# We must protect the enviroment of the moon. **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [November 2, 2007, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-must-protect-the-enviroment-of-the-moon/425069 "2007-11-02T23:56:43Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2007, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-must-protect-the-enviroment-of-the-moon/425069/21 "2007-11-04T02:09:35Z")
Wait a minute. The US didn’t ratify any of the UN treaties on the moon. We got there first, spent our money to get there, we planted our flag on it, so it is ours unless someone else takes it by force. ---
**Author:** ![Terrifel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c68b51/32.png) [@Terrifel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terrifel)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2007, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-must-protect-the-enviroment-of-the-moon/425069/22 "2007-11-04T02:36:00Z")
Don’t forget about the moon weasels. Screw with their environment, and they will take us all out. Moon weasels are Nixon crazy. ---
**Author:** ![The\_King\_of\_Soup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/a87d85/32.png) [@The\_King\_of\_Soup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_King_of_Soup)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2007, 3:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-must-protect-the-enviroment-of-the-moon/425069/23 "2007-11-04T03:07:50Z")
[QUOTE=jtgain] Wait a minute. The US didn’t ratify any of the UN treaties on the moon. We got there first, spent our money to get there, we planted our flag on it, so it is ours unless someone else takes it by force. [/QUOTE] Stellar reasoning, pun intended but probably not received. Would you like to [claim a star](http://www.space.com/spacewatch/mystery_monday_030915.html) for yourself, while you’re at it? Someone will claim the rights and sell them to you cheap. You think a flag on a hemisphere constitutes ownership? Not to denigrate your knowledge of history, but you should know, it’s been tried before. It’s irrelevant, but I have to ask for the sake of the entertainment value, _what_ force, **jtgain** , do you think, is required to take unoccupied territory? Remember, the force of law is out, according to you, because – well, because of sheer chauvinism, but we’ll pretend it’s a good reason for the sake of argument. So? ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2007, 3:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-must-protect-the-enviroment-of-the-moon/425069/24 "2007-11-04T03:15:46Z")
[QUOTE=Liberal] Well sure, it’s easy if you just make shit up. That’s what laws are: made up shit. [/QUOTE] As is all of classic liberalism; made up, the whole lot of it, by imperfect men. So in that regard, your philosophy is no more valid than anyone else’s. ---
**Author:** ![DanBlather](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@DanBlather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DanBlather)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2007, 2:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-must-protect-the-enviroment-of-the-moon/425069/25 "2007-11-04T14:26:27Z")
Since there is no atmosphere, any changes to the landscape on the Moon are pretty much permanent until enough meteorite strikes to erase it. Personally, I want the early lunar landing sites to be preserved as they are. I’d also hate to see so much mining that the view of the Moon from the earth is affected. At the very least, mining should be restricted to the far side. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2007, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-must-protect-the-enviroment-of-the-moon/425069/26 "2007-11-04T14:47:13Z")
[QUOTE=Fear Itself] As is all of classic liberalism; made up, the whole lot of it, by imperfect men. So in that regard, your philosophy is no more valid than anyone else’s. [/QUOTE] Despite that you don’t know what you’re talking about, you’re right about that second part — and it’s what I’ve always asserted: no worldview is any more valid than another. A law, however, is not a worldview, though it may (or may not) reflect one. ---
**Author:** ![Cluricaun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/bb73d2/32.png) [@Cluricaun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cluricaun)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2007, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-must-protect-the-enviroment-of-the-moon/425069/27 "2007-11-04T15:03:54Z")
[QUOTE=Liberal] That’s the sort of question I’m asking about so-called public property all the time. [/QUOTE] “What do you mean I can’t keep mining here in the forest preserve? I already bought this sweet pickaxe and everything.” ---
