The Case Against Space Colonization - Chime in

sethmckiness · 2003-07-05 06:56:19

I have a few points I would like to throw out. These aren?t aimed at anyone in particularly? Really?

-If we mine the asteroids, won't we be doing it robotically? No life support systems etc. So, from logic, one would presume that mining on Earth would also be done robotically. So no workers would be displaced, save a few robot technicians, since they had been displaced earlier. I imagine by this time, robot maintenance technicians will be in demand.

-50+ Billion going into a new industry (colonization) would create lots of middle class jobs. Middle class people consume a higher proportion of there income then upper class, and have more money to spend then the lower class. This money is then spent again, by the middle class and giving to businesses which make more... etc. This would be good for the economy. In all reality we live in a Pseudo-Global Economy, our economy affects others. Like the earlier Tennis Shoe comment.

-From the Leftist, feed the children in the starving country of 1$ GDP, point of view. If you drive a car that costs more then $1000, you are a hypocrite. This argument should attack more then just the Space Program, but a good portion of Capitalism and Americanism as a whole. It's nice to think about the wouldn't it be nice if we could...

-If we make some sort of economic Viability out of a multi-billion dollar mission, that is a start. I don't see us getting to Mars before 2020. I imagine the cost of LEO will drop by at least a factor of 2 by then. (Will see if LiftPort.Com is a retagged early 80s Savings and Loan scam).

-Bottom Dollar. The USA is the only nation right now that could do it on our own. (ESA and European Union could, but then there is France) Being a Republic, if someone with a bit of Charisma, who isn?t named Adolph, could spur a majority of Support for a program like this, I believe the whole argument becomes null and void. Then what I would do is open it up, allow other people to participate. ETC. But if we have the money, we shouldn't spend it if we don't want to? When you bought you computer, did it pop into your mind, you could probably feed a few kids in Africa for a year?

???

Palomar · 2003-07-05 14:18:10

GATTACA for the rich? Okay now I might worry.

*Not to worry, IMO. The rich will always require their hired help, servants, etc...and unless those turn out to be robots, the human help will of course outnumber their employees and eventually revolt and overthrow the status quo.

--Cindy

sethmckiness · 2003-07-06 02:41:26

As most people are on this site, I find myself an extreme advocate of Space Exploitation. Personally I find it to be an imperative that we increase our foothold into space beyond LEO and Geo-Synch Orbit. To do this it will take an investment of money, time, and personnel. Yet, something that this thread has pointed out, being the Devil?s Advocate, is that we should not pull money from one program to ensure that our program does move along at a faster rate. So, it leads us into a paradox of sorts.

As long as we have a minimal space budget, I do not believe there will be any major breakthroughs or extreme Apollo like missions in the near future. We have to achieve a balance in the budget that would allow more progress; but, not compromise other unrelated programs that are important. That can be accomplished carefully, with the write scrutiny in place.

Some steps that may help, that we are seeing at this time, are the increase of the privatization of Space. More companies are taking the hefty investment required to do business that is only possible through the use of space, be it LEO or utilization of the Clarke belt. This does not necessarily help Space travel though. This is a mere derivative of Space travel. The one factor this may help with is bringing about less expensive access to Space. Unfortunately, I don?t see it being in the heavy-lift category which is the current void that needs to be filled.

Another factor that may lead to some cost reductions and further breakthroughs are programs like the X-prize. If the X-prize is won, and further more challenging competitions arise, it may help fuel smaller companies involvement in Space Access. While more expensive then time of Charles Lindberg and Amelia Arehart; this could fuel future research, and help to capture the imaginations of another generation.

We can never look away from the Military. The military has always had a keen interest in Space, as well it should. It is not impossible that there will be some increase in military projects that deal with Space. The United States Air Force has committed itself to transition from an Air Force with Space capability to a Space Force with Air Capability. While I do not desire for the military to be the ground breaker in new territory, I will take what we can get.

Basically, my point is that instead of instantly saying we have to pull billions out of the budget from programs that may aid poor or underprivileged individuals, there may be other ways. I am happy with an increase in human activity in space. I support Zubrin?s view of Space Exploration, but in the same sense, we should not ?rob Peter to pay Paul.

clark · 2003-07-07 09:07:04

Will doing the space exploitation actually make things worse as you have stated? Won't doing nothing bring the same result?

The "not doing space" will achieve nothing as well argument is a bit weak itself. We have progressed for thousands of years without "doing space", so to assume that not douing space will lead to stagnation is just a long term assumption. Sure, we can say "not doing space, ever" is probably unwise, long-term. But in the short term, in the next hundred years, is there a neccessity to "do space"? Are there not other avenues we might pursue, instead of space, that will lead to advancement for humanity? I think so, which means you have to explain the neccessity of space, now.

. I do not advocate war or death but I must remind that anytime a major event like space colonization occurs it is for the benefit of mankind. Who wants a Pax Mundana?(muduane peace, trans.) I do not, for one. I want this, with all of its passions and hardships to bear.

