New Mars Forums
You are not logged in.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Announcement
#76 2003-07-09 09:13:33
- clark
- Member
- Registered: 2001-09-20
- Posts: 6,374
Re: The Case Against Space Colonization - Chime in
[color=#000000:post_uid0]Nate,
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. [/quote:post_uid0]
What I am suggesting helps to create the incentive necessary to tie in the economic, political and scientific benefits of exploiting space to drive a greater amount of private interests into developing space. Nothing will ever happen unless there is some method for ownership to be established, plain and simple. It's the same reason why corporation don't invest in countries with ongoing civil wars with no clear winner in sight- people will not invest, or consider doing business when the risk to the entire investment is at stake based on ownership.
The Space Treaty effectively prevents any national claims on space territory, yet it does not establish how 'private' ownership may be established on territory not belonging to any nation. Nation states are the only current means to recognize any type of property ownership- it's a bit of a Catch-22. In order to fix this, a means must be devised for territory to be claimed, yet also stay within the limits of the current Space Treaty.
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. [/quote:post_uid0]
All of this can work under the current Space Treaties.
Your website looks good, but it could use some additional development. Perhaps focus more on the economics of space exploitation and the necessary changes to launch costs to realize the possibility of asteroid mining on a competitive level with Earth based mining.
Bill,
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. [/quote:post_uid0]
I don't believe any existing international treaty does such a thing, but please correct me if I am wrong. Part of the problem though is that there is no clear delineation of ownership upon which the 'infrastructure' will be placed. Who owns the mine? Who owns the land upon which the farm produces the produce, in space? No one will invest with so much uncertainty.
As I understand it, the Space Treaty holds that the exploitation of the heavens should be for the betterment of humanity- from this point it can be argued that any profits derived from private space ventures belong to ALL of humanity… not exactly an appealing proposition for the investment banker.
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. [/quote:post_uid0]
I'm certain a clause can be developed to deal with this situation. Remember, the Space League has an incentive to see space developed, because it creates extra funds to be used on Earth as a means to improve the third world, bringing and maintaining stability throughout the world. Think of it like a 21st century Marshall Plan.
I also included the clause of 50 years of permanent habitation, after which time actual 'ownership' of the granted land transfers to the people living there. There is no Terran political sovereignty unless the people living there choose it.
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.
Sure, whatever. Tax this, don't tax that. I'm really indifferent to tax structures in this case because of the political element involved. What is important though is the overall structure of the system. The dynamics if you will.
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. [/quote:post_uid0]
I see where you are coming from, but I am less certain that it is such a huge issue. In my mind, merely including them in some sort of over-arching international body is enough.
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. [/quote:post_uid0]
Here we get ahead of ourselves a bit; I agree with your analysis, but in my mind most of the colonization comes from Earth- property is doled out by the Space League. Let's say the first Mars colony, with this system, wants to expand- they do so by purchasing the rights to more land from the Space League. Eventually, I am theorizing here, there should be enough separate developments on Mars (or anywhere) where the individual settlements band together to pool resources to 'buy' the rest of their territory from the Space League, thus paying back the debt of colonization in some form. Or, you can look at it as 'buying' their political sovereignty over their entire planet. What should be secure though is separate independence for self determination after 50 years of permanent habitation (the children decide their future, the parents already made their choice)
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. [/quote:post_uid0]
They belong to all humanity, so fall under the jurisdiction of the Space League, which should be able to control the access to the resources. Think of it like a permit. If it is uncontrolled, then you can have conflict in space. Not a good proposition. Or take another example, Company Sony finds an asteroid and brings it to GEO for development and exploitation. Well, Sony goes through the trouble and expense to bring the asteroid to GEO, where now just about anybody else can get to it… see where this might lead? Mountains of gold will be hard for anyone to mine, so I doubt it's going to be a problem having multiple rights on an asteroid (one solution is just to create tons of ore quota's instead)
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. [/quote:post_uid0]
Ah, but the profit they generate is taxed for the first 50 years. No rats deserting the ship. Otherwise, I can concur.
