I believe that we should have some form private property rights on the moon, or otherwise mining/development rights.
The reason is that I think that without those rights, there is no incentive to develop lunar programs. For example: If Disney can't buy land on the moon, they won't build a Disney Park up there, and we won't see inexpensive shuttle technology developed to bring you and your kids up there.
Commercial incentive is what drives innovation. Also, people complain about sustainability. The moon is not sustainable for life. We would have to make it sustainable! The innovations that can be derived from that challenge will definitely benefit us on earth. If for anything, populate more of the moon, and reserve more of the earth for nature!
my comment is i m see moo and Google earth so he internet not see me why?
Someone - 13 years ago
People, I wish, would take in to consideration that the Earth is becoming over populated and polluted. It can't, and won't, be stopped unless a catastrophe happens on Earth or in our Solar System. If we continue as we are, in 200 to 300 years (or less; depending) we will be as populated as Coruscant on Star Wars (a total population of 3 trillion people).
Many of you think that's ridiculous, but it is a scary truth that may be realized if something isn't done. If we were to stay on earth for 200 to 300 years from now with no space colonizations, we would very well be like that. Can you imagine not having a single inch of ground space besides national parks? Can you imagine transit with populations like that? It is scary. Though, most of us won't be alive when and if it does happen (unless the scientific breakthroughs that WILL eventually happen come sooner than we think).
The only option to keep an Earth from being like that is Space colonization. The easiest of all places would be the moon seeing how close it is. This is why we should create property laws immediately, because colonization is something that will happen weather most people want it or not, it is purely for survival. If we didn't establish laws for property, we would have a world war over who owns what on the moon.
Forget it people, eventually we are going to have to colonize space. The end. We can't just stay here while our population soars, and we can't morally slaughter people to control that population.
SANDYB - 13 years ago
Let's just get to the moon first and sort it out when and if we get there.
I am optimistic and believe commen sense will prevail.
You are still going to get good and bad people/governments/companies going wherever humans go.
Despite all that we've managed to survive on this planet for a very long time.
I think we will manage to survive going to the moon and ever further into space.
Holden - 13 years ago
well, soon the moon will have aliens that will hunt bears and fish =p
Kyle - 13 years ago
"Think my 30/30 won't fire on the Moon?"
Yes. Your 30/30 requires oxygen.
Daniel - 13 years ago
Any Development of any satellite, should be controlled and agreed upon by the governing body's on which that satellite orbits, but agreements should not infringe any unalienable rights of the individual to live their life as they see fit.
Daniel - 13 years ago
Any Development of any satellite, should be controlled and agreed upon by the governing body's on which that satellite orbits, but agreements should not infringe any unalienable rights of the individual to live their life as they see fit.
Daniel - 13 years ago
Any Development of any satellite, should be controlled and agreed upon by the governing body's on which that satellite orbits, but agreements should not infringe any unalienable rights of the individual to live their life as they see fit.
Daniel - 13 years ago
Any Development of any satellite, should be controlled and agreed upon by the governing body's on which that satellite orbits, but agreements should not infringe any unalienable rights of the individual to live their life as they see fit.
Daniel - 13 years ago
Any Development of any satellite, should be controlled and agreed upon by the governing body's on which that satellite orbits, but agreements should not infringe any unalienable rights of the individual to live their life as they see fit.
SR - 13 years ago
Why not!! It's there hanging in the heavens for all of us and anyone who wants to claim a part of it CAN do so. No-one should have the sole authority to claim or "manage" the moon. It's there for everybody.
Owen - 13 years ago
What defeated the communists in Russia was the fact that all the hard workers fled the country seeking better lives where people wouldn't steal the fruits of their labor.
Freedom will always defeat slavery and freedom will always expand its borders so eventually even a communist community on the Moon would be overwhelmed by reality.
Casey - 13 years ago
To those of you who think we will even go to the Moon without some reason to - you will eventually run out of other people's money and/or they will stop allowing you to take it and then YOU will be the warmonger/greedy/tyrant who seeks to benefit yourself.
