Space Exploitation vs. Space Exploration

clark · 2005-11-17 13:50:40

So, being a diplomatic soul, I employ the classic "Yes, and" or "Yes, but" rather than "no"

Shameless suck-up.

As always, such issues are rarely either / or. The phrase "nothing more" and the phrase "blatant whoring" suggests a denial of the essential human ambiguity that we are flesh and blood yet also have aspirations for transcendence all rolled into one package. (Is Platonic trolling like platonic love?)

I do not deny the essential human ambiguity you point to (“Realist“ statement by the way), and even go so far as to admit my own personal desires as being the ultimate arbiter of where I stand. However, trying to achieve “transcendence” via make-a-quick-buck brand marketing is a bit akin to a priest trying to find god on a drinking binge at a German brothel. You’ll find something cheap and dirty, but it won’t be what you say you’re looking for.

Besides I believe in private property and I assert Adam Smith was the first true modern liberal. But that discussion will outlive both of us, I am sure.

Isn’t the trick to private property belief? We all have our own little pagan gods.

Sensible zoning (or its celestial analouge) is called for. Yup, radio noise near a FarSide scope is a bad idea. Light pollution near a big lunar liquid telescope is a bad idea.

Okay, then how sensible is it to build a liquid telescope *after* the entrenchment of commercial interests in space? That is effectively what is being supported by the private space enthusiasts. Space exploitation, if allowed to lead space exploration, will always dictate the “where’s” and “how’s” of development. Space exploration will no longer be for the benefit of mankind, but for the benefit of the commercial interests upon whose dime it depends.

What kind of long term hope does that really offer?

Strip mining? I oppose unregulated, unrestricted strip mining, anywhere.
Done sensibly to help re-green the Earth? A worthy trade.

Prostituting your mother? Done sensibly, for a good cause? A worthy trade?

BWhite · 2005-11-17 14:17:42

As for lunar real property rights, I oppose any near term comprehensive "solution" as being politically non-viable.

Nonetheless, under current international law, a growing consensus holds than moon miners can "own" whatever they extract however they cannot own the land itself (akin to fishing in international waters).

Regulations akin to "no littering" would be sensible.

= = =

What follows reads my argument backwards.

However, trying to achieve “transcendence” via make-a-quick-buck brand marketing is a bit akin to a priest trying to find god on a drinking binge at a German brothel. You’ll find something cheap and dirty, but it won’t be what you say you’re looking for.

Marketing can be tacky, crass and sleazy. Often is.

However, prohibiting such conduct will not allow us to achieve "transcendence" - - offer another way to fund space and I will listen. To deny any role for media and marketing revenue as being crass or "whore-ish" aspires to a form of purity, of transcendence, I find to be an illusion.

Taxing people and using that tax revenue to allow a priestly class go do science on the Moon is not a more noble route to pursue.

= = =

The central point to Adam Smith is that large numbers of human beings, relatively equal in power, and allowed to choose freely will lead to a healthier happier society than a society where some central planner says what is permitted and what is not.

BWhite · 2005-11-17 14:18:30

PS - - the Moon is a rock. Don't anthropomorphize.

PPS - - As for pimping, ask Abraham. Irony abounds.

Rxke · 2005-11-17 14:36:32

Why is this in free chat, BTW? Only old farts read free chat :twisted:

And why don't you pipe in, Cindy? This is supposed to be 'your' topic...

BWhite · 2005-11-17 14:37:57

Why is this in free chat, BTW? Only old farts read free chat :twisted:

Dude, I am old.

Having children later in life than many has helped me keep a youthful spirit.

clark · 2005-11-17 14:57:37

I believe your comments are the only one she can see in this thread Rxke.

Having a youthful spirit has kept me a child in later life.

Rxke · 2005-11-17 16:50:06

Great.

*unsubscribes topic*

noosfractal · 2005-11-17 18:36:40

There are so many definitions of exploitation here that it is hard to comment.

Exploitation is use of extraterrestrial resources? Can it be that mere use is offensive? Shall we give back sunshine and starlight? Perhaps use must only be passive? This would seem to be a kind of primitivism - the rejection of tool use.

Exploitation is action that is not selfless? This is a hard standard. All astronauts must first be bodhisattvas. I think this falls under "we must solve our problems on Earth before reaching for the stars." But what if reaching for the stars is a key to solving our problems on Earth?

