Who Owns The Moon? asks Elon Musk

1. 83

   GA Andersonposted 22 months ago

   He may have asked, but I made that up to open a door. And it is a social issue that will soon be internationally political. As a bonus, it also involves Elon Musk.
   
   One trend of speculation was about Musk's triad of companies as the three legs of his thrust to establish 'bases' on Mars. The same question would apply to Mars. But that could be a decade or more away, so that question doesn't seem necessary.
   
   It looks like his triad of companies has developed a fourth leg - Tesla's AI division, so now it's a quad. It also appears there is little doubt that Musk companies will be the first to operate - beyond survival mode - as a self-supporting unit on the moon.
   
   So, who owns the moon?
   
   GA

   replyreport
   1. 89

      wildernessposted 22 months agoin reply to this

      While there may (or may not) be agreement that no one or no nation can own the moon, your link addresses the materials found there.
      
      And here I highly disagree.  If the US, or Elon Musk, or anyone else, establishes a mine on the moon (or mars or anywhere else) you can bet that they will own the materials found, including mining results. 
      
      No nation is going to give that up; no nations is going to mine a thousand tons of whatever and give up a big (or small) share to other nations or people.  If nothing else the large majority of nations will not have participated in the costs, or risks, of getting those materials and have no right to call them their own.
      
      Ever read The Moon is a Harsh Mistress (Robert Heinlein)?  A penal colony on the moon declares independence from earth, and that is exactly what would happen, given time, with any colony.

      replyreport
      1. 83

         GA Andersonposted 22 months agoin reply to this

         Yes, I have read that book. and I think that is what it will eventually come to—might makes right. A replay of our origins, maybe? Amazon has a TV series that portrays what will most likely unfold—Belters Vs. Earthers vs. Martians, (earth descendants).
         
         GA

         replyreport
         1. 89

            wildernessposted 22 months agoin reply to this

            *shrug*  The one "right" guaranteed, and enforced, by nature.  That you can have whatever you are able to take.
            
            Yes, that is what it will come to, as always.  It has been that way from caveman days, is today, and will be tomorrow.

            replyreport
            1. 80

               Credence2posted 22 months agoin reply to this

               That attitude is why the planet continues to always be on the precipice of disaster. In the taking, we will eventual annihilate ourselves.
               
               Perhaps, more evolved thinking is long overdue?

               replyreport
               1. 89

                  wildernessposted 22 months agoin reply to this

                  You mean more imagination, as opposed to truth and fact?  Can you show even a single "right" guaranteed and enforced by nature that is different?

                  replyreport
                  1. 80

                     Credence2posted 22 months agoin reply to this

                     Its about an attitude, we are supposed to the have ability to reason and not let our predilection for greed and violence destroy our species. The Right makes Right attitude of surrendering to our lower instincts will guarantee that result. One man's ability to firmly plant his boot upon the neck of another is not sustainable in the long term. It may be a good thing that the results may well happen beyond the two decades that you allot to yourself.
                     
                     So, from your wisdom and perspective, basically we are doomed. Now that the tools and technology are available, we can in your Right makes Right theory render the planet uninhabitable.

                     replyreport
                     1. 89

                        wildernessposted 22 months agoin reply to this

                        Apologies: I thought you questioned that nature has given us "rights" beyond what I defined.
                        
                        While I agree that "might makes right" is a disgusting solution, it is the one that allowed the species survival for millions of years.  It is one that built the highest civilization this world has ever seen.  It is one that is now changing the world itself.  It is also who and what we are, as a species, whether we like it or not.
                        
                        But doomed?  It is not possible that we can make the planet uninhabitable for all life at our current level of technology.  It is doubtful that we could make it uninhabitable even for our own species, though I will agree it might be should we decide to nuke ourselves into oblivion.

                        replyreport
                        1. 80

                           Credence2posted 22 months agoin reply to this

                           No, the species survives despite might make Right.
                           
                           Those that are the top of the hill will have their aggravation as to whether they can remain there and for how long.
                           
                           Cockroaches may prevail after a nuclear holocaust, they always manage to pull through. A post apocalyptic society where what humans remain are reduced to a Hunter and gathering status equipped with Geiger counters is hardly survival.
                           