**Author:** ![saoirse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/5daacb/32.png) [@saoirse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/saoirse)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2007, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-must-protect-the-enviroment-of-the-moon/425069/28 "2007-11-04T15:45:33Z")
[QUOTE=DanBlather] At the very least, mining should be restricted to the far side. [/QUOTE] Oh, sure. Trample all over Roger Waters’ property rights. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2007, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-must-protect-the-enviroment-of-the-moon/425069/29 "2007-11-04T23:48:26Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Well sure, it’s easy if you just make shit up. That’s what laws are: made up shit. You say that like it’s a bad thing. Sure, all laws (about private property as well as public property, and everything else) are human constructs, and to some extent arbitrary. No news there. > [@Liberal](#): > > It is remarkable to me that there exits an ethical system in which a government may extract resources from human beings but not from orbiting rocks. Why remarkable? It’s all made up shit, remember? We made up some shit called “sovereign territory” and “obligations of citizenship”, from which concepts the orbiting rock called “the moon” is currently excluded, for historically contingent reasons. The goal at this point (as I see it) is to make up some additional shit about the moon that will be reasonably satisfactory to at least most of us shit-maker-uppers (aka human beings) while avoiding the expense and destructiveness of a war. > [@Liberal](#): > > To answer your question directly, when extraction of moon resources becomes politically expedient, rest assured that a way will be found to establish a “legal right”. Thanks, but it doesn’t really answer my question. What I was wondering was not **whether** some way of determining who gets to mine the moon could be found, but rather **how**. > [@Contrapuntal](#): > > By force? Not trying to be a smarty pants here. Isn’t that how land is traditionally acquired? At least on the level on nation-states. Exactly. As I noted above, though, the traditional approach tends to be rather inefficient and wasteful, which is one reason that the alternative approach of international laws and treaties was developed. (Not that this approach can’t be inefficient and wasteful too, but at least it has the potential not to get so much stuff blown up.) > [@Chimera](#): > > Now tell me again how this isn’t the UN taking charge, in a bad way, of the Commons. “Taking charge”? Sure it is, but that isn’t what you said before: you said that the UN would be the **owner** of international waters. The Treaty definitely puts the UN’s International Seabed Authority Secretariat in charge of decisions about international waters, but does not literally confer ownership upon it. “In a bad way”? Meh. There’s not really any totally **good** way to have an international body control global resources. Then again, there’s no totally good way (in fact, not even a mostly good way) to have nation-states fighting wars to control global resources, either. The US has apparently not found it an undue hardship to comply with the Law of the Sea Treaty since it came into effect back in 1994. What the government now seems to be realizing is that we might as well cash in on our compliance and get official standing for our claims to a cut of the ocean. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2007, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-must-protect-the-enviroment-of-the-moon/425069/30 "2007-11-05T00:05:01Z")
[QUOTE=Liberal] Despite that you don’t know what you’re talking about, you’re right about that second part — and it’s what I’ve always asserted: no worldview is any more valid than another. [/QUOTE] Untrue. Some worldviews are far more based on facts than others. Some are more logically consistant than others. Just because some parts of a worldview, or anything else, are completely arbitrary doesn’t mean that others aren’t simply factually wrong, or right for that matter. Nor does it mean that some sets of arbitrary assumptions are internally logically consistant with each other, and some aren’t. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2007, 1:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-must-protect-the-enviroment-of-the-moon/425069/31 "2007-11-05T01:29:05Z")
[QUOTE=saoirse] [Quote=DanBlather] At the very least, mining should be restricted to the far side. [/quote] Oh, sure. Trample all over Roger Waters’ property rights. [/QUOTE] Not to mention Gary Larson’s! ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2007, 1:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-must-protect-the-enviroment-of-the-moon/425069/32 "2007-11-05T01:47:33Z")
[QUOTE=Liberal] Despite that you don’t know what you’re talking about, you’re right about that second part — and it’s what I’ve always asserted: no worldview is any more valid than another. A law, however, is not a worldview, though it may (or may not) reflect one. [/QUOTE] Enlighten me; which part of the classic liberal worldview is not made up by men? ---
**Author:** ![Cluricaun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/bb73d2/32.png) [@Cluricaun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cluricaun)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2007, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-must-protect-the-enviroment-of-the-moon/425069/33 "2007-11-05T01:57:55Z")
[QUOTE=Fear Itself] Enlighten me; which part of the classic liberal worldview is not made up by men? [/QUOTE] The law of the jungle. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2007, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-must-protect-the-enviroment-of-the-moon/425069/34 "2007-11-05T02:44:35Z")