Exploitation is profitable action? Extraterrestrial society must be a communist utopia? I think you are going to be waiting a long time.

Exploitation is nonegalitarian action? This is an even more abstract individual vs. the group discussion. I think it has the same problems as the moral calculus of the Utilitarians ("greatest good for the greatest number"). How will you determine what actions increase equality and what actions decrease equality? Is competition to be disallowed to prevent ranking? I think a reality is that, in the end, even the most social of actions are performed by individuals. Social equality is of necessity relative.

Exploitation is inaesthetic action? Well now, finally a sensible criteria. Everything is permitted provided only that it increases beauty.
_

BWhite · 2005-11-17 18:51:19

Everything is permitted provided only that it increases beauty.

Hmmm . . .

Isn't beauty in the eye of the beholder?

noosfractal · 2005-11-17 19:21:04

Isn't beauty in the eye of the beholder?

So it would seem then, is exploitation?
_

John Creighton · 2005-11-17 20:56:25

Clark, seems to be trying to add some intellectual though to this debate no matter how artificial it seems. So I shall present a contrary and perhaps equally artificial line of thought.

The notion of exploitation implies that somehow the land is violated, degraded that there is a loss of value. A good artist does not always worry about making a master pieces but will let the brush freely go across the canvas in an experimamental fashion. That is how they learn. They study they improve.

As like a blank canvas, space has no value until we give it value. If those resources aren’t used they are wasted. Space forces us to realize that space isn’t as previous as we think. It lets us break free from our sentimental attachment to the old an explore build and learn.

Those old bronze statues we so value from antiquity would be melted down by the ancient Greeks and Rome to build new art put forth new ideas. The idealist tries to impose rules on the art and music when good art and music is free and always progressing.

SpaceNut · 2005-11-17 21:21:44

Well if the moon has beauty with something as simple as a crater then anyone that wishes still to appease thoses that see this as beautifull will need to make all mines appears as if they were natural made creators.

I think the greater exploitation is making money, stature or athority off thoses that do not have form something they do not own or can not legal have the right to posess. Making the use of greed as to be only condition to meet to goals end.

clark · 2005-11-18 06:53:10

In a cathedral of light, where your god is supreme…

So too the Moon, Mars, and all the stars beyond. It is our temple to which we offer sublime hope and prayers, to be answered on a day, some day, in a twilight horizon now imagined where mankind, shrugging off the weight of another world, steps lightly as an angel, and walks as gods.

It is not aesthetic beauty that requires our actions to be subjected to some intangible ideal, it is an aesthetic virtue that requires it. Where individuals go, personal glory follows, yet the venture set forth is not one of individuals, or of individualism. No single man, nor disparate group can achieve the ambitions, the true underlying and unifying ambitions, of space exploration and space expansion.

We do not send, nor do we struggle now, to send a man into space and beyond. We struggle to send mankind into space. We struggle to improve not one man, but all of man. This is not some utilitarian-communalistic drivel, seeking to establish itself as the only legitimate path. This is the path, this is the reason, this is the motivation and the drive. This is the collective urge that our individual desires spring from.

This is the reason some accept space exploitation as a price to be paid, and other reject it as a price to high to accept.

Space exploitation, in its barest form, in its raw and unadulterated unchecked state is simply the rejection of this apparent truth. It is the glorification of individual achievement above all else. It seeks to turn our cathedral of light into a hapless bazaar of discounted merchandise and real-estate for the immediate satisfaction of greed and avarice. There is no lasting and long term goal to improve the human condition. There is no plan to secure a humanity in the great beyond. Space exploitation consumes what is there at the expense of creating what could be there.

Yet some still clamor with the endless mantra, “build it and they will come”, but those who will go will go for the bazaar, not the cathedral. The merchants shall lead, and in leading, will create the trail ahead. What chance is there for creativity, freedom, or new experiments in social innovation when everything and everyone is beholden to the corporate sponsorship of bottom-line free-market consumerism?

Space exploitation is the acceptance of an unneeded and unnecessary constraint that will limit the opportunities of exploration, be it physical space, scientific pursuits, or the social constructs we might engage in. What place is there for a telescope on the moon to gaze at distant stars when it serves no commercial interest? What place is there for esoteric scientific research when it has no short term potential in producing a commercial product? What place is there for new social groups to experiment when the economic requirements for entry are predicated on, and controlled by, existing vested commercial interests that represent the status quo?