There has never once been a truly free nation where people have the liberty to pursue their own ambitions. Corporations have always used the illusion of government to further their own objectives and the Moon will be no different. As long as we allow government to dictate our lives, corporations will be behind the scenes dictating government to pursue their own agenda.
Just please stop falsely blaming property rights as the cause of environmental issues here on Earth. Virtually every corporation would not be able to do what it does without government support - from BOTH sides of the aisle. No person or entity has a right to tell others to do something with which is not theirs. If it isn't yours to begin with, you have no claim to it.
Keith - 13 years ago
The moon belongs to no one or everyone. We should not make the same mistakes we have made with the earth.
Property rights are no more a "mistake" than free speech or freedom from slavery. You are not truly a free human if you do not have property rights.
There are some who have a deep and visceral antipathy against property rights on the moon... or anywhere for that matter. The primary reasoning seems to be that as individuals we are malicious and destructive but get us into large, politicized, bureaucratic groups with few barriers to exercising violence and we magically become nurturing and protective. That is a fundamental ignorance of what actually happens. The most pervasive and damaging actions we have taken on this planet are orchestrated and carried out by people in the government, not by individuals or corporations. When individuals and corporations do transgress it is almost always through purchasing the collusion and support of those who hold the reins of the state.
The mistake too many people make is to abstract the state into a benevolent entity that works to the betterment of its subjects. This is understandable since that is the propaganda that politicians and political activists endlessly push upon us. It is a comfortable and reassuring myth that we've been swallowing since the first Warrior/Priest/King shoved it down our throats over ten thousand years ago. Many of our most enduring and beloved stories revolve around the benevolent leader that will save us... if we just give them enough power and control over our lives.
This ignores the truth of history in that the more power, liberty and rights that are held by the individual- the better off we are in almost every respect.
If you want to understand the reality of social and environmental impact as it is effected by property rights, you do not listen to what one side tells you. Don't take the tyrants word for it and don't take mine; look at what actually happens in the world. Look at the environmental damage that has taken place over the last hundred years; where, when and by who it took place. Break the countries down by their respect for individual property rights and just look at what they did and are doing. Can you really say that the United States, Canada and Western Europe have a worse environmental history than the Soviet Union did or China does?
When individuals have property rights, we are, each and every one of us, a bulwark against the damage that the state or state sanctioned corporations can do. When the control of property is held by the state, in reality there are few checks on what they do with it. The ownership of all land by the King is an ugly vestige of the past that has no more moral grounds than does jus primae noctis and there should actually be a constitutional guard against it.
It is possible to arrive at the moon for a long stay with changed minds from what we are used to here on earth
bob c - 13 years ago
Development should be limited to the "dark side" of the moon. I don't want to have to see it when I am observing thru my telescope! (Grin)
bb - 13 years ago
By the time man is ready to live on the moon, all ownership of things will have been long gone, it will take a joint effort by all to be able to achieve such a feat. the only exception might be the ferengi, you still try to profit from everything.
kat - 13 years ago
WHY DOES MAN WANT TO ALWAYS "OWN" SOMETHING THAT DOES NOT BELONG TO THEM? OWN? YOU DONT HAVE THE ABILITY TO CREATE ANYTHING; LESS ALONE OWN!!!
bbb - 13 years ago
IT IS NOT GOOD TO DESTROY THE MOON.LET US ALL SAVE THE EARTH FIRST,THEN WE CAN THINK ABOUT BUYING THE MOON. THIS IS A STUPID ACTION.LET US MAKE THE EARTH FREE FROM POLLUTION,CORRUPTION,AND MANY OTHER THINGS TO BE DESTROYED IN US THE HUMAN.
Cheng'E 2 is on its way to the Moon, a success launched by China. It will fly as low as 15km mapping the Moon for a future landing. If and when humans actually process natural resources there, an international "federation" should be set-up to oversee unintended consequences. For example, "moonmarks" of previous efforts by other nations should be respected, the landing sites covered under treaty, and the possible failures also protected as "peace graves" or other criteria. Any trade in artifacts from the Moon should be well-regulated, on an international register, perhaps, or the artifacts will be considered outlawed and subject to seizure by Interpol. The United Nations would take an active roll, and we could stand there, at the Russian sculpture made from a disassembled ICBM, and dream to visit our Earth's companion and fellow travelers in our Solar System.