This is a bit ill conceived given all of the advances humanity has made in its capability to destroy. Our technology has priogrossed to the point where we can very nearly bring the world as we know it down to it's knees. It would be foolish to pursue a policy or a practice that leads to instability that can lead to wide spread conflict. Too many people have too many guns that can cuase an awful lot of destruction. It's not like we're all running around on horses or shooting muskets anymore.

-If we mine the asteroids, won't we be doing it robotically? No life support systems etc. So, from logic, one would presume that mining on Earth would also be done robotically.

Yes, we would assume that minig on Earth would be robotic, but that would neglect reality. The enviornment of space is such that it costs more to have people there than say a robot. The environment on Earth is such that it is infinitely cheaper to 10,000 third worlders at slave wages than to buy one robot to do the same job. The logic only makes sense when you take all of reality into account, i.e the environment.

50+ Billion going into a new industry (colonization) would create lots of middle class jobs. Middle class people consume a higher proportion of there income then upper class, and have more money to spend then the lower class. This money is then spent again, by the middle class and giving to businesses which make more... etc. This would be good for the economy. In all reality we live in a Pseudo-Global Economy, our economy affects others.

So far this has been the strongest argument, but it fails on a global level. How far does the trickle, trickle? The industrilized nations stand to benefit in terms of creation of new middle class jobs, which should lead to more service level jobs to take care of the new middle class- but it dosen't neccessaily equate to new jobs beyond the nation state. It leads to instability in the third world as displacement occurs with no replacement of opportunity.

When you bought you computer, did it pop into your mind, you could probably feed a few kids in Africa for a year?

WHich is why government involvemnt with anything is key, individuals, by and large, make choices for themselves, government, by and large, have the opportunity to take a look at the bigger pictur, which is generally lost to the individual.

Palomar · 2003-07-07 10:30:03

As most people are on this site, I find myself an extreme advocate of Space Exploitation.

*Erm, do you mean to say "Space Exploration" here?

Because I'm -not- in favor of exploitation.

I hope to god we humans can be abit more responsible toward other worlds than we've been with this one.

--Cindy

clark · 2003-07-07 11:12:02

The Case for Space

Is there a Case for Space? What lays in wait beyond the confines of our planet and her atmosphere? Are there untold fortunes for those brave enough, or is it merely an idle dream concocted by the romantics?

While the Case for Space is still uncertain, the dreams of modern day romantics is less so. There is a fortune to be had in space. There is opportunity beyond which exists today, in places far from sight, but well within our reach. Or more precisely, there is opportunity for those who have the will to seek it, and the ability to reach it. Much as the great seas were a treasure trove for would be kingdoms in the Age of Sail, so to is the vast ink blackness of space a waiting treasure in the dawning of the Age of Space.

This new dawn, this new Age of Space, comes at a time of crossroads for Humanity. We are a species divided, along arbitrary lines of geography, yet we yearn for a common standard of decency among all our kin still. We strive to improve, and help ourselves, while reaching back to help so many others. All of this is right, and good. It is a testimony to the spirit of humanity, and acts to define what is indeed truly noble in our actions and deeds. It is this very purpose we must strive to improve still, as well as allow it to guide us to the stars above.

With the coming of the Age of Space will come untold fortune for those groups who seek the challenge. For it is in challenge that humanity has discovered what it now knows. It is the challenge of Disease that has lead to the modern miracle of antibiotics, advanced surgery, and the eradication of entire diseases that have plagued mankind for eons. It is the challenge of War, and the destruction it can unleash, that has led to modern forms of government, democracy, and international conventions among groups of people to find peaceful solutions to mutual grievances. Lest we not forget, the challenge of Humanity itself, which has sought to understand not only the world, and by association the universe, we inhabit, but also to understand the very fabric of our individual self that has led to where we are today.

And today we stand upon the precipice of something new. Make no mistake, this challenge does not engage all of humanity. This opportunity exists for those with the science, and the resources to commit to a new age. And in this moment, where some few may benefit from what belongs to all, we all have a collective choice. To either create the world we wish for the future, not only in space, but also upon this world we all now inhabit; or to turn away from our obligations to one another, and to choose the path of short sighted selfishness.

What choice will we make? I say the choice we will make has been made with previous precedent, and we fail the wisdom of our forefathers, and the responsibility to our future children, if we choose the path of selfishness. By selfishness, I mean the development and exploitation of space-based territory and/or resources for the sole benefit of the people who have the ability to reach into the heavens above. While such a feat is deserving of respect and reward, such actions do not absolve the bonds that bind each person on this planet together. Such abilities by some, does not undo the noble agreements we have created, such as promising the benefit of the open heavens above belong to all of mankind, not just those who can get there.

So then our first challenge in the coming Age of Space is to develop the means to provide new opportunities to those who will not directly benefit from those few who develop space. To do otherwise is to invite future animosity as those who have been denied the benefit and opportunity of space seek compensation or redress. Let us pave the way now for a better future for all.