Who-mans, stick to your fish bowl.

BWhite · 2005-11-18 08:10:02

A corollary to "everything has it's price or cost" is "nothing can be gained from nothing"

clark, you want the Moon given to you for free?

= = =

What place is there for a telescope on the moon to gaze at distant stars when it serves no commercial interest?

No commercial man is wholly commercial. Elon Musk loves to quip "The best way to make a small fortune in space is to start with a large one."

Many of the commercial men and women who seek the Moon and Mars and the stars view commerce as a tool not the goal. There are better and easier and more lucrative ways to build a bazaar than by going into space.

What place is there for esoteric scientific research when it has no short term potential in producing a commercial product?

Indeed.

Only those societies that have accumulated a significant surplus of material wealth are free to engage in such activities. Less wealthy societies may have the will but lack the means.

What place is there for new social groups to experiment when the economic requirements for entry are predicated on, and controlled by, existing vested commercial interests that represent the status quo?

What if you build a new status quo premised on the principle of growth and positive change? In a society that prizes the free exchange of ideas, formulate a better idea and people will beat a path to your door.

Option (B) - - Persuade the vested commercial interests that your ideas might help them.

Again, do you assert that others owe you the Moon for free?

clark · 2005-11-18 13:46:27

Bill, you want to sell the Moon for nothing?

What is the social return of investment by allowing the free and unfettered exploitation of space? We give up the moon, for what? Rich people to ply around on moon scooters? Some imaginary belief that it will reduce the proce of a car by 50 bucks?

Only those societies that have accumulated a significant surplus of material wealth are free to engage in such activities. Less wealthy societies may have the will but lack the means.

How does launching rich tourists into space make us a wealthy society?

Option (B) - - Persuade the vested commercial interests that your ideas might help them.

Ever hear about the man who built a better mouse trap? The exterminator union took care of him, and his trap.

Vested commercial interests are notoriously uninterested in changing the dynamics of their game. Look at Lock-Mart to appreciate that point of view.

And to quip, I do not assert what is self evident.

noosfractal · 2005-11-18 15:12:44

a cathedral of light

Another luciferian cathedral, clark? Will all the rockets launch on schedule? Will it last a thousand years? Surely the 20th century suffered enough. Must we infect the 21st?

the Moon, Mars, and all the stars beyond. It is our temple to which we offer sublime hope and prayers, to be answered on a day, some day, in a twilight horizon now imagined where mankind, shrugging off the weight of another world, steps lightly as an angel, and walks as gods.

Yes, yes, and in the center of the temple can be a Great Globe full of the cremated remains of those who have lived a life of purest altruism and before the Globe an Altar on which virgin newly weds would conceive a child and they would tell her that altruism had been imprinted upon her soul which was really quite fortunate since philosopher kings were in desperately short supply.

This is not some utilitarian-communalistic drivel, seeking to establish itself as the only legitimate path. This is the path, this is the reason, this is the motivation and the drive. This is the collective urge that our individual desires spring from.

And how do we fulfill our collective goals today? A million self-organizing interconnected networks support our daily needs, wants and dreams. Central planning fails because it can never compete with massive parallelism. Cathedrals are brittle and self-limiting. Bazaars can be decimated and then adapt, reroute and continue on.

There is no lasting and long term goal to improve the human condition. There is no plan to secure a humanity in the great beyond. Space exploitation consumes what is there at the expense of creating what could be there.

Cathedrals are built long after the railroads - and they wouldn't be built otherwise. All this imagery has Earth birthing a precious only child who will be spoiled if they watch commercial television or eat candy. We want a self-organizing, self-healing transport and life-support system. Yes it must be near alive, just as a city can feel alive at times, but not only can decentralized profit-motivated organization acheive this, it has proven itself superior in practice by quite a margin.

What chance is there for creativity, freedom, or new experiments in social innovation when everything and everyone is beholden to the corporate sponsorship of bottom-line free-market consumerism?

The same chances we have now? You can argue that it isn't enough, but a quick compare and constrast should recommend the free-market to you. If you need perspective, ask some recent US immigrants why they came and if they would go back.

Space exploitation is the acceptance of an unneeded and unnecessary constraint

In theory perhaps, but alas, none of us live in the platonic realms.
_

clark · 2005-11-21 07:46:25

The fool and wit, to fool the wit, ah whit with fool and wit.