RPea777 - 14 years ago
*agrees with Jack Crenshaw. In 100 years, how many people will be on the moon? maybe a handful. most likely will be an assorted bunch from different countries, yet I think some privateers would like to go up and strike out on their own if they actual can. If someone other than a government or international agency were to land on the moon, build upon a spot and start colonizing, how could someone else tell them they can't? for billions of years humans haven't touched foot on this rock and once they do, people say don't do it? i bet that 30/30 fires as well. good thing about the moon though, ain't no one gettin my chickens in space that easy! humans need to start somewhere. the moon is the closest. smaller asteroids would be nice. but all of this means nothing if we can't even colonize in our own backyard. making humans staying on earth with our current way of life would only make things worse. unless we start limiting our numbers and controlling birth rates, we need to expand. doesn't mean expand and conquer, just to take steps off world and on to others. all the technologies created from off-world colonization could help Earth in the long run anyways. lets not rush to put McDonald's on the moon, but we should at least try to put cornbread and potatoes. just don't try take it...
Boz - 14 years ago
Those who voted in favour of purchasing moon property forget the lessons we learned on the earth. Rampant capitalistic greed is a the heart of those votes. People using acquisition to fuel person greed. These are the same people who believe that genes should be patented and sold.
The biggest problem with humanity is greed and it's the driving force of the developed capitalist economies. Greed has brought misery to majorities and pain to everything else (human, animal, plant, etc).
NO .. the moon should NOT be bought and sold .. neither should any other planet or space detritus.
phil andy graves - 14 years ago
One(s) can "develop" the moon without the concept of "property". How is completely excluding the starting point from future exploration a good idea, anyways?
Jack Crenshaw - 14 years ago
When I first read this poll, I thought to give the Politically Correct answer: No, let's share and share alike.
Then I came to my senses. Say I manage, with a team of likeminded folk, to get to the Moon, set up a compound, build a power plant, O2 and H2O generators, hydroponics garden, and all the rest.
Now say aaa, beggar of peace, diane, and others show up, and say, "Hi. We're new. We're here to share the wealth."
Think my 30/30 won't fire on the Moon?
To those who think we should all just get along, share and share alike: Yeah, right. H.G, Wells and the other Utopians thought that in the 20's and 30's. They even gave us "Peace in Our Time" ... until the Panzers rolled into Poland.
To those who say, "Look what we've done to the Earth. We're destroying it, polluting it, rendering it uninhabitable:
Um, I think maybe your teacher forced you to watch "Inconvenient Truth" once too often.
To those who say, "Let the UN decide": Yeah, right. It's worked so well in Ghana, Congo, Nigeria, etc.
To those who say, "Don't pollute the Moon's air" or "We could push the Moon out of its orbit," or "our whole universe will be destroyed in a few billion years": Um ... yeah ... well, thanks for that thoughtful contribution. Let me get back to you on that.
The Antarctica model seems best, until you realize that the agreements are enforced by great big governments with great big nuclear MIRV missiles. Who's going to enforce similar agreements, on the Moon?
I'm all for sharing, and everybody making nice with everybody else, but I also know that not everyone has the same definition of "nice." If you drop by my compound, I'll be happy to give you water, or even share the bounty of my hydroponic garden and lunar chickens.
Just don't plan to move in.
For more, see http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1002/1
Amir - 14 years ago
the moon will belong to the robots.
abinaya - 14 years ago
Earth s being destroyed little by little due 2 lot of natural disasters. so plz atleast save the moon.
Pablo - 14 years ago
I can get to the Antarctica. Does it means I can claim it too?
R.K.Duk - 14 years ago
The Moon, Mars, asteroids, and comets offer resources that can be put to use enabling the long-term survival of humanity. Being responsible on Earth and off Earth while reducing the probability of human extinction are not mutually exclusive.