To this end, I propose:

1. The creation of a League of Space Faring Nations which will license the exploitation and settlement of any heavenly body by any nation, or private group.
2. All revenue derived from the exploitation of natural resources beyond Earth be taxed by the League of Space Faring Nations, monies derived from the levy being used to fund the ReConstruction of third world nations, the ReStoration of damaged environments in the third world, and the Repayment of third world debt.
3. To encourage the expansion of the human race beyond the confines of our worldly horizons, the League will be endowed with the power to lease any heavenly territory for 50 years, after which time of continual human presence, becoming an independent entity with full claims to the specified territory, no longer subject to the tax imposed by the League.

With the creation of the League will come the opportunity to develop a means to peacefully exploit the benefits of space, while also allowing for new opportunities to be created worldwide. In space, comes unclaimed prospects for a better future for all of humanity, not just a small portion of it, if done correctly.

We bring the dream of space to all, and with it, a stable and secure future for mankind to explore the endless horizon of our universe.

I will appreciate critque's or questions. But this is my basic premise for what needs to happen prior to large scale development of space. Everbody needs to be a vested interest, becuase as the military planners are discovering, either you control all of space, or you control none.

prometheusunbound · 2003-07-07 14:46:35

I am not for doing the lease thing with the planetary union.

directly prior to the days of the spainish main, the catholic church made the line of demarcation with portuagual and spain. What if, by some sort of lack of knowledge this union , league would do a simalar thing? What would happen if a vast vein of gold (hypotheical at the moment) was found right on the line of demarcation? only war would ensure. and this organization might reconize corporations first, and hinder delevolpment as the major blocs of land would already be in the hands of companies. perhaps the best compermise is to create some sort of local government, backed by some national government on earth (51st state?) or create what is known as a commonweal.
the reason people should go to space is to get rich. but those people sure as hell won't be slacking off. They must build almost everything from nothing-robotic techology does not come without a pretty exstensive infrastructure. sure, techology would help them a lot, but they will be working their butts off, especially if it is a for profit organization. Non profit organizations will probably not require anywere near as work. rich people don't get rich by slacking off, they do it by working their butts off.
These people are unlikely to be exploited simply because there are no other people out there. The colonizers of south america exploited the indians simply because they were there. . .the beauty of space is that it is almost impossible to exploit people up there. The reason why is primarly because the majority of the people will have some sort of all-important skill that is neccessary to keep the colony running. The new england colonys are a simlarity in that no local labor was around to exploit. (for whatever reason, the new englanders did not enslave the indians) The people in their communitys were respected and were given a sense of worth to the community. On the other hand the south imported slaves from africa (a continuation of the spainish sugar plantation system) and essentaily forced them to work. It is likely that humans in space will be very valuable to the comunity in the large, but it is also certian if they are there to work for profit, they are gonna work very, very hard. It is not easy to make a infrastructure at all. But it is possible. Read my website at www.parksweb.com/nateweb for a suggestion on how a infrastructure could be errected, and for what reasons.
Right now, I hate to admit it, the conditions are not very good to allivate suffering in africa and other third world nations. The dicators are not interested in improving conditions simply because they don't care. and if someone's condition did improve, they will view it as a threat. Would elimation of that dicator improve lives? Probably not. The Judeo-Christain view point is unique to europe and the usa when it concerns human worth. If you are truly interested in allivating suffering support some missionarys-they are protected by the United States government (and a few others) in the countrys they help. The dictators have little power over the missionarys in any case. It is much better than UN aid.
A governing body with powers as exstensive as clark wants is probably going to hinder and possibly even terminate exploration. perhaps something more on the lines of a department in the government (like dept. agriculture) with the power to regulate land sales and directly answerable to the people. In land sales two kinds of property ownership would become apparent-claims and actual use of the land. If a enity would be or had actually used the land then it would have full rights of property (I might be wrong here, tell me if I am so) and a claim is just that, only with the legal backing of a government.

While the Case for Space is still uncertain, the dreams of modern day romantics is less so. There is a fortune to be had in space. There is opportunity beyond which exists today, in places far from sight, but well within our reach. Or more precisely, there is opportunity for those who have the will to seek it, and the ability to reach it. Much as the great seas were a treasure trove for would be kingdoms in the Age of Sail, so to is the vast ink blackness of space a waiting treasure in the dawning of the Age of Space.

-Clark-

I do not advocate war or death but I must remind that anytime a major event like space colonization occurs it is for the benefit of mankind. Who wants a Pax Mundana?(muduane peace, trans.) I do not, for one. I want this, with all of its passions and hardships to bear. If others don't want it, thats fine, they won't recieve the benefit and be left behind with no hope of catching up for milliena to come.

-Nate-
(thats me!!)

dickbill · 2003-07-07 18:32:00

About space exploitation, 3 points:
1) I've read that even if "we" could discover an asteroid of pure gold, it would still be cheaper to exploit gold on earth (with today's space technology).

2) If we could discover and exploit an asteroid of pure gold, wouldn't be ruin the value of gold on Earth, making the exploitation even more irrelevant ?

3) If we exploit such asteroid, wouldn't it be an additional annoyance for the 3rd world countries which relie primiraly on primary resource such as iron, gold diamond etc, that would make the poor contries even poorer.