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. [/quote:post_uid0]
I figured that it would be based on signing onto to the scheme in the first place, and following a set of basic human rights set out by the UN. (hehe). Then the money is allocated based on necessity first, population second. Of course I don't necessarily care either way, as the consideration of either means that the structure is in place!
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. [/quote:post_uid0]
I completely agree. That's why I am suggesting only the space faring nations- similar to how the Security Council was determined after WW2. THESE are the ones that have to agree, not the third world.
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. [/quote:post_uid0]
Exactly! It also has the effect of improving these countries economies, reducing the reasons for internal strife, and lowering worldwide tension. It undermines the long term necessity of the military.
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. [/quote:post_uid0]
So I'm not completely crazy?
[/color:post_uid0]
Offline
#77 2003-07-09 09:26:48
- prometheusunbound
- Banned
- From: ohio
- Registered: 2003-07-02
- Posts: 209
- Website
Re: The Case Against Space Colonization - Chime in
Right now I'm only aware of the moon treaty made with russia in the 1970s, could you lead me to a website with more detail?
I would love more detail in the legalese of spaceI agree that setting property rights would facilliate the expansion of space based business. . .as I last heard, a opposing company could hijack a satillite or station.
"I am the spritual son of Abraham, I fear no man and no man controls my destiny"
Offline
#78 2003-07-09 09:36:46
- clark
- Member
- Registered: 2001-09-20
- Posts: 6,374
Re: The Case Against Space Colonization - Chime in
http://www.state.gov/t/ac/trt/5181.htm
Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies
Signed at Washington, London, Moscow, January 27, 1967
Ratification advised by U.S. Senate April 25, 1967
Ratified by U.S. President May 24, 1967
U.S. ratification deposited at Washington, London, and Moscow October 10, 1967
Proclaimed by U.S. President October 10, 1967
Entered into force October 10, 1967Read it and you will see that this idea I am suggesting can work within the confines of the exsisting treaty, without change.
Offline
#79 2003-07-09 09:57:22
- Bill White
- Member
- Registered: 2001-09-09
- Posts: 2,114
Re: The Case Against Space Colonization - Chime in
The United States has signed the 1967 Treaty but has not signed the so-called Moon Treaty which is considerably more restrictive on private property development.
Most opinion (including lawyer Wayne White, no relation) is that the 1967 Treaty forbids claims of sovereignty in or to celestial objects but does not forbid claims of private property. However, since the "right" of private property is established and defended through and by sovereign governments, the absence of a sovereign over celestial objects makes any asserted right of private property most uncertain.
clark is correct - no one will invest billions to acquire "rights" that lack legal certainty.
Calls to simply repeal or reject the Moon Treaty and/or the 1967 Treaty are naive, IMHO. Yes, the US could unilaterlly impose a space property regime (we have the power to do it) and Yes, a league of space faring powers could do so with even more legitimacy. However, unless a vast majority of world governments (especially China and India and the smaller powers those two may seek as allies) agree to revoke the Moon Treaty or the 1967 Treaty unilateral action merely invites future wars.
Therefore, what is needed is an entirely new Treaty having consensus as close to unanimous as can be accomplished. IMHO this final Treaty can have many final shapes. In many ways the exact terms and how much is conceded to 3rd World nations is far less important than the certainty which would arise from nearly unanimous consensus.
Offline
#80 2003-07-09 10:01:08
- Bill White
- Member
- Registered: 2001-09-09
- Posts: 2,114
Re: The Case Against Space Colonization - Chime in
Perhaps the biggest practical obstacle to a new Space Treaty might well lie in differing EU and USA views on how international disputes should be resolved and the possible subordination of national interest to this new vision of the common good.
This reason, among others causes me to believe that temporary or interim treaties may well prove necessary.
Offline
#81 2003-07-09 10:09:29
- clark
- Member
- Registered: 2001-09-20
- Posts: 6,374
Re: The Case Against Space Colonization - Chime in
In many ways the exact terms and how much is conceded to 3rd World nations is far less important than the certainty which would arise from nearly unanimous consensus.