Remember, WEBstormers, aaa, Begger of Peace, Jenna, et al: The food you eat and the materials you use every second are produced by people/entities who own and _exploit_ terrestrial land. These are crucial activities. Breathing does little good when you cannot eat or protect yourself from weather, predators, etc. We wouldn't be here, comfortable enough to spend time in discussions, if many people over many centuries hadn't already done these "terrible" things. Sure, there are costs. And costs need to be minimized. But that is no reason to stop completely! We cannot stop. We owe our present existence to just exactly these activities. Instead of being simply indignant, be part of the solutions to making these utterly necessary activities truly sustainable, indefinitely.
WEBstormers Moonbots - 14 years ago
In the future man will leave planet earth after it being totally destroyed and... the same will be done with our precious moon! Unless all of the toxic gases and things will stop being set into the atmosphere and later on the moon into orbit, our whole universe will be destroyed in a few billion years. As soon as mankind sets foot onto the moon for colonizing there, it's going to be to late. Factories will be built, cars will be driven etc. Nothing can then be done to stop the moon from being polluted. First a solution for pollution has to be found and only then the moon can be colonized without us destroying it, wrecking it, however you want to call it.
- WEBstormers
Answer to Chris B - 14 years ago
That is why the exploration and colonization of the moon should be done by non-profit organizations and governments or the UN. Not by private corporations. For the creation of a technocratic democracy ´.
Boris - 14 years ago
I belive there shouldn't be any rights to private property on the moon. Let's not make the same mistake again that we made here on earth and that led to so many wars and greed. Let's start a new ,bright future on the moon for all mankind devoid of landproperty. Based on scientific princiiples, on societies like the ancient Minoan that shared space and supplies, or even the early american settlers. But this doesn't mean there shouldn't be any laws or rights. The right to privacy in your own home should be a right strictly followed and respected by all.
Chris B. Behrens - 14 years ago
Everbody take a deep breath, and calm down. The real question should be, if an individual can reach the moon, whether in actuality, or by telepresence, should they be allowed to internalize the benefits of that effort, or should they be compelled to share the benefits with others who did not take part in the effort?
If you're trying to decide whether to invest the astronomical (literally) time, effort and money involved, which answer would persuade you to proceed? Which answer would convince you to keep your money on Earth?
Mike - 14 years ago
The future belongs to the bold. If you want to "protect" the moon, you'd better be living on it. Otherwise, shut up and get out of the way.
Shawn - 14 years ago
Who are we to think that the moon is ours for the taking? No parts should be sold! Though I believe there needs to be a permanent facility there owned by none and maintained by all.
Tripper - 14 years ago
No one should build on the moon. traffic should be limited. NOT because of some sentimental reasons or even financial or philosophical. It's simply scientific, added mass changes the movement. It may not be simple as far as physics is involved but the short of it is that it HAS to affect it and if major development does happen, there could be ramifications that are currently unforeseen. Anything is possible simply because we don't know what isn't.
Jenna - 14 years ago
What in the first place makes it anybodys own right on this planet? that's like saying somebody owns air.nobody can own something so enormous,precious, and inrediably important. Unless somebody is trying to put harm to the moon then EVERYBODY and ANYBODY should have the right to have access on the planet.as long as it can b funded by themselves!!!
diane - 14 years ago
Manifest Destiny was pretty obnoxious the first time around...
mike jones - 14 years ago
oh please the earth is going to fade away anyways just go to the moon , i would love to live there , seriously how cool would that be , LIVING ON THE MOON!!!!!!!!!
begger of peace - 14 years ago
plzzzzz....................spare the moon v have already destroyed the earth now plz dun do the same with our moon..................our else it wont b as shiny as it is nowwwwwwwww
Leo Capella - 14 years ago
In response to aaa's comment I think that that is one "mistake" (I'd call it something different) that we are going to be making. However whatever we do up on the moon and on other planets has got to be sustainable and with a good eye on the long term in mind. Other wise we'll be shooting ourselves in the foot by prioritising short term growth over long term survival something that was a mistake here on earth. So in short I think while we should develop areas we should also preserve large parts too partly as once we hit the Moon's surface we'll become stewards as well as prospectors. If we aren't already!
aaa - 14 years ago
No one should have rights to any part of the moon.