So why to focuse on exploitation to justify space colonization ? scientific exploration and humankind spiritual quest seem better explanations, IMO.
The problem with scientific exploration is that it could be done mostly with robotic. Long time ago, Robert told me that we shouldn't say such things here because it cuts the grass below our feet, but it's true. The New York Times published an interview 2 weeks ago, about a scientist who had an experiment on the ISS, saying that it could be done cheaper by robots.
For me, if it was only a matter of "sciences" in space, robots, probes and telescopes could do the job. Why to put human in space if not for the science then ? frankly I don't know, it migh be a little bit irrational. If such, then just admit it and rather to try to convince the people of earth that we "must conquest space" for false pretexts (curiosity, bussiness, science, political or military), I would rather keep a low profile and elude the questions.

Talking about humandkind spriritual quest might be an irrational argument, but the quest for alien life and mind in the universe might request a direct interaction with a living and concious organism ( a human versus a robot). Call me a mystic if you want, but as I said before, in certain occasions, it takes a living thing to see a living thing. For example, can we trust a robot camera that what the camera shows is actually the existential reality ?
I would say, yes at 99.999%. So then maybe, man must go in space for the 0.001% left.

sethmckiness · 2003-07-07 19:34:36

1) I've read that even if "we" could discover an asteroid of pure gold, it would still be cheaper to exploit gold on earth (with today's space technology).

Well, I agree with this statement, in such that you keep in mind Todays technology. But as we continue to develop technology, I expect a drop in price of Space Transportation. In 100 to 150 years, even with current snail paced development, I see us in a position to be doing some sort of 'Exploitation' of the moon. The reason I use Exploitation is to represent all non Science based space activity.

Also, with companies like Space Island Group and Lift Port Inc. I feel we are beginning to cross the thresh-hold of corprate viability of Space for other then Satellite use. In other words, we may be a little closer to Space Hotels and such. I do think these companies are a bit overly ambitious, but I hope that one of two things don't happen. Which would be Iridium revisited, or some sort of massive scam. With current attitudes and developements, I think there will be people in Space on a permanent basis by the end of the 21st Century. By permanent, capable of being born, living and dieing their whole life in Space.

dickbill · 2003-07-08 06:51:27

To add a little bit on the "Graal Quest" as a motive for human space exporation, this morning CNN annouced the launch of Opportunity with the following mission title: finding traces of life on Mars.

The message to the big public to explain the mission is clear: finding life, no mention of geology or chemistry here. Actually "finding life as a quest" is barely a scientific investigation. But this is what is most understandable for people.

clark · 2003-07-08 09:01:38

directly prior to the days of the spainish main, the catholic church made the line of demarcation with portuagual and spain. What if, by some sort of lack of knowledge this union , league would do a simalar thing? What would happen if a vast vein of gold (hypotheical at the moment) was found right on the line of demarcation? only war would ensure.

No, not necessarily. The idea I am proposing is to place an international governing body, controlled by those who have the ability to access space, which in effect means they control space, develop a means to parcel up the heavens peacefully. War is more likely to ensue over a hypothetical gold vein if there is no means to establish any kind of claim that is recognized by another group able to access space. Example: China claims a piece of the moon, the US doesn't recognize the claim because the US want's access to the same resources. OR, The League of Space Faring Nations sells leasing rights over a piece of territory to China, and since the US is part of the League, they would have a say in the terms of sale, the size of territory, etc.

The overall idea though is to establish the means to claim territory beyond earth that will allow peaceful development, avoid the need for weapons in space, and provide opportunity for the greatest number of humanity to improve their lot in life.

and this organization might reconize corporations first, and hinder delevolpment as the major blocs of land would already be in the hands of companies.

Sure, anybody would be recognized, nation, corporation, small groups, or a single person. Anyone would be able to claim the territory, but to do so, it has to be under the stipulation of the League of Space Faring Nations.

Example: Corporation Sony buys a piece of the Moon to exploit. They send robots to do the work because it is cheaper. All profits derived from the exploitation of the Moon by Sony has a tax levied on it, which is used to fund the Reconstruction of destroyed nations, Restoration of the environment, and Repayment of debt. This tax will be applied forever until such time as Sony decides to put people up there permanently (as soon as that happens, the 50 year clock starts to run, at the end of which, the Space Faring League may no longer impose the levy on the profits, AND, the Sony settlement becomes it's own independent governing body for itself.

An individual, a nation, anyone can do the same thing. Say a nation like Nigeria wants to create a solar power plant on the moon (or whatever). Nigeria, as a nation, can purchase a lease on the territory they want to use from the Space League. Nigeria then sends people up there (purchasing rides from some private company). 50 years later, no tax is paid, and the community becomes little more than another city-state of Nigeria (it's filled with Nigerians).

Remember, it's going to be hard to 'colonize' unless there is some way to claim property off world. Claiming property off world creates problems here on Earth, therefore we need a system that balances the two. I think this can do it.

These people are unlikely to be exploited simply because there are no other people out there.

There is always a way to exploit someone.

Right now, I hate to admit it, the conditions are not very good to allivate suffering in africa and other third world nations. The dicators are not interested in improving conditions simply because they don't care. and if someone's condition did improve, they will view it as a threat.