I concur, however the 3rd world needs to be 'bought off' when all is said and done. Those who will benefit least from the direct exploitation of space based resources need to be compensated in order to maintain stability.
Otherwise we plant the seeds for future conflict between the poorest nations and the richest nations.
How might such a conflict look like?
I don't want to get bogged down by it, but the short and skinny is that Third world nations will end up turning to asymmetrical warfare. In other words, they will simply develop weapons that can effectively disable space based assests.
Space is fragile, and long term development requires a stable foundation upon which to build.
A country with nothing to lose will force compensation at the point of a gun if it is starving enough. Ex. North Korea.
We need to head this off now, not later, which is why I am suggesting that third world countries be an integral part of any compensation plan.
How much is of course open to debate, and I would rather leave that to the politcal machinations geo-politcs. Yet the 'idea' must be addressed, IMO.
Offline
#82 2003-07-09 10:11:36
- clark
- Member
- Registered: 2001-09-20
- Posts: 6,374
Re: The Case Against Space Colonization - Chime in
Could the World Trade Organization be made an arbitrator?
I was thinking more along the lines of an international forum for the Space faring nations to develop policy and reach concensus on issues- it could act as an arbitrator in some form as well.
Offline
#83 2003-07-09 10:23:42
- sethmckiness
- Banned
- From: Iowa
- Registered: 2002-09-20
- Posts: 230
Re: The Case Against Space Colonization - Chime in
My understanding of this thread is to get our 'ducks in a row' as far as space colonization. While we may be a bit biased towards space exploration/exploitation in some degree or anothoer, I feel we are are apable of forming a more or less unbiased opinion. I propose that we hammer out an agreement and send it, every to there congressman, and/or other political representitive since we are not all American. Just a suggestion.
We are only limited by our Will and our Imagination.
Offline
#84 2003-07-09 10:55:18
- Bill White
- Member
- Registered: 2001-09-09
- Posts: 2,114
Re: The Case Against Space Colonization - Chime in
b: In many ways the exact terms and how much is conceded to 3rd World nations is far less important than the certainty which would arise from nearly unanimous consensus.
c: I concur, however the 3rd world needs to be 'bought off' when all is said and done. Those who will benefit least from the direct exploitation of space based resources need to be compensated in order to maintain stability.
My point was more addressed to us westerners and we do agree. An agreement that seems "unfair" or "extortion" is still a very good deal for the West if it buys clarity and certainty. We "westerners" can and should be very very generous about this, not as altruists but as prudent business-people.
Offline
#85 2003-07-09 10:59:21
- Bill White
- Member
- Registered: 2001-09-09
- Posts: 2,114
Re: The Case Against Space Colonization - Chime in
My understanding of this thread is to get our 'ducks in a row' as far as space colonization. While we may be a bit biased towards space exploration/exploitation in some degree or anothoer, I feel we are are apable of forming a more or less unbiased opinion. I propose that we hammer out an agreement and send it, every to there congressman, and/or other political representitive since we are not all American. Just a suggestion.
More "chickens and eggs" I am afraid. (Sorry Josh)
Why or how does your average member of Congress benefit from the US doing space? Especially in the context of being very generous to the 3rd World? Profits will be immense (trillions and trillions of dollars) but very distant. 50 years out or more after the decision to spend money now.
Offline
#86 2003-07-09 11:28:02
- clark
- Member
- Registered: 2001-09-20
- Posts: 6,374
Re: The Case Against Space Colonization - Chime in
Why or how does your average member of Congress benefit from the US doing space?
I've been beating my head against this for a while...
The only plausible solution I have even remotely entertained is to get the impetus for the need for a international superbody to handle space territory claims through 'space commerce' bills passed in the legaslative branch.
Space advocacy as a group would do their position a world of good for the 'cause' if they focused on the neccessity of not only making access to space cheaper, but securing rights of ownership over possible desinations.
Especially in the context of being very generous to the 3rd World?
I think an argument can be made, but it requires a bit of forward thinking and a great deal of leadership from the executive branch.