We already made this mistake for the earth. Please, don't be stupid enough to do it again.
I read Thomas Gangale's "The Development of Outer Space: Sovereignty and Property Rights in International Space Law", as suggested by Will Pomerantz back on the old forums, and the book details that essentially, property rights are not allowed by the Outer Space Treaty---but you do have a legal right to anything you collect or mine (with the surface being a commons), and any ship/building interior is yours, so lunar property rights are really not necessary, and probably more trouble than they are worth.
A Lua é de quem chegar primeiro, tanto ivestimento deve ter alguma finalidade, devemos dividir a lua em lotes e colonizar.
I believe that we should have some form private property rights on the moon, or otherwise mining/development rights.
The reason is that I think that without those rights, there is no incentive to develop lunar programs. For example: If Disney can't buy land on the moon, they won't build a Disney Park up there, and we won't see inexpensive shuttle technology developed to bring you and your kids up there.
Commercial incentive is what drives innovation. Also, people complain about sustainability. The moon is not sustainable for life. We would have to make it sustainable! The innovations that can be derived from that challenge will definitely benefit us on earth. If for anything, populate more of the moon, and reserve more of the earth for nature!
my comment is i m see moo and Google earth so he internet not see me why?
People, I wish, would take in to consideration that the Earth is becoming over populated and polluted. It can't, and won't, be stopped unless a catastrophe happens on Earth or in our Solar System. If we continue as we are, in 200 to 300 years (or less; depending) we will be as populated as Coruscant on Star Wars (a total population of 3 trillion people).
Many of you think that's ridiculous, but it is a scary truth that may be realized if something isn't done. If we were to stay on earth for 200 to 300 years from now with no space colonizations, we would very well be like that. Can you imagine not having a single inch of ground space besides national parks? Can you imagine transit with populations like that? It is scary. Though, most of us won't be alive when and if it does happen (unless the scientific breakthroughs that WILL eventually happen come sooner than we think).
The only option to keep an Earth from being like that is Space colonization. The easiest of all places would be the moon seeing how close it is. This is why we should create property laws immediately, because colonization is something that will happen weather most people want it or not, it is purely for survival. If we didn't establish laws for property, we would have a world war over who owns what on the moon.
Forget it people, eventually we are going to have to colonize space. The end. We can't just stay here while our population soars, and we can't morally slaughter people to control that population.
Let's just get to the moon first and sort it out when and if we get there.
I am optimistic and believe commen sense will prevail.
You are still going to get good and bad people/governments/companies going wherever humans go.
Despite all that we've managed to survive on this planet for a very long time.
I think we will manage to survive going to the moon and ever further into space.
well, soon the moon will have aliens that will hunt bears and fish =p
"Think my 30/30 won't fire on the Moon?"
Yes. Your 30/30 requires oxygen.
Any Development of any satellite, should be controlled and agreed upon by the governing body's on which that satellite orbits, but agreements should not infringe any unalienable rights of the individual to live their life as they see fit.
Any Development of any satellite, should be controlled and agreed upon by the governing body's on which that satellite orbits, but agreements should not infringe any unalienable rights of the individual to live their life as they see fit.
Any Development of any satellite, should be controlled and agreed upon by the governing body's on which that satellite orbits, but agreements should not infringe any unalienable rights of the individual to live their life as they see fit.
Any Development of any satellite, should be controlled and agreed upon by the governing body's on which that satellite orbits, but agreements should not infringe any unalienable rights of the individual to live their life as they see fit.
Any Development of any satellite, should be controlled and agreed upon by the governing body's on which that satellite orbits, but agreements should not infringe any unalienable rights of the individual to live their life as they see fit.
Why not!! It's there hanging in the heavens for all of us and anyone who wants to claim a part of it CAN do so. No-one should have the sole authority to claim or "manage" the moon. It's there for everybody.
What defeated the communists in Russia was the fact that all the hard workers fled the country seeking better lives where people wouldn't steal the fruits of their labor.
Freedom will always defeat slavery and freedom will always expand its borders so eventually even a communist community on the Moon would be overwhelmed by reality.
