrestrial variant, namely that no one expends much effort or expense to develop anything new or maintain what is already there because they have nothing to gain from doing so. If Mars is to be our "shared privilege" it will always be a dead, frozen rock devoid of life. Humans are generally not selfless beings out to better conditions for their fellow man, unless they have something to gain. So in short, sometimes realism must prevail over idealism.

I did admit my hopes in this regard are probably futile (some credit, please?).

But we can't have you encouraging Free Spirit with all this hands-off talk, now can we?

Josh Cryer · 2003-11-22 23:07:20

Bleh, everyone forgets the role of technology.

Bill White · 2003-11-22 23:18:53

Lawyers, guns and money.

Philosophy aside, celestial bodies will eventually be "owned" by whoever does the best job of deploying these three categories.

Guns - to defend your space property
Money - to develop your space property
Lawyers - to persuade everyone else your claim is legitimate and just

Its like Rousseau said - - civil society began when someone built a fence and said "This land is MINE!" and the other folk either believed the fence builder was telling the truth or lacked the power to stop it.

Byron · 2003-11-23 08:24:13

As they say, physical possession is 9/10ths of the law. If you occupy a piece of land, you pretty much own it. There is a guy who has made millions selling lunar real estate; according to his website, the lunar deeds are officially recognized by legal entities here on Earth. Personally, I think that's a bunch of bullcrap. In order to claim land, you have to pretty much stake it out and "homestead" it, which is what people did here on Earth where there was still free land to be claimed. If I had a rocket and went to the Moon, picked out a nice spot on a crater rim to build my Moon house, the person back on Earth who holds that piece of paper that says he/she owns that piece of property wouldn't have a claim worth 2 cents. There's no way anyone can just "claim" space property while sitting in our easychairs...it'd be like someone claiming the middle of the ocean and attempting to charge tolls for ships crossing it. But if someone built an actual floating island out in the middle of the ocean (presumably to be apart from any sort of national government), then that actual area occupied by the island would be considered private property, and ships would be obligated to sail around it.

But if you think of this example from a practical standpoint, you could have a 1000 of these floating islands out there and still have plenty of open ocean out there...same thing with the Moon and Mars....you'd have to have a LOT (and I mean LOTS) of people going there and occupying land before it gets to the point where you would presumably have land disputes. Why bother to evict someone from their homestead when you can just claim your own just about anywhere else?

Now, when there's enough critical mass on other worlds to form governments, states, etc, there will naturally be laws spelling out property rights, what can be done on that land, etc, much like our zoning and land-use laws here on Earth. But those laws won't likely come about until there is actually a need for them, which probably won't take place for a long, long time...lol.

B

Byron · 2003-11-23 08:44:15

Another way of looking at future space exploration (a lot of which will probably take place long before space become "industralized,") is the Antarctica model. Antarctica is the one place on Earth that has been declared off-limits to territorial claiments, although various nations have pie-slices of the continents as "tentative" claims. But from all practical standpoints, that continent is an open-use laboratory dedicated to science purposes, along with non-invasive tourist activities.

If you look at McMurdo, the largest permanent habitation down there, none of it is privately owned, although there are a number of private companies operating there under government contract. But it is a fully-functioning town with all the services you would expect to see in a place with a 1000+ population. But since there is nothing that can be commercially exploited, there is no real incentive for people to claim private property in Antarctica, and indeed, this place is a scientist's paradise.

In the early going, at least, I think this is the model that will be used for human habitations of the Moon and Mars, provided that national governments provide a majority of the funding for these settlements. If the world decides that space is best left to private enterprise, then naturally things would be bit different, although I think there would be laws prohibiting companies from claiming more land than they can physically occupy within a reasonable amount of time; i.e., if Mars is open to one person or firm, then it has to be open to all...and with enough land area on Mars to equal all the land on the Earth....there's plenty of land to go around, believe me...