Offline
#87 2003-07-09 19:09:05
- Gennaro
- Member
- From: Eta Cassiopeiae (no, Sweden re
- Registered: 2003-03-25
- Posts: 591
Re: The Case Against Space Colonization - Chime in
Oh, this thread has gone a long way since I took part. There are questions, which is nice, so there will be answers.
But for now at least, I really need to go to bed. Goodnight to all of you.
Offline
#88 2003-07-10 12:09:01
- Bill White
- Member
- Registered: 2001-09-09
- Posts: 2,114
Re: The Case Against Space Colonization - Chime in
An on-line article on this subject.
clark's "Red Team" views are shared by many.
But one man's science fantasy looks considerably less attractive to others. Richard Steiner, a professor and conservation specialist at the University of Alaska, is deeply concerned at the prospect of any country granting licenses for lunar exploitation without proper international consultation.
"The moon is owned by everyone," he says. "A farmer in Zimbabwe should also have a say. This has huge historic importance." While this first commercial launch seemed "relatively innocuous", Mr Steiner says it sets a dangerous precedent for more intrusive projects, such as strip-mining.
Calling for clearer international rules, he is also campaigning for the moon to be named a World Heritage Site. When asked about the prospect, to some incredulity, the UN said that was legally impossible.
More similiar links, both from Fox News even.
Humanity is a malgnant infection. . .
For the sake of the rest of the universe, we must confine the vile infection to the single planet that it now inhabits.
That's the attitude of surprisingly many people (though not of your humble columnist).
I got an email this week from one of them ? a "Lori M.":
Forget "practical and affordable" ? space travel is not ethical. Let's face it: We cause problems here and we would just take them somewhere else.
Humankind consistently demonstrates a strong lack of the integrity for such a venture. History foreshadows the cyclical injustices of the past played out anew on some poor, unsuspecting ecosystem. Space travel/colonization would be irresponsible and sadly consistent with the thinking that got us to the state of informed depravity we are in now.
I'm not saying we should trash space travel- just table it until human societies show more promise. We do best to spend more time and effort developing character before technology.
"Space travel is not ethical."
Offline
#89 2003-07-10 14:51:25
- clark
- Member
- Registered: 2001-09-20
- Posts: 6,374
Re: The Case Against Space Colonization - Chime in
Ah, the 'we have the ability, but do we have the wisdom' argument.
Cheap and ill informed, if you ask me. But then, who does? ???
My views are based on a desire for a permanent stay in space by mankind. I think if it is done inappropriately, we slit our own throats in the long run.
Space, and our ability to enter to and from, is incredibly fragile. Technology increases the capability of one individual to wreak havoc on a greater number of individuals. As this equation changes, as fewer and fewer disenfranchised people are neccessary to foment wide spread damage to others becuase of an increase in lethal capability, society becomes less stable. Social instutions must be formed to decrease disenfranchisement, we're in complete agreement Bill- the same will be more true for space.
Offline
#90 2003-09-01 11:13:22
- Surferosad
- Member
- From: Montreal, Canada
- Registered: 2003-08-28
- Posts: 16
Re: The Case Against Space Colonization - Chime in
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.I second that! But I don't think private industry will ever take over: they can't see any further than the next shareholders reunion... They'll only move in when they think they'll be able to exploit something for a profit i.e. when all the space infrastructure is in place. I can't understand why so many have such respect for private industry: since when has private industry done anything remarkable alone, without governments or citizens pushing them? Some of the most stick-in-the-mud, conservative, no-vision, comformist people I've met worked in private industry: always scared of controversy, always looking for stability and hand-outs, never, but never rocking the boat. And these are the same people that keep telling us to be individuals, to fend for ourselves! Yeah, I love being told to be an individual by some glorified accountant who always dresses in black three piece suits, and spends his days worrying about his job security, his bank account, and fudging accounting numbers and firing people so that he can show a profit ... The only thing they're creative at is charging more and more for less, increasing your workload while cutting on your pay check and coming up with nifty new publicity stunts to make them look like they're cutting edge and actually care about you, the consumer...Ok, ok, I know this is a caricature, that I'm ranting, but I'm willing to bet that many of you have experience this kind of thing, to one degree or another, while you were working for a big corporation. And since now it's all the rage for governments to operate like big corporations, I'll bet you have experience this working for the gov. too...