To those of you who think we will even go to the Moon without some reason to - you will eventually run out of other people's money and/or they will stop allowing you to take it and then YOU will be the warmonger/greedy/tyrant who seeks to benefit yourself.
There has never once been a truly free nation where people have the liberty to pursue their own ambitions. Corporations have always used the illusion of government to further their own objectives and the Moon will be no different. As long as we allow government to dictate our lives, corporations will be behind the scenes dictating government to pursue their own agenda.
Just please stop falsely blaming property rights as the cause of environmental issues here on Earth. Virtually every corporation would not be able to do what it does without government support - from BOTH sides of the aisle. No person or entity has a right to tell others to do something with which is not theirs. If it isn't yours to begin with, you have no claim to it.
The moon belongs to no one or everyone. We should not make the same mistakes we have made with the earth.
Property rights are no more a "mistake" than free speech or freedom from slavery. You are not truly a free human if you do not have property rights.
There are some who have a deep and visceral antipathy against property rights on the moon... or anywhere for that matter. The primary reasoning seems to be that as individuals we are malicious and destructive but get us into large, politicized, bureaucratic groups with few barriers to exercising violence and we magically become nurturing and protective. That is a fundamental ignorance of what actually happens. The most pervasive and damaging actions we have taken on this planet are orchestrated and carried out by people in the government, not by individuals or corporations. When individuals and corporations do transgress it is almost always through purchasing the collusion and support of those who hold the reins of the state.
The mistake too many people make is to abstract the state into a benevolent entity that works to the betterment of its subjects. This is understandable since that is the propaganda that politicians and political activists endlessly push upon us. It is a comfortable and reassuring myth that we've been swallowing since the first Warrior/Priest/King shoved it down our throats over ten thousand years ago. Many of our most enduring and beloved stories revolve around the benevolent leader that will save us... if we just give them enough power and control over our lives.
This ignores the truth of history in that the more power, liberty and rights that are held by the individual- the better off we are in almost every respect.
If you want to understand the reality of social and environmental impact as it is effected by property rights, you do not listen to what one side tells you. Don't take the tyrants word for it and don't take mine; look at what actually happens in the world. Look at the environmental damage that has taken place over the last hundred years; where, when and by who it took place. Break the countries down by their respect for individual property rights and just look at what they did and are doing. Can you really say that the United States, Canada and Western Europe have a worse environmental history than the Soviet Union did or China does?
When individuals have property rights, we are, each and every one of us, a bulwark against the damage that the state or state sanctioned corporations can do. When the control of property is held by the state, in reality there are few checks on what they do with it. The ownership of all land by the King is an ugly vestige of the past that has no more moral grounds than does jus primae noctis and there should actually be a constitutional guard against it.
It is possible to arrive at the moon for a long stay with changed minds from what we are used to here on earth
Development should be limited to the "dark side" of the moon. I don't want to have to see it when I am observing thru my telescope! (Grin)
By the time man is ready to live on the moon, all ownership of things will have been long gone, it will take a joint effort by all to be able to achieve such a feat. the only exception might be the ferengi, you still try to profit from everything.
WHY DOES MAN WANT TO ALWAYS "OWN" SOMETHING THAT DOES NOT BELONG TO THEM? OWN? YOU DONT HAVE THE ABILITY TO CREATE ANYTHING; LESS ALONE OWN!!!
IT IS NOT GOOD TO DESTROY THE MOON.LET US ALL SAVE THE EARTH FIRST,THEN WE CAN THINK ABOUT BUYING THE MOON. THIS IS A STUPID ACTION.LET US MAKE THE EARTH FREE FROM POLLUTION,CORRUPTION,AND MANY OTHER THINGS TO BE DESTROYED IN US THE HUMAN.
Cheng'E 2 is on its way to the Moon, a success launched by China. It will fly as low as 15km mapping the Moon for a future landing. If and when humans actually process natural resources there, an international "federation" should be set-up to oversee unintended consequences. For example, "moonmarks" of previous efforts by other nations should be respected, the landing sites covered under treaty, and the possible failures also protected as "peace graves" or other criteria. Any trade in artifacts from the Moon should be well-regulated, on an international register, perhaps, or the artifacts will be considered outlawed and subject to seizure by Interpol. The United Nations would take an active roll, and we could stand there, at the Russian sculpture made from a disassembled ICBM, and dream to visit our Earth's companion and fellow travelers in our Solar System.