I'm sure some will view this as a threat, and they should. Using space to everyone's benefit means that space becomes a vested interest among a greater number of people. Few will consider poisoning the well that they themselves drink from. By focusing on using the tax to alleviate suffering we also bring more people into supporting the development of space. We co-op them. The greenies will be for it because it provides new funds to save the Earth's environment. The Bankers will be for it because it will help to ensure they get repaid on their billion dollar loans. And the third world will love it because it provides monies for the building of roads, schools, and hospitals? which really equate into JOBS building the damn stuff.

A dictator will be hard pressed not to make reforms or accept the funds if other nations do though- people will see lives improving elsewhere, and they will want it to. It will feed on itself.

A governing body with powers as exstensive as clark wants is probably going to hinder and possibly even terminate exploration.

No, I think you may be mistaken. Something like this will increase exploration, not decrease it. The Space League will have a vested interest in 'surveying' the heavens. Louis and Clark was a famous American expedition, but it was primarily an economic survey over the Louisiana Purchase. The Space League will want to get as much information on the territory it leases so it can demand a fair amount for it when it sells (undiscovered gold veins don't get factored into the cost of the lease, only what is known). As people move into space, the space league will have a more vested interest in leasing more territory in space because of the 50 year window on what they can tax. See, built in incentives for the behavior we all want.

Thanks Nate, some good questions.

Dickbill,

1) I've read that even if "we" could discover an asteroid of pure gold, it would still be cheaper to exploit gold on earth (with today's space technology).

I deny none of this. However, even if we were to find the fabled asteroid of which you speak, no one could claim it to begin with. If however, we set up the means to claim such an asteroid, a lot of very greedy people will start to think of just how they might cash in on that asteroid. Let THEM figure it out, and get everyone else out of the way.
Free people to be ingenious, but to do that, we have to develop the means to claim property in space that will not lead to chaos on Earth.

2) If we could discover and exploit an asteroid of pure gold, wouldn't be ruin the value of gold on Earth, making the exploitation even more irrelevant ?

True. Yet individual nations can set up their very own tariffs to protect against this. This is also part of the reason I am suggesting that the tax levied by the space league go primarily to the third world countries as they will be the most affected by any such event.

So why to focuse on exploitation to justify space colonization ? scientific exploration and humankind spiritual quest seem better explanations, IMO.

Dickbill, I agree in principle, but put simply, "idealism doesn't build rocket ships."

Most here seem to want millions and billions in space. You want a space faring civilization of the first order. Spiritual quests will not give us that. A working economic model will.

Bill White · 2003-07-08 09:24:28

We have an opportunity to do some old fashioned roll up the sleeves academic work here.

Hernando de Soto in The Mystery of Capital includes several chapters on the land grant process as it actually played out in the central and western United States during the 1800s. Some early court cases involved claims of conflicting rights between settlers/homesteaders and holders of State of Virginia land grants in land as far east as Tennessee and Kentucky.

He also discusses "property law" that formed rather spontaneously amidst the anarchy of the California Gold Rush. Unschooled miners established legal regimes based on their innate sense of fairness and balance of power.

de Soto argues that the study of these cases (whether you agree with the result) helps illuminate issues and principles which I say can help formulate laws for the sensible development of space assets. Reading the various arguments presented by the homesteaders and by the land grant holders would be instructive, at a minimum.

Don't repeat history, learn from history. Repeat what works and trash the rest. The Spanish style of exploitation settlement in South America, for example, may well be a model to avoid.

Perhaps we can also invoke Trotsky's maxim "Property belongs to the (wo)man who can best use it." Land grants might be given only to those who develop those resources consistent with the common good.

clark · 2003-07-08 09:36:03

Perhaps we can also invoke Trotsky's maxim "Property belongs to the (wo)man who can best use it." Land grants might be given only to those who develop those resources consistent with the common good.

I would rather avoid this idea, as it is a bit anthema to the independant mind-set of some western cultures (ahem)

Capitalism seems to imply that the person who is best suited is the one with the cash. Somehow, people go along with this, so I would rather avoid trying to play 'social god' and set them right.

Does anything I am proposing strike you as ill conceived, or do you see potential problems based on historical precedent?

Any nation, group, or person would be able to lease a legitimate claim to teritory beyond Earth (not like those business that claim to sell moon land). What they do with it then becomes there business- but of course the Space Faring league will want the territory to be developed- it makes more money that way to help fund further surveying of the heavens, as well provide funds to use for aid to thrid world countries (it in effect becomes a bit of a foreign policy tool for the first world nations- perhaps stipulating certain human right conventions for access to the funds...)

After a set number of years (i chose 50 out of the air), the land passes into ownership of the people who actually live there, sans any tax from the Space League.

Bill White · 2003-07-08 10:06:47

As a purely practical matter, I very much doubt any nation other than the United States would sign on to a regime that granted property rights in celestial objects at least until they were also able to enter space. A system of property rights imposed by the United States unilaterally would create a firestorm in the international comunity.