Noose, such the cynic to declare that ideals have no place in our ambitions. Must everything be bought and sold to gain legitimacy? Central planning fails? Let me challenge this bold and blatantly incorrect assertion:

Polio was not eradicated by any for-profit entity.
The national highway system in the US was not the product of “massive parallelism”.
The Internet, which enables this profound discussion, was not the result of some disparate groups of pre-techies looking for a profit.
From the first man on the moon to the last, we have central planning to thank.
The splitting of the atom, the atom bomb, and nuclear power was not created in the market place.

Central planning has given us cleaner water, safer air, healthier food, preserved wilderness, conserved resources, managed bio-diversity, and created the means for a basic level of equality of opportunity for more people.

Central planning is in essence, people simply acting in concert together to achieve worthwhile and necessary goals that improve society as a whole.

The market place oriented solution is an arena for the competition of ideas to see which one is the most efficient, or really, the most popular with consumers. It is important to realize that market oriented solutions do not necessarily evaluate the long term benefits of possible solutions. The market oriented strategy is concerned only with meeting short term goals in relation to wealth creation.

Auto makers have no market based incentive to create cleaner cars- they have centrally planned reasons. Indeed, the only market based incentive to run a cleaner car is to reduce fuel consumption, which will only come into play when there is fuel scarcity. Market based solutions are almost always knee-jerk reactions to current conditions, and not solutions for creating viable long term strategies for the coming decades or centuries.

You talk about infecting the 21st century with the 20th century, well my boy; you’re guilty of learning nothing from the latter half of the twentieth century.

Put another way, do you think a market based solution will give us a hydrogen economy within a reasonable amount of time? As we have witnessed, as I have pointed out, our greatest achievements that improve the quality of our lives is the result of central planning as the genesis for progress. Market based solutions is merely a tool, one of many, to achieve the goals.

Now the question remains, do we need market based solutions to move humanity towards the stars? Is it even capable of it? It surely cannot do it on its own, because, at the end of the day, market based solutions have no incentive to create communities in space. It has a profit motive to reduce costs associated with the exploitation of space- that means reducing the number one cost associated with space; i.e. human beings.

The only human beings that are a profit source are tourists. A scientist, a miner, an engineer- these are profit-loss sources, incurred only because there is no alternative. But you see, the market based incentive is to find an alternative, and it will, and by doing so, further reduce the opportunity for people to settle the stars.

The market based strategy is inherently suspect because of the valuation it places on people in relation to space exploitation.

Earthfirst · 2005-11-21 18:32:55

I think that the real big issue with in space exploration is manned or robotic exploration. Are view of exploration is still based on the 2nd ade of exploration. Man going to the poles fighting nature to plant a flag on some piece of ice that looks like all that other ice. But really it was more about self discover, facing the elements and just surving. Sitting in a small hut on the antiartic ice sheet during the long night alone what is their to discover. There is no plants, people or animals, just you discovering your inner mind. This transition from the second age to the thrid age also is like society went though after www1. Modernism art for the self expression, every thing is about us looking at us. In the second age we discovered every thing, nothing leth but are selfs. The big problem come when exploration goes into space, for the most part Man cant go there right now. Robots due great, but we still sea though the eyes of the 2nd age. We want Man to go there to experence it, but there is no other life their but us when we get there. Polar and ocean exploration mirrors space exploration. Once a Man gets there, nothing but rocks or ice to look at. On mars there will be a Man siting in his hut wondering to him self great I am here! Gee lot at all the rocks, the air is unbreathable, A robot could of done the same science work for a lot less money, but I am here! I think that I will plant a flag, grab some rocks, look more wroth less rocks! Great its basalt Hey thats the same type of rock I could of easly found for free insead of the billions of dollars my nation spent to send to this woth less big rock called Mars! Great I got cancer all for some stupid rock that a robot could of sent back to earth.
But with are 2nd age model, wonderful man has gone to Mars, lets send colonist and terrafrom the planet so that we can breath the air! Cost billions, and the poor demand bread why dont they just eat cake. Shut up and let your nation fulfill its God given right to claim the solar system you stupid peayons!
We are so great look we sent man to the moon and mars! What the colonist died because of lack of food and breathable air, oh well they are heroes we morn them. Lets send some more!
The two different views have merit, 1. robots cost less than people to go on missions to space, if the robot dies no big deal its a robot. Robots also need no food or water, only power which can got from sunlight.
But people inspire more the nation tax base more, and can get more funding. I would love to a Human go to Mars say the first words and first steps on mars instead of a human like robot. This is because we are all human and relate to other humans more than some robot. Final long term exploration on Mars would work better if you had people on Mars making robotic to chech it out. Also un like the Moon Mars has all the resource needed to support human life in plenty not just a little pacth of ice at the moons poles. Once people make a home on mars supply would not have to be sent from earth, just more people. But once there are people on Mars the baby human are sure to start poping out in 9 mounth or so. Human are reproductive and spread all about populate any place they live naturly. Unlike robots which need humans to make them.
The ideas of colonization and exploration come out of the 1st and second age of exploration, appalying the model of those age to the thrid age is not very smooth, but is duable on planets like mars that are close enough to earth envirnoment and has resources for people to live. But for places like jupitor, astorids, small moons, the model for of the past ofthen breaks. Their robots are best, but I feel that both people and robots should explore together. People are great for many thing robots cant do, but were people cant go send robots. On mars I thinks robots should go first and prepare the way for humans. Robots could make a base, fuel, food, air, water, all before the people get their. When they land all the have too do is to explore and not waste time making their base or gathering resources.
But thats my own strange idea people and robots working together in space each doing what they are best at doing, working for the betterment of Mankind!