Here are the texts of the two relevent documents: [the Outer Space Treaty of 1967](http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/SpaceLaw/lpos.html), and [the Moon Treaty of 1979](http://www.islandone.org/Treaties/BH766.html). The Outer Space Treaty, which has been ratified by the US and most of the rest of the world, had as it’s main points that nuclear weapons wouldn’t be based in space, and that celestial bodies wouldn’t be nationalized. In other words, it was agreed that there would not be a neo-colonial “plant the flag” territorial race. So far, so good. However, since sovereign national governments are what traditionally have recognized and upheld property rights, it then becomes unclear how or whether private property could be established in space. All the 1967 treaty has to say on the subject is that “the activities of non-governmental entities in outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, shall require authorization and continuing supervision by the appropriate State Party to the Treaty”. So private parties can’t be unregulated free agents in space; like ships at sea, they are to under someone’s laws and government. The 1979 treaty, which was intended as a followup to the 1967 treaty, is much more controversial. On the surface it appears to merely reiterate much of the intent of the 1967 treaty. But the provisions of Article 11 made many people fear that if ratified it would ban private enterprise from space: (underlining mine) > [@](#): > > Article 11 > > 1. The moon and its natural resources are the common heritage of mankind, > which finds its expression in the provisions of this Agreement and in > particular in paragraph 5 or this article. > > 2. The moon is not subject to national appropriation by any claim of > sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means. > > 3. Neither the surface nor the subsurface of the moon, nor any part > thereof or natural resources in place, shall become property of any > State, international intergovernmental or non-governmental organization, > national organization or non-governmental entity or of any natural > person. The placement of personnel, space vehicles, equipment, > facilities, stations and installations on or below the surface of the > moon, including structures connected with its surface or subsurface, > shall not create a right of ownership over the surface or the subsurface > of the moon or any areas thereof. The foregoing provisions are without > prejudice to the international rgime referred to in paragraph 5 of this > article. > > 4. States Parties have the right to exploration and use of the moon > without discrimination of any kind, on a basis of equality and in > accordance with international law and the terms of this Agreement. > > 5. States Parties to this Agreement hereby undertake to establish an > international regime, including appropriate procedures, to govern the > exploitation of the natural resources of the moon as such exploitation is > about to become feasible. This provision shall be implemented in > accordance with article 18 of this Agreement. > > 6. In order to facilitate the establishment of the international rgime > referred to in paragraph 5 of this article, States Parties shall inform > the Secretary-General of the United Nations as well as the public and the > international scientific community, to the greatest extent feasible and > practicable, of any natural resources they may discover on the moon. > > 7. The main purposes of the international rgime to be established shall > include: > > (a) The orderly and safe development of the natural resources of the > moon; > > (b) The rational management of those resources; > > (c) The expansion of opportunities in the use of those resources; > > (d) An equitable sharing by all States Parties in the benefits derived > from those resources, whereby the interests and needs of the > developing countries, as well as the efforts of those countries > which have contributed either directly or indirectly to the > exploration of the moon, shall be given special consideration. > > 1. All the activities with respect to the natural resources of the moon > shall be carried out in a manner compatible with the purposes specified > in paragraph 7 of this article and the provisions of article 6, paragraph > 2, of this Agreement. Indeed, some critics called it the “Socialism in Space” treaty, and the L5 space colony people lobbied heavily against it. However it’s currently moot since only a handful of nations have signed it. ---