My working hypothesis would be to postpone final resolution by passing an international treaty providing that private property rights would be recognized in minerals, water and the like only after successful mining or other demonstration of possession.

Rather like a catch in baseball requires the fielder to transfer the ball from the glove to the throwing hand to prove possession or a fisherman owns the fish he lands in the boat but cannot own the fish swimming in the lake or ocean.

A more lawyer like way of saying it - for the near term no ownership of real estate is allowed. Ownership of personal property is recognized only after your labor transfers that property from the state of nature and brings it within civil society. (Hello John Locke, if you dislike Trotksy)

Settlements will have the legal status of ships or airliners in/over international waters. Within the vessel you are in the sovereign territory of the state of the owner yet the vessel exerts no claim of ownership or sovereignty to the land it rests on or flies over.

A more specific reply to your post will come soon.

clark · 2003-07-08 10:21:03

As a purely practical matter, I very much doubt any nation other than the United States would sign on to a regime that granted property rights in celestial objects at least until they were also able to enter space.

Why though? It is not a denial of access. Any nation capable of launch would sign onto this becuase it creates a market for launch. Nigeria, without lauch capability would have to buy such capability from an exsisting party to access any territory it leases from the Space League.

revenue derived from the exploitation of space is then used to mitigate any harm done to third world countries that cannot access space, let alone lease property in space. This has the net effect of providing new 'opportunity' where opportunity is decreased due to exploitation of space.

My working hypothesis would be to postpone final resolution by passing an international treaty providing that private property rights would be recognized in minerals, water and the like only after successful mining or other demonstration of possession.

This makes sense, but isn't this a bit of putting the cart before the horse? The idea is to say, "here is an unknown, all you guys figure out how to make it work." Where as waiting until actual development is a bigger gambale for private interests.

Say they go through all the hassle and risk to mine that resource, but then find that the politcal winds have changed as to cause it to be nationalized? The cost to develop space, and pardon the pun, is astronimical. People investing that amount want to know for sure that they 'own' their investment.

I agree with your airplane analogy to a point, which is why I am stipulating that a sustained human presence is neccessary to establish actual ownership of the territory, which passes to those living there. It in effect becomes it's own independant state, or a commonwealth of a parent group.

When people live there, it becomes theirs. If it's a machine, it is transient, like an oil well in the ocean.

I look forward to your comments Bill.

prometheusunbound · 2003-07-08 12:34:20

So, economically speaking, there is great impetus to get into space?

Poltically speaking, the establishment is probably not interested in making competition for themselves by such a economically uplifting program. . . .

Scientifically speaking, the benefits of space are limited unless they are tied to the economic and poltical arena. . .

Therefore the spearhead to get in space must be resumed by the private sector.
Sure, a poltical organization is a great way to plan a space outing. But the infamous moon treaty must be removed first, or at least debated with russia.
That in itself is something rather risky as anti nukers will not like this for they will see it as a trojan horse for the miltary.
Therefore, in repudation of this treaty, a clause must be made of some sort. And it does not have to be mentioned that in order for these events to transpire, attitudes about space exploitation and exploration will have to change a great deal. . .I am afraid it will have to be almost unaimoius consent of the USA (the voters, congressmen and the administration) to do such a thing. Even more, it would take private and public companies to show a interest in exploitation.

-Clark-
When I said

These people are unlikely to be exploited simply because there are no other people out there.

I meant this in the context that they will have to have the skills necessary to run the enterprise (not the ship, look up the meaning of the word) and it would be more difficult to exploit them. Skilled workers are usually organized (guild, unions, etc) and the employer will not be able to find replacements for them. Supply and demand will largely ensure humane treatment of workers in space enterprises.

-clark-
I would like if you gave me your thoughts (I appreciate them) on my website www.parksweb.com/nateweb

Bill White · 2003-07-08 12:37:35

This makes sense, but isn't this a bit of putting the cart before the horse? The idea is to say, "here is an unknown, all you guys figure out how to make it work." Where as waiting until actual development is a bigger gambale for private interests.
Say they go through all the hassle and risk to mine that resource, but then find that the politcal winds have changed as to cause it to be nationalized? The cost to develop space, and pardon the pun, is astronimical. People investing that amount want to know for sure that they 'own' their investment.

My idea is that international treaty establishes that mining or farming operations can be undertaken with firm assurances that profits generated will remain the private property of people/corporations doing the work. But, if an asteroid or a section of Mars is abandoned, others are free to start work at that same place. I oppose large land grants to absentee owners and I oppose permanent Terran political sovereignty over celestial bodies.

Safety protocols are established (no mining that threatens the lives, health or equipment of a rival operation) and I would only tax materials delivered (sold) to Earth (or maybe Earth and LEO and Luna) and all taxes must be fair and uniform. No Terran taxes on materials that stay in space.

For Terran security reasons I favor the Moon always being an integral part of the Terran political structure. Terra can never allow Luna to exist as a distinct political entity, IMHO.

Mars, however, might operate as a protectorate for a set period of time, maybe 100 Terran years from the birth of the first Marsian child? Then a planetary constitutional convention is held. Might this body revoke property rights? Sure, but investing in Mars will be the best way to maximize one's say at that convention.