                           You can die quickly from the blast  or die slowly from lethal levels of radiation in food, water and air, all of which we must consume. All that survivalist crap is just so much fantasy, we must ultimately take from the environment to survive.
                           
                           We do not have be greedy, avaricious. The greatest civilizations has been built on the back of others and those "others" are not going to let that civilization continue to exist without challenge. Such as Americans are experiencing with rivals like China and Russia. So we follow might makes Right and turn the planet into a burning coal of a cinder? Without a change in attitude, that's next and inevitable.

                           replyreport
   2. 80

      Credence2posted 22 months agoin reply to this

      The moon is much in the status of Antarctica here on Earth, nobody owns it and that is how it should be....

      replyreport
      1. 83

         GA Andersonposted 22 months agoin reply to this

         That is the general agreement among nations that signed the original space treaty. But it is only the ownership of the moon itself that was agreed upon. It seems the resources of the moon, (and asteroids), are different things.
         
         Here's a follow-up from Politico that talks about the details of that argument: (give some thought to Dennis Hope's claim)
         
         Who owns the moon - Property rights in space
         
         GA

         replyreport
         1. 80

            Credence2posted 22 months agoin reply to this

            We need an International Tribunal for the Law regarding Space and Celestial bodie, clearing up from an international standpoint what to do over this issue.  I don't like the American Wild West attitude of take what you can. Neither state nor individual can claim ownership of the Moon, Mars or the the asteroid belt in total, but you can take a rock or two from there. It is just an outrageous and dumb idea.
            
            American capitalist greed? Next Elon Musk will claim that he owns the sun and start charging us by the kilowatt hour for use of solar cells here on Earth. Why not just claim to own the universe and charge us rent?
            
            Yes, I see major celestial bodies as equivalent to national parks first and foremost.
            
            I don't like the idea of entire celestial bodies being owned by any entity.

            replyreport
            1. 83

               GA Andersonposted 22 months agoin reply to this

               Your 'American capitalist greed' is misplaced bud. Surely you don't think China or Russia. or India are in the space race for altruistic or sovereign reasons? This battle will be a 'Wild West' one of human greed—for money, power, or security. Personal or national. American capitalists don't have a monopoly on that kind of greed.
               
               Consider that even if a council was established, what would be its enforcement method?
               
               GA

               replyreport
               1. 80

                  Credence2posted 22 months agoin reply to this

                  An international tack can work, otherwise why hasn't Antarctica been carved up into nationalist regions?
                  
                  I know that much of space will be developed through capitalist self interest, and intangibles like militarism and power would probably be the impetus we will need that will drive new technologies and such to make the foray all that more profitable and efficient.  I have always complained about mankind not moving fast enough in this realm. It is just too bad that we as a species never really evolve and remain in a relative state of infancy, seemly in perpetuity.
                  
                  I just find the idea of a national flag over an entire planet a little much to digest. Just an extension of the "cowboys and Indians" stuff.

                  replyreport
                  1. 83

                     GA Andersonposted 22 months agoin reply to this

                     The Antarctica thing works because the major players agreed to set rules and abide by them. And because they also have a method and power to enforce them. That won't be the situation in space.
                     
                     I bet it won't be any national flag that makes a claim. I'm betting it will be a corporate one.
                     
                     GA

                     replyreport
                     1. 89

                        wildernessposted 22 months agoin reply to this

                        I think so, too.  The US is planning, as I understand it, on moon colonies, but corporate entities will beat them too it, even if the country holds to it's timetable, which is unlikely.

                        replyreport
   3. 85

      tsmogposted 22 months agoin reply to this

      With jest, isn't there only green cheese on the moon? I am not really a fan of cheese except Mozzarella on pizza. M'm . . . M'm Filippis has the best!
      
      NASA is currently seeking private investors/companies to capitalize on mining the moon in the future. Four of them have been named.
      
      To me, it is a conundrum at the forefront of my mind no matter what agreement is made how will it be enforced? War? I can see Musk taking on China which will be doing mining as a nation. Or, has our planet of nations reached a point of holding to it/them?
      