John Creighton · 2005-11-22 21:02:43

The fool and wit, to fool the wit, ah whit with fool and wit.
Noose, such the cynic to declare that ideals have no place in our ambitions. Must everything be bought and sold to gain legitimacy? Central planning fails? Let me challenge this bold and blatantly incorrect assertion:
Polio was not eradicated by any for-profit entity.
The national highway system in the US was not the product of “massive parallelism”.
The Internet, which enables this profound discussion, was not the result of some disparate groups of pre-techies looking for a profit.
From the first man on the moon to the last, we have central planning to thank.
The splitting of the atom, the atom bomb, and nuclear power was not created in the market place.
Central planning has given us cleaner water, safer air, healthier food, preserved wilderness, conserved resources, managed bio-diversity, and created the means for a basic level of equality of opportunity for more people.
Central planning is in essence, people simply acting in concert together to achieve worthwhile and necessary goals that improve society as a whole.
The market place oriented solution is an arena for the competition of ideas to see which one is the most efficient, or really, the most popular with consumers. It is important to realize that market oriented solutions do not necessarily evaluate the long term benefits of possible solutions. The market oriented strategy is concerned only with meeting short term goals in relation to wealth creation.
Auto makers have no market based incentive to create cleaner cars- they have centrally planned reasons. Indeed, the only market based incentive to run a cleaner car is to reduce fuel consumption, which will only come into play when there is fuel scarcity. Market based solutions are almost always knee-jerk reactions to current conditions, and not solutions for creating viable long term strategies for the coming decades or centuries.
You talk about infecting the 21st century with the 20th century, well my boy; you’re guilty of learning nothing from the latter half of the twentieth century.
Put another way, do you think a market based solution will give us a hydrogen economy within a reasonable amount of time? As we have witnessed, as I have pointed out, our greatest achievements that improve the quality of our lives is the result of central planning as the genesis for progress. Market based solutions is merely a tool, one of many, to achieve the goals.
Now the question remains, do we need market based solutions to move humanity towards the stars? Is it even capable of it? It surely cannot do it on its own, because, at the end of the day, market based solutions have no incentive to create communities in space. It has a profit motive to reduce costs associated with the exploitation of space- that means reducing the number one cost associated with space; i.e. human beings.
The only human beings that are a profit source are tourists. A scientist, a miner, an engineer- these are profit-loss sources, incurred only because there is no alternative. But you see, the market based incentive is to find an alternative, and it will, and by doing so, further reduce the opportunity for people to settle the stars.
The market based strategy is inherently suspect because of the valuation it places on people in relation to space exploitation.

This sounds like somewhat of a retraction or softening of your postion.

BWhite · 2005-11-22 22:44:08

The text for today's sermon is from the prophet Ishmael:

Whenever I find myself growing grim about the mouth; whenever it is a damp, drizzly November in my soul; * * * then, I account it high time to get to sea as soon as I can.
* * *
There is nothing surprising in this. If they but knew it, almost all men in their degree, some time or other, cherish very nearly the same feelings towards the ocean with me.

As good a reason as any, to go to the Moon. It's good for the soul.