Smaller asteroids need never be deemed the sovereign territory of any political entity. They can be occupied or mined by anyone taking up residency, subject to safety rules about mining too close to anothers existing facility. Perhaps the Asteroid Belt can form a self governing confederation as well.

Cycler cities or L5 cities or free floating cities may well be deemed "free" cities subject merely to treaty requirements concerning minimum human rights and the freedom to emigrate from such cities. Refuse the treaty and no trade with Terra, Mars or other cities.

Why though? It is not a denial of access. Any nation capable of launch would sign onto this becuase it creates a market for launch. Nigeria, without lauch capability would have to buy such capability from an exsisting party to access any territory it leases from the Space League.
revenue derived from the exploitation of space is then used to mitigate any harm done to third world countries that cannot access space, let alone lease property in space. This has the net effect of providing new 'opportunity' where opportunity is decreased due to exploitation of space

To enact any such treaty will require "give and take" and genuine negotiation and perhaps legal and fully disclosed bribery of some recalcitrant nations. Oppose too stubbornly, and you get by-passed however.

Taxes on imported resources can be used for human development as you propose. 3rd World nations can be assured the right to buy space access even if they are denied ICBM technology. Annual tax revenue could be allocated pro rata based on population.

The exact structure of such a treaty will depend on geo-political realities that exist when it is proposed and enacted yet the West and the US would do well to remember that imposing conditions too favorable to western corporations might cause a replay the debacle that arose when France/England imposed onerous terms on Germany at Versailles, after WW1.

Be generous with the 3rd World in exchange for the legal certainty of ownership and for a moral legitimacy that will head off future disputes. For example, the tobacco settlement caused cigarette stocks to rise, not fall in value because those companies could then quantify with reasonable certainty the magnitude of their liability. Indeed state governments who now depend on tobacco settlement revenues are virtually partners with Philip Morris and now need those companies to succeed.

If Nigeria or Ghana were assured a revenue stream in exchange for signing onto a unanimous global treaty allowing the exploitation of celestial resoures and their importation to the Earth, a "YES" vote is likely. By excluding actual ownership of real estate from the treaty, those same governments can better resist the charge that they "sold out" their heritage in the stars. Rather they leased the right to use their heritage changing a symbolic asset into a cash asset.

Bill White · 2003-07-08 12:44:42

Another maxim I value:

If a bank loans me $100,000 the bank owns me; if a bank loans me $100,000,000 I own the bank.

What was that recent hedge fund that was "too big" for the US government to allow to fail?

Pay 3rd World governments a sufficiently decent share of the profits from space harvested assets and they will do everything in their power to help you succeed. Allow a "fig leaf" cover to assure everyone that no one now "owns" the planets or the stars . . .

nirgal · 2003-07-08 13:05:02

I don't have the time to read through this whole thread but I wanted to contribute something (which has perhaps already been said): It will cost far less to become a spacefaring civilization than what is spend each year by the nations of the world on military programs. We have the money to colonize space and, at the same time, feed the hungry, care for the environment and so on. Once private industry takes over no government will have to spend money on space development anyway.
One last thing: Without space colonization there will be no future for mankind.

prometheusunbound · 2003-07-08 13:08:18

The exact structure of such a treaty will depend on geo-political realities that exist when it is proposed and enacted yet the West and the US would do well to remember that imposing conditions too favorable to western corporations might cause a replay the debacle that arose when France/England imposed onerous terms on Germany at Versailles, after WW1.

If a bank loans me $100,000 the bank owns me; if a bank loans me $100,000,000 I own the bank.

The nations after WW1 pretty much depended on germany to pay its repartations debt. . . .it locked up international trade for years and triggered the great depression. . .when germany rearmed the nations looked the other way for they saw it as a oppoturnity for germany to repay its debt. I agree that local government should and must be established, but in the form of a Commonweal, which is a rather unique legal standing that offers rather large room for self government. Of course a legal enity like the one clark sugests will be necessary to police the frontier in the early days. . . . . .

Bill White · 2003-07-08 13:16:49

One last thing: Without space colonization there will be no future for mankind.

I agree completely. All else ends up being rather trivial, no?

dickbill · 2003-07-08 13:32:41

As a purely practical matter, I very much doubt any nation other than the United States would sign on to a regime that granted property rights in celestial objects at least until they were also able to enter space.
Why though? It is not a denial of access. Any nation capable of launch would sign onto this becuase it creates a market for launch. Nigeria, without lauch capability would have to buy such capability from an exsisting party to access any territory it leases from the Space League.