Don't you sometimes feel that we're living in a period of accelerated decadence?
Offline
#91 2003-09-12 19:06:36
- Cobra Commander
- Member
- From: The outskirts of Detroit.
- Registered: 2002-04-09
- Posts: 3,039
Re: The Case Against Space Colonization - Chime in
There appears to be some support here for bribing the Third World into quiet compliance. This approach will almost certainly breed resentment once benefits begin to materialize from space colonization. Given recent history (the last century or so) this will cause the sort of fanatical asymetrical warfare we want to avoid. If we leave them out of the loop, they'll react violently. If we pay them off, they'll react violently slightly later (or maybe sooner) which leaves us with including them in the mission as partners.
Now let's be honest here, as far as this endeavor goes they're useless. They have nothing to offer the project. Including them is nothing more than extra-planetary welfare to alleviate our collective conscience. It only hurts.
Which brings us to this nugget of uncomfortable truth. Nothing great is ever accomplished by committee. Individuals and small, unified groups make history, everyone else follows giving the appearence of a mass action. Even the pluralistic, democratic United States exists solely because a handful of wealthy colonials decided to revolt. Many followed (not a majority, mind you) but the initial impetus was from a handful of idealists who went ahead regardless. What does this mean for Mars colonization and international cooperation? Simply this: Assuming America undertakes the first mission, if any nation wishes to sign onto the plan as-is and can contribute something useful, welcome aboard. Everyone else, sorry, but you lose this round. This way leads to a Western powers Martian settlement and alot of resentful, pissed-off third-worlders. A massive international approach leads to the same pissed off third-worlders but leaves us with a mess if anything is accomplished at all. Can anyone actually see the U.N. running a Mars Mission, for example? The thing would never get off the ground! Sure, there'd be thousands of pages of studies, dutifully translated into a multitude of languages so even a dirt-farmer in Afghanistan can read the details, but nothing more. And the Western world will be sitting here wondering why we ever tried in the first place and afraid to see the cause of failure.
An American Mars until the Martians can take it for themselves :angry:
Build a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Offline
#92 2003-09-13 17:59:04
- dicktice
- Member
- From: Nova Scotia, Canada
- Registered: 2002-11-01
- Posts: 1,764
Re: The Case Against Space Colonization - Chime in
Cobra:
You're right, of course: Let's who can, and want to do it, just get on with it--privately. As written about, in the dim past days of 1930's science fiction: A wealthy private philanthropist would back the building of a spaceship--and off they went, without asking anybody!
Sound silly today? Well, maybe not quite that simply, since we now know how to go about it for real, but by avoiding NASA and all that: Not so silly. Include Energia, in Russia, hire retired international space-vehicle engineering staff, and the thing could be accomplished in relatively no time, and with none of the political repercussions you're afraid of! The opportunity exists, but time's a'wastin'! Is anyone out there, interested that much in an interplanetary fame-and-fortune future?Offline
#93 2003-09-13 20:58:09
- Spider-Man
- Banned
- From: Pennsylvania
- Registered: 2003-08-20
- Posts: 163
- Website
Re: The Case Against Space Colonization - Chime in
Your words are most sage, CC. I concur implicitly.
Offline
#94 2003-10-05 05:18:25
- alokmohan
- Member
- From: india
- Registered: 2003-09-14
- Posts: 169
Re: The Case Against Space Colonization - Chime in
DESPITE OPPOSITIONS mAGELLAN,COLMBUS SAILED ON AND RENAISSANCE CAME.We shall goto mars to bring a new renaissane.None can stop.