**Author:** ![cmyk](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmyk/32/3353_2.png) [@cmyk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmyk)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2007, 6:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-must-protect-the-enviroment-of-the-moon/425069/35 "2007-11-05T06:51:02Z")
[QUOTE=DanBlather] Since there is no atmosphere, any changes to the landscape on the Moon are pretty much permanent until enough meteorite strikes to erase it. Personally, I want the early lunar landing sites to be preserved as they are. I’d also hate to see so much mining that the view of the Moon from the earth is affected. At the very least, mining should be restricted to the far side. [/QUOTE] Y’know… I think it would be sort of cool to look up and the moon, just coming off (or just about to enter) a New phase, and seeing city lights illuminating one of the limbs. A reminder that humanity is destined to branch out; skies the limit. It would take an AWFUL lot of development to deface the moon enough so you could see it when illuminated. But maybe someday, hopefully within my lifetime, I can look up and see the mar of humanity there. But I agree. The Apollo sites need to be preserved and untampered with. It’d be cool to have a pressurized tube-museum of sorts, that snaked around various points of interest, so people could see the first footprint for themselves. It’d be a nice break for the lunar miners before they had to get back to their hard and dirty work of raping the moon of it’s natural resources. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2007, 7:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-must-protect-the-enviroment-of-the-moon/425069/36 "2007-11-05T07:04:02Z")
[QUOTE=Taber] One would think that it wouldn’t be very efficient to mine the moon, given all the rocket fuel and such that would be required. I guess mining the moon could be a bad thing if enough mass was removed to effect the tides, but that’s pretty doubtful. So yeah, protecting the environment of the moon seems pretty silly [/QUOTE] Agreed. **Unless** we yield to the temptation to use the Moon as a [nuclear waste dumping-ground.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space:_1999) Then we might lose it, and fuck up the tides. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2007, 2:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-must-protect-the-enviroment-of-the-moon/425069/37 "2007-11-05T14:09:38Z")
[QUOTE=Kimstu] Why remarkable? It’s all made up shit, remember? [/QUOTE] I’m flabbergasted that I need to explain this to you. The reason it is remarkable is that the shit Smith makes up decides the fate of Jones. It’s the same ethic that underlies slavery and conscription. The assumption is made that Smith has some magical quality that entitles him to make up shit that Jones must obey, and usually it is nothing more than the fact that enough idiots voted for Smith — like bystanders cheering while the guy on the pool table ramrods the bitch who just wasn’t popular enough. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2007, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-must-protect-the-enviroment-of-the-moon/425069/38 "2007-11-05T15:20:45Z")
[QUOTE=Liberal] The reason it is remarkable is that the shit Smith makes up decides the fate of Jones. It’s the same ethic that underlies slavery and conscription. [/QUOTE] So it is not so much that the law is made up, as it is that it entails coercion. > [@](#): > > The assumption is made that Smith has some magical quality that entitles him to make up shit that Jones must obey… So what if there \*were \* a magical man who created the universe, who sent his representative to inform all of mankind that unless they fed the poor, cared for the sick, and visited those in prison, they would be denied eternal life? Would you reject that as coercion as well? ---
**Author:** ![DanBlather](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@DanBlather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DanBlather)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2007, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-must-protect-the-enviroment-of-the-moon/425069/39 "2007-11-05T18:09:30Z")
[QUOTE=cmyk] It would take an AWFUL lot of development to deface the moon enough so you could see it when illuminated. [/QUOTE] > [@](#): > > With large amateur telescopes, features as small as 0.6 miles (1 km) in diameter can be observed depending on atmospheric conditions. [cite](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observing_the_Moon) The [Bingham County Mine](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bingham_Canyon_Mine) is 4 km across. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2007, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-must-protect-the-enviroment-of-the-moon/425069/40 "2007-11-05T18:17:29Z")
[QUOTE=Fear Itself] So it is not so much that the law is made up, as it is that it entails coercion. So what if there \*were \* a magical man who created the universe, who sent his representative to inform all of mankind that unless they fed the poor, cared for the sick, and visited those in prison, they would be denied eternal life? Would you reject that as coercion as well? [/QUOTE] It doesn’t count when God does it. He has immunity. Anyhoo, mine the moon for all its worth. Mine the heck outta it. Hollow it out and build condos. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-must-protect-the-enviroment-of-the-moon/425069.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-must-protect-the-enviroment-of-the-moon/425069.md?page=3)