      And, also, thinking about how stakes/claims were done in the old west days how is a claim to be made? On a computer looking at a map. Seems, that could lead to half or more of the moon for one entity. Do you know what I mean? There are a lot of details I am pondering that I haven't seen in all the articles I have read so far including the one about Hope you suggested.
      
      Just wandering a little . . .

      replyreport
      1. 83

         GA Andersonposted 22 months agoin reply to this

         Your link offers a precedent for the 'can' question, but the fight will come with the 'how'? question. The Politico link offered a "how" question: with no physically defined 'property' lines, what would stop anyone from building millimeters from someone else's physical property; e.g. buildings, or access points?
         
         GA

         replyreport
2. 92

   Nathanvilleposted 22 months ago

   The basis of the laws on this is encapsulated in the ‘Out Space Treaty’ signed in 1967, and forms the basis of international space law that dates back to 1919.
   
   These two documents (which I haven’t read in any great detail) provides the details to these International Laws:-
   
   •    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty
   •    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_law
   
   And for those that don’t like Wikipedia, the ‘Official’ website is UNOOSA (United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs):  https://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/ … reaty.html

   replyreport
   1. 83

      GA Andersonposted 22 months agoin reply to this

      To give some direction for thoughts, check out the Politico link offered to Credence2.
      
      I think this issue will devolve into a simple 'might makes right' fight. What other realistic option is there? The blurb about Kenya in the sci-fi book Artemis doesn't sound too far-fetched.
      
      Then, consider that the three major spacefaring nations refused to sign onto a 1979 'Moon Treaty" which did try to expand on the 1967 space treaty. The U.S., China, and Russia, the three most powerful nations—relative to space travel, are also the three nations that were formed and maintained by nature's one guaranteed right. (as previously mentioned)
      
      GA

      replyreport
      1. 92

         Nathanvilleposted 22 months agoin reply to this

         Thanks, it was an interesting link, and an interesting read.
         
         I don't have any firm or strong views on the subject at this time, so I'm not sure I can add much to the debate; but it certainly is an interesting debate to follow.

         replyreport
         1. 83

            GA Andersonposted 22 months agoin reply to this

            Yes, this topic doesn't have any real facts to argue, it's all just speculation. That should make it a fun exchange.
            
            For instance; political ideologies can be introduced. The Conservative vs. Liberal thing. (not in the sense of Republican vs. Democrat) I think the minds of major players will be more Conservative than Liberal.
            
            Because . . .
            
            GA

            replyreport
            1. 92

               Nathanvilleposted 22 months agoin reply to this

               In respect to politics, yes such matters may well excite conservative leaning people more than liberal minded people perhaps; but it doesn’t always follow.  For example, Sir Richard Branson has his finger in the space pie, with his Virgin Galactic Company; but he’s from conservative.
               
               https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Galactic
               
               Sir Richard Branson is a British billionaire, entrepreneur, commercial astronaut and business magnate.  Sir Richard Branson is the 330th wealthiest person in the world.
               
               And to get some idea of his socialist ideology, this short video of his work/life balance ethos is very telling:  https://youtu.be/V67nDvfNQV0

               replyreport
3. 80

   Kathryn L Hillposted 22 months ago

   GOD owns the moon and the earth and all the planets and all the galaxies and all the stars and the whole entire universe. If HE did not make it, it wouldn't be here.
   Therefore, we better not get too haughty ...
   or HE will box our ears.
   
   
   haugh·ty
   /ˈhôdē/
   arrogantly superior and disdainful.
   "a look of haughty disdain"
   Similar:
   proud
   vain
   arrogant
   pompous

   replyreport
4. 80

   Kathryn L Hillposted 22 months ago

   Love would be to work on our problems here and try to bring heaven to earth. If we can't even bring heaven to earth, but hell instead, why trash other planets and other bodies of the solar system?
   
   Bring heaven here, to earth.

   replyreport
5. 80

   Kathryn L Hillposted 22 months ago

   Stop already, Elon. And forget about Mars. One person who dies on Mars, will be on YOU!
   
   
   The Way I See It
   
   Carry on, Major Players

   replyreport