Offline
#95 2003-10-05 08:57:50
- Josh Cryer
- Moderator
- Registered: 2001-09-29
- Posts: 3,830
Re: The Case Against Space Colonization - Chime in
I think it's naive to think that colonization will be done in a "West is Best" attitude. If anything, resentment towards the West (whether it's founded or not) will be the moving factor. Kind of how we came to America to get away from some of the 'evils' of Europe.
But I agree, commitees aren't necessary. This is why I frown highly upon centralized technologies. They force commitees to exist (whether they be social commitees or economic business commitees).
Some useful links while MER are active. [url=http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/home/index.html]Offical site[/url] [url=http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/MM_NTV_Web.html]NASA TV[/url] [url=http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/mer2004/]JPL MER2004[/url] [url=http://www.spaceflightnow.com/mars/mera/statustextonly.html]Text feed[/url]
--------
The amount of solar radiation reaching the surface of the earth totals some 3.9 million exajoules a year.Offline
#96 2003-10-06 11:27:01
- clark
- Member
- Registered: 2001-09-20
- Posts: 6,374
Re: The Case Against Space Colonization - Chime in
There appears to be some support here for bribing the Third World into quiet compliance. This approach will almost certainly breed resentment once benefits begin to materialize from space colonization.
This approach acts to include third world nations into the process of exploiting space for the benefit of all mankind. If only a small group of mankind has practical access to the exploitation of space, yet we hold that the realm of space belongs to all man, then we in effect deny all of space to all of man, or we create the situation where one group of man (the West here) must defy the stated principles that all have agreed to and thus invite immediate and later disaster through the creation and maintanence of a 21st century inequity (between West and third world nations).
Not implementing a plan or system that acts to spread the benefit of space exploitation to a greater portion of all mankind is to invite the asymetrical warfare you speak of Cobra. We see the current strife because of the inequity of Imperialism and Colonialism- which in effect is what people consider as a model for future exploitation of space. This is the wrong path and shows that we have learned nothing from our history if we repeat the same process.
If we leave them out of the loop, they'll react violently. If we pay them off, they'll react violently slightly later (or maybe sooner) which leaves us with including them in the mission as partners.
If we leave them out, then it WILL lead to future warfare, or sustained inequality through the use of force. No progress here. If we do include them, then it allows for us to proivde opportunity to more people, it allows more of humanity to directly beneift from 'space'. It creates a more secure situation for the Industrilized nations because they CANNOT fight an assmytrical war very well. By coopting the third world, and bringing them in, they will be less liekly to act agressively towards space infrastructure (people are less likely to posion the well they drink from) in the future.
Now let's be honest here, as far as this endeavor goes they're useless. They have nothing to offer the project. Including them is nothing more than extra-planetary welfare to alleviate our collective conscience. It only hurts.
So does giving CPR to a drunk, but would you just let them die in the street?
If you need more selfish reasons to justify this, then you should realize that being in a postion to access space, and having to go against someone who cannto access space, you will have much more to lose.
Pakistan, detonating a nuke in the upper atmosphere would simply devastate the western worlds economy. It would do virtually nothing to Pakistan. Do you see the point I'm trying to make? Just becuase these third world nations can't exploit space dosen't mean they can't destroy our ability to exploit space.
Nothing great is ever accomplished by committee. Individuals and small, unified groups make history, everyone else follows giving the appearence of a mass action.
The Pyramids. The Great Wall. The Marshall Plan. Civil Rights. The Apollo landing. ISS. The Manhattan Project. The Chunnel.
Eradication of small pox.Many great things are done by committe, or by large, disparate groups. We are unable to exploit space precisely becuase we need a large committee to andle all the issues around it. If all it took were small groups, like you contend, we would be having this discussion in Alpha Centarui.
A massive international approach leads to the same pissed off third-worlders but leaves us with a mess if anything is accomplished at all. Can anyone actually see the U.N. running a Mars Mission, for example?
Who is calling for the UN? This approach ends up with less pissed off third worlders, and more of humanity benefiting- which in turn makes us (industrilized world) more secure (terroism is largely the result of lack of opportunity and large inequality between people) by reducing causes for violence.