B

Palomar · 2003-11-23 12:51:40

*Yes, Cobra Commander and Bill White, I see your points. I'm not an overly idealistic person. However, I do have concerns (legitimate, I feel) with social conditioning patterns. I do consider myself a realist (at least more so than an idealist), but I am concerned with how much of what we do, our outlooks and attitudes, behaviors, etc., has to do with a resigned "well, that's just the way it is." The "enabler" mentality. I believe I'm well enough acquainted with human nature to know the various factors (both positive and negative) which play into advancement (particularly as space goes, which is the focus of our discussion here).

The best I can hope for is a more rational, "think-ahead" approach to entering space. Tread as softly as possible, keep the long-term in sight, consider the possible consequences to actions, etc. That's really it. I want to avoid "Grab It and Growl." Probably not do-able, I admit.

I know some of the negative aspects of human nature will come into play, and that there must be a certain level of profit and competition involved (we can't expect money to be coughed up to fund going into space or colonizing Mars or whatever on the basis of "kumbaya" and "living off the land" ala 1960s hippie stuff, teehee).

--Cindy

Hazer · 2003-11-23 16:39:25

Concerning the Moon: There must be some way in which we can both commercially use the moon and preserve it.
I agree and disagree with Free Spirit.
We've got to develop the Moon-but developing the moon does not neccessarily mean that we have to deface it. For instance, you could mandate that all settlements be built underground (Excepting Solar Panels and such) so that the surface will not be marred.
On a personal level, I think it would be cool to look into the night sky and see the moon dotted with the lights of cities-but that's just me.

Wim · 2003-11-24 10:21:09

On a personal level, I think it would be cool to look into the night sky and see the moon dotted with the lights of cities-but that's just me.

It's not just you.

Rxke · 2003-11-24 10:54:45

I Don't know... I think it would be 'more cool' to look up and see a pristine moon, while knowing humans live there. Not some kind of a Industrial-strength Christmastree... Would take away a lot of the magic...

It would tell us we're a race capable of preserving natural beauty, while expanding our 'territory'

clark · 2003-11-24 13:01:00

you can't own the moon. it's made of cheese.

is there anything you people won't argue about?

Hazer · 2003-11-24 13:15:25

"you can't own the moon. it's made of cheese."

Camembert I think.
Watch A Grand Day Out, it is a rather funny movie made by the same folks who made Chicken Run. Space Exploration on a moon of Cheese!

clark · 2003-11-24 13:20:28

I always assumed Swiss, or maybe even Provolone.

Perhaps Wallace and Gromit will find out... :laugh:

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2003-11-18 21:46:51

Re: Own the moon? - Property rights on celestial bodies

#2 2003-11-18 23:16:57

Re: Own the moon? - Property rights on celestial bodies

#3 2003-11-22 19:38:02

Re: Own the moon? - Property rights on celestial bodies

#4 2003-11-22 21:17:05

Re: Own the moon? - Property rights on celestial bodies

#5 2003-11-22 21:27:04

Re: Own the moon? - Property rights on celestial bodies

#6 2003-11-22 21:45:05

Re: Own the moon? - Property rights on celestial bodies

#7 2003-11-22 22:45:45

Re: Own the moon? - Property rights on celestial bodies

#8 2003-11-22 23:07:20

Re: Own the moon? - Property rights on celestial bodies

#9 2003-11-22 23:18:53

Re: Own the moon? - Property rights on celestial bodies

#10 2003-11-23 08:24:13

Re: Own the moon? - Property rights on celestial bodies

#11 2003-11-23 08:44:15

Re: Own the moon? - Property rights on celestial bodies

#12 2003-11-23 12:51:40

Re: Own the moon? - Property rights on celestial bodies

#13 2003-11-23 16:39:25

Re: Own the moon? - Property rights on celestial bodies

#14 2003-11-24 10:21:09

Re: Own the moon? - Property rights on celestial bodies

#15 2003-11-24 10:54:45

Re: Own the moon? - Property rights on celestial bodies

#16 2003-11-24 13:01:00

Re: Own the moon? - Property rights on celestial bodies

#17 2003-11-24 13:15:25

Re: Own the moon? - Property rights on celestial bodies

#18 2003-11-24 13:20:28

Re: Own the moon? - Property rights on celestial bodies

Board footer