Now, when I say that I am in the habit of going to sea whenever I begin to grow hazy about the eyes, and begin to be over conscious of my lungs, I do not mean to have it inferred that I ever go to sea as a passenger. For to go as a passenger you must needs have a purse, and a purse is but a rag unless you have something in it. Besides, passengers get sea-sick - grow quarrelsome - don't sleep of nights - do not enjoy themselves much, as a general thing; - no, I never go as a passenger; nor, though I am something of a salt, do I ever go to sea as a Commodore, or a Captain, or a Cook. * * * No, when I go to sea, I go as a simple sailor, right before the mast, plumb down into the forecastle, aloft there to the royal mast-head.

If one must go to the Moon, to brighten a damp, drizzly November of the soul, going as a tourist is a bad idea. Tourists whine and complain and never have fun.

But! To persuade tourists to PAY YOU to take them to the Moon? Now that is genuis.

True, they rather order me about some, and make me jump from spar to spar, like a grasshopper in a May meadow. And at first, this sort of thing is unpleasant enough. It touches one's sense of honor, particularly if you come of an old established family in the land, the van Rensselaers, or Randolphs, or Hardicanutes. * * * But even this wears off in time.
What of it, if some old hunks of a sea-captain orders me to get a broom and sweep down the decks? What does that indignity amount to, weighed, I mean, in the scales of the New Testament? Do you think the archangel Gabriel thinks anything the less of me, because I promptly and respectfully obey that old hunks in that particular instance? Who aint a slave? Tell me that. Well, then, however the old sea-captains may order me about - however they may thump and punch me about, I have the satisfaction of knowing that it is all right; that everybody else is one way or other served in much the same way - either in a physical or metaphysical point of view, that is; and so the universal thump is passed round, and all hands should rub each other's shoulder-blades, and be content.

Who ain't a slave? Now that is an excellent question.

Again, I always go to sea as a sailor, because they make a point of paying me for my trouble, whereas they never pay passengers a single penny that I ever heard of. On the contrary, passengers themselves must pay. And there is all the difference in the world between paying and being paid. The act of paying is perhaps the most uncomfortable infliction that the two orchard thieves entailed upon us. But being paid, - what will compare with it? The urbane activity with which a man receives money is really marvellous, considering that we so earnestly believe money to be the root of all earthly ills, and that on no account can a monied man enter heaven.

Contrary to the assertions of certain heathen hobos, being paid to convey whiny tourists to the Moon ain't whoring, it's honest work. But. In any event, so what? In the arena of blatant whoring is it better to be payor or payee? Which is more honorable, or disgraceful?

Who is to say? But anyway you look at it, the Moon is worth it.

clark · 2005-11-28 06:58:43

I ain’t buyin what you’re sellin, cause what you’re sellin, you don’t own.

These arguments have all the meat of a man on the side of the road selling the Brooklyn Bridge.

Come on, where is the intelligent points that clarify your positions? Where is the justifications that get to the heart of the matter?

Sea spray and old-salts? Argh, me matey. You’re a mangey tow-barge not fit to scrape the barnacles off the side of this thar galleon. How do you like my metaphor?

So it is enlightened to have some rich guys pay for the dreamers to clean spit on the Moon? So it is enlightened to give away mineral rights (and profits by them) to only those who can get there?

Never mind that the majority of humanity and the nations that represent them have no means to access the mineral wealth of the stars. You and all in this camp arrogantly abrogate any equal claim they might have on what has been previously agreed to be within the domain of all humanity. The assumption is natural, considering that those speaking the loudest have the greatest chance to benefit from declaring the heavens up for sale- you will more than likely see some type of return.

So let us open the can of worms, and spill them on the floor. While the Western nations wantonly sell off the commercial rights to the Moon and the stars to any and all who can find their way to it, do you think those less fortunate in technological capability will sit idly and blithely by? Do you think the less enabled people will be satisfied with the “gifts” and leftovers from the table we set for ourselves?

If we can go mine the Moon, why can’t those who are unable to do the same be restrained from mining Antarctica?

Many people dream of seeing penguins. Some even dream of killing them. Wouldn’t it be brilliant to find eco-tourists to pay the fare for some intrepid penguin killer to get over to Antarctica to set-up their long cherished hope of a Penguin-Fur Clearing House? Or would it simply be ironic?

Contrary to the assertions of certain heathen hobos, being paid to convey whiny tourists to the Moon ain't whoring, it's honest work.