I am suggesting the creation of a new super state structure, similar to the UN in that those with space capabilities be given the functional equivalent of seats on the Security Council (they hold the most power), and those without sign onto the binding stipulations of memebership to the Space orginaztion (which would be largely recognizing the autority of the super state structure in determing ownership of property in space).
Nothing will get off the ground becuase no one can own anything in space- talk about uncertainty.
Offline
#97 2003-10-07 10:07:42
- dicktice
- Member
- From: Nova Scotia, Canada
- Registered: 2002-11-01
- Posts: 1,764
Re: The Case Against Space Colonization - Chime in
You could very well own an asteroid, at least until you'd consumed it. Private (ie. non-political) access to space is possible right now, simply because of the ISS. All it'd take, at this unique moment in the history of humanity's ability to leave the cradle--that has a nice ring to it--is to utilize the readymade access to LEO it offers, as a "spring-board" for momentum-transfer tethers, lightsails, steamrockets, etc. to get out to interplanetary space and back. If you've got more money than you can possibly dispose of, and aren't simply mad for the power it gives you to dominate the spacetravel dreamers of this world . . . what better use could you put it to, for the ultimate good and survival of your/our decendents?
Offline
#98 2003-10-07 10:42:13
- clark
- Member
- Registered: 2001-09-20
- Posts: 6,374
Re: The Case Against Space Colonization - Chime in
Even private ownership is 'iffy' fro real estate in space. Priavte ownership is derived by recognition from a soverign nation. So, France has the ultimate authority on who may own any type of real-estate within the national boundries (however they are defined) of France.
Now, how does a person in France, or America, 'claim' territory that is held to be the domain of all humanity? France could recognize the claim of it's people, but no one else is required to. Indeed, any nation could ignore the claims since there is no legitimate reason to recognize the claim.
That's a big problem for private investment.
Offline
#99 2003-10-07 11:16:44
- Josh Cryer
- Moderator
- Registered: 2001-09-29
- Posts: 3,830
Re: The Case Against Space Colonization - Chime in
Claim is enforcement, clark. Property would still definitely exist, it would just become prohibitive to own a whole lot of it (and then, the ablity to enjoy or benefit from it would be, well, lacking with regards to how we can benefit from property we have now).
You can perhaps put a plaque on an asteroid you want (one that sends out signals and so on), along with a gun turret to keep people from taking it over; but can you do this to all of them? And then, what would the point be? Unlimited riches? If anything, you'd piss people off, because it would be an obvious greedy land grab! Other people would fight you, and you'd have somewhat of a mob war going on. Most people would hopefully be reasonable, though, and see no rational reason to grab up everything within their capacity. Because if auxons existed, it could be relatively trivial to make a claim, and enforce it on every single asteroid in the solar system. But at this point we'd still have people questioning the legitimacy of one person owning and controlling a lot of something, so the political and social implications are almost unpredictable (though we can always hope for sanity).
Some useful links while MER are active. [url=http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/home/index.html]Offical site[/url] [url=http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/MM_NTV_Web.html]NASA TV[/url] [url=http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/mer2004/]JPL MER2004[/url] [url=http://www.spaceflightnow.com/mars/mera/statustextonly.html]Text feed[/url]
--------
The amount of solar radiation reaching the surface of the earth totals some 3.9 million exajoules a year.Offline
#100 2003-10-07 11:26:42
- clark
- Member
- Registered: 2001-09-20
- Posts: 6,374
Re: The Case Against Space Colonization - Chime in
Claim is enforcement, clark.
And who will enfore a claim of real estate in space? America dosen't have any regulations that allow for it's citizens to claim any bit of space.
Even if, let's say Portugal, decides to enforce it's claim, how would it do it? No one has to recognize their claim becuase it exceeds Portugals' authority. it would be akin to Portugal claiming 100 miles of international sea beyond their nautical limit. Sure, they can make the claim. Sure they can try to enforce it. But no one else has to recognize it.
That is a big problem when you want to attract multi-billions of dollars worth of investment to develop 'space'.
Offline