Another note on "space exploitation", I am afraid that, like for science in space, the corporations that'd like to exploit space, will soon discover that man is space is an annoyance more than anything. Imagine for example a carbonaceous asteroid containing a lot of diamond, I can imagine it can be gently fragmented with vibration by an automatic probe landing on it, to create fractures all inside it, then the lander could fill the fracture with an abrasive temperature resistant resine, to coat all the fragments for atmospheric reentry, then, it could blow up the all thing when it is orbiting close to earth. Some fragments will be catched by earth gravity and will be recovered. Now, with men it becomes awfully complicated. The other thing is that now, the corporations involved have recovered hundreds of tons of pure diamond in a single shot, will the diamond mines compagnies and the diamond market survive that ?
Clark suggested to counterbalance the lost of value of diamond on earth by trade agreements, which I am not sure I understand the technicality, because why a russian consortium of private compagnies, for example, running on their own money, should pay a tribute to competitors producing diamond in south africa ? I think the earth producers will just have to lower their price or disapear, this is the rule of capitalism. I think the best interest to these south african compagnies is still to invest in such project rather than trying to compete with it.

So yes, exploitation exists and can be developped to bigger level. But man in space is another issue, it requires bigger goal than merchantilism, we have to put some spirit on it. And militarisation is no more spirit than capitalism.

Definition:
Capitalism is the exploitation of men by men,
Communism is the reverse.

who said that ?

prometheusunbound · 2003-07-08 13:41:09

There would be little to breaking up asteroids. . . .asteroids are not solid rock. They are more like rubble piles held together by static electricy and gravity. . . .not much effort is really needed to break those bounds. . .of course a newer asteroid would more likely be solid, but not for very long!

Read the May 2000 (I might be wrong on the date) issue of scientific american for this article. . .

dickbill · 2003-07-08 19:01:00

Not that I am against space private exploitation per se, I mean if a consortium decides to extract gold and diamonds from an asteroid, I have nothing against it and if they can do it, good luck. I say that spirituality is a stronger motivation, in my opinion, than everything else and it would be nice to claim in the face of humankind more noble goals than just making money or military dominance.

sethmckiness · 2003-07-08 22:51:31

The other thing is that now, the corporations involved have recovered hundreds of tons of pure diamond in a single shot, will the diamond mines compagnies and the diamond market survive that ?
Clark suggested to counterbalance the lost of value of diamond on earth by trade agreements, which I am not sure I understand the technicality, because why a russian consortium of private compagnies, for example, running on their own money, should pay a tribute to competitors producing diamond in south africa ? I think the earth producers will just have to lower their price or disapear, this is the rule of capitalism.

Well, there could also be Earth import Tariffs by the world bank and such. Countries have been doing it for years. There is also laws in place in the United States on products such as Sugar and Dairy products to help keep thos industries alive in every state. Of course the black market might go up. I really doubt that the price of Diamonds would drop substantial. I don't even know if it would be possible to find an Asteroid big enough to have diamonds, since they take about a billions years to form in nature under lots of pressure and heat. I don't think that the ability to get products in mass will significantly reduce the price on Earth, but for Consumers in orbit or on the moon it may be a different story. If you could get something from an Asteroid, it would require less Delta-V then to send it from Earth, so over time, it would be less expensive then sending it from Earth. Wouldn't that be true.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#51 2003-07-05 06:56:19

Re: The Case Against Space Colonization - Chime in

#52 2003-07-05 14:18:10

Re: The Case Against Space Colonization - Chime in

#53 2003-07-06 02:41:26

Re: The Case Against Space Colonization - Chime in

#54 2003-07-07 09:07:04

Re: The Case Against Space Colonization - Chime in

#55 2003-07-07 10:30:03

Re: The Case Against Space Colonization - Chime in

#56 2003-07-07 11:12:02

Re: The Case Against Space Colonization - Chime in

#57 2003-07-07 14:46:35

Re: The Case Against Space Colonization - Chime in

#58 2003-07-07 18:32:00

Re: The Case Against Space Colonization - Chime in

#59 2003-07-07 19:34:36

Re: The Case Against Space Colonization - Chime in

#60 2003-07-08 06:51:27

Re: The Case Against Space Colonization - Chime in

#61 2003-07-08 09:01:38

Re: The Case Against Space Colonization - Chime in

#62 2003-07-08 09:24:28

Re: The Case Against Space Colonization - Chime in

#63 2003-07-08 09:36:03

Re: The Case Against Space Colonization - Chime in

#64 2003-07-08 10:06:47

Re: The Case Against Space Colonization - Chime in

#65 2003-07-08 10:21:03

Re: The Case Against Space Colonization - Chime in

#66 2003-07-08 12:34:20

Re: The Case Against Space Colonization - Chime in

#67 2003-07-08 12:37:35

Re: The Case Against Space Colonization - Chime in

#68 2003-07-08 12:44:42

Re: The Case Against Space Colonization - Chime in

#69 2003-07-08 13:05:02

Re: The Case Against Space Colonization - Chime in

#70 2003-07-08 13:08:18

Re: The Case Against Space Colonization - Chime in

#71 2003-07-08 13:16:49

Re: The Case Against Space Colonization - Chime in

#72 2003-07-08 13:32:41

Re: The Case Against Space Colonization - Chime in

#73 2003-07-08 13:41:09

Re: The Case Against Space Colonization - Chime in

#74 2003-07-08 19:01:00

Re: The Case Against Space Colonization - Chime in

#75 2003-07-08 22:51:31

Re: The Case Against Space Colonization - Chime in

Board footer