Ask one of your characters that. Ribbit.

BWhite · 2005-11-28 07:44:10

Never mind that the majority of humanity and the nations that represent them have no means to access the mineral wealth of the stars. You and all in this camp arrogantly abrogate any equal claim they might have on what has been previously agreed to be within the domain of all humanity.

There are no trillion dollar asteroids.

Bring back resources from out there and the value of labor rises relative to value of extracted resources.

clark · 2005-11-28 08:03:25

The value of extracted resources will reduce or depress the comodity markets, thereby reducing the value of labor, according to your own analysis.

Labor is largely automated and specialized for space exploitation. Very few will benefit for the investment costs needed.

If there are no trillion dollar asteroids, what's the draw for investment to begin with? Space exploitation is looking at the bottom line. It has the wrong motivations and hasn't the legs to invest in something that requires a longer view.

John Creighton · 2005-11-28 08:27:55

Many people dream of seeing penguins. Some even dream of killing them. Wouldn’t it be brilliant to find eco-tourists to pay the fare for some intrepid penguin killer to get over to Antarctica to set-up their long cherished hope of a Penguin-Fur Clearing House? Or would it simply be ironic?
Contrary to the assertions of certain heathen hobos, being paid to convey whiny tourists to the Moon ain't whoring, it's honest work.
Ask one of your characters that. Ribbit.

Okay, fine. Your Penguin example analogy gives an example of what a lot of people would consider exploitation of Antarctica. Before we go any further we should really decide what we mean by space exploitation. My take on the word is, to exploit means to take advantage. You can take advantage of a situation “Let us exploit our advantage” or you can take advantage of a person. The prior use of the word is somewhat a positive use of the word while the latter use of the word implies negative connotations.

Usually the word exploitation is used in a negative fashion so the title of this thread is somewhat of a false debate. In the debate question a position is somewhat implicitly presupposed. So rather then debate space exploration vs space exploitation we should first discuss what we consider a misuse of extra terrestrial resources and debate each of these issues separately.

clark · 2005-11-28 09:19:12

Okay, let me simplify.

Exploitation of space for private gain is unacceptable.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2005-11-17 13:50:40

Re: Space Exploitation vs. Space Exploration

#27 2005-11-17 14:17:42

Re: Space Exploitation vs. Space Exploration

#28 2005-11-17 14:18:30

Re: Space Exploitation vs. Space Exploration

#29 2005-11-17 14:36:32

Re: Space Exploitation vs. Space Exploration

#30 2005-11-17 14:37:57

Re: Space Exploitation vs. Space Exploration

#31 2005-11-17 14:57:37

Re: Space Exploitation vs. Space Exploration

#32 2005-11-17 16:50:06

Re: Space Exploitation vs. Space Exploration

#33 2005-11-17 18:36:40

Re: Space Exploitation vs. Space Exploration

#34 2005-11-17 18:51:19

Re: Space Exploitation vs. Space Exploration

#35 2005-11-17 19:21:04

Re: Space Exploitation vs. Space Exploration

#36 2005-11-17 20:56:25

Re: Space Exploitation vs. Space Exploration

#37 2005-11-17 21:21:44

Re: Space Exploitation vs. Space Exploration

#38 2005-11-18 06:53:10

Re: Space Exploitation vs. Space Exploration

#39 2005-11-18 08:10:02

Re: Space Exploitation vs. Space Exploration

#40 2005-11-18 13:46:27

Re: Space Exploitation vs. Space Exploration

#41 2005-11-18 15:12:44

Re: Space Exploitation vs. Space Exploration

#42 2005-11-21 07:46:25

Re: Space Exploitation vs. Space Exploration

#43 2005-11-21 18:32:55

Re: Space Exploitation vs. Space Exploration

#44 2005-11-22 21:02:43

Re: Space Exploitation vs. Space Exploration

#45 2005-11-22 22:44:08

Re: Space Exploitation vs. Space Exploration

#46 2005-11-28 06:58:43

Re: Space Exploitation vs. Space Exploration

#47 2005-11-28 07:44:10

Re: Space Exploitation vs. Space Exploration

#48 2005-11-28 08:03:25

Re: Space Exploitation vs. Space Exploration

#49 2005-11-28 08:27:55

Re: Space Exploitation vs. Space Exploration

#50 2005-11-28 09:19:12

Re: Space Exploitation vs. Space Exploration

Board footer