*agrees with Jack Crenshaw. In 100 years, how many people will be on the moon? maybe a handful. most likely will be an assorted bunch from different countries, yet I think some privateers would like to go up and strike out on their own if they actual can. If someone other than a government or international agency were to land on the moon, build upon a spot and start colonizing, how could someone else tell them they can't? for billions of years humans haven't touched foot on this rock and once they do, people say don't do it? i bet that 30/30 fires as well. good thing about the moon though, ain't no one gettin my chickens in space that easy! humans need to start somewhere. the moon is the closest. smaller asteroids would be nice. but all of this means nothing if we can't even colonize in our own backyard. making humans staying on earth with our current way of life would only make things worse. unless we start limiting our numbers and controlling birth rates, we need to expand. doesn't mean expand and conquer, just to take steps off world and on to others. all the technologies created from off-world colonization could help Earth in the long run anyways. lets not rush to put McDonald's on the moon, but we should at least try to put cornbread and potatoes. just don't try take it...
Those who voted in favour of purchasing moon property forget the lessons we learned on the earth. Rampant capitalistic greed is a the heart of those votes. People using acquisition to fuel person greed. These are the same people who believe that genes should be patented and sold.
The biggest problem with humanity is greed and it's the driving force of the developed capitalist economies. Greed has brought misery to majorities and pain to everything else (human, animal, plant, etc).
NO .. the moon should NOT be bought and sold .. neither should any other planet or space detritus.
One(s) can "develop" the moon without the concept of "property". How is completely excluding the starting point from future exploration a good idea, anyways?
When I first read this poll, I thought to give the Politically Correct answer: No, let's share and share alike.
Then I came to my senses. Say I manage, with a team of likeminded folk, to get to the Moon, set up a compound, build a power plant, O2 and H2O generators, hydroponics garden, and all the rest.
Now say aaa, beggar of peace, diane, and others show up, and say, "Hi. We're new. We're here to share the wealth."
Think my 30/30 won't fire on the Moon?
To those who think we should all just get along, share and share alike: Yeah, right. H.G, Wells and the other Utopians thought that in the 20's and 30's. They even gave us "Peace in Our Time" ... until the Panzers rolled into Poland.
To those who say, "Look what we've done to the Earth. We're destroying it, polluting it, rendering it uninhabitable:
Um, I think maybe your teacher forced you to watch "Inconvenient Truth" once too often.
To those who say, "Let the UN decide": Yeah, right. It's worked so well in Ghana, Congo, Nigeria, etc.
To those who say, "Don't pollute the Moon's air" or "We could push the Moon out of its orbit," or "our whole universe will be destroyed in a few billion years": Um ... yeah ... well, thanks for that thoughtful contribution. Let me get back to you on that.
The Antarctica model seems best, until you realize that the agreements are enforced by great big governments with great big nuclear MIRV missiles. Who's going to enforce similar agreements, on the Moon?
I'm all for sharing, and everybody making nice with everybody else, but I also know that not everyone has the same definition of "nice." If you drop by my compound, I'll be happy to give you water, or even share the bounty of my hydroponic garden and lunar chickens.
Just don't plan to move in.
For more, see http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1002/1
the moon will belong to the robots.
Earth s being destroyed little by little due 2 lot of natural disasters. so plz atleast save the moon.
I can get to the Antarctica. Does it means I can claim it too?
The Moon, Mars, asteroids, and comets offer resources that can be put to use enabling the long-term survival of humanity. Being responsible on Earth and off Earth while reducing the probability of human extinction are not mutually exclusive.
Remember, WEBstormers, aaa, Begger of Peace, Jenna, et al: The food you eat and the materials you use every second are produced by people/entities who own and _exploit_ terrestrial land. These are crucial activities. Breathing does little good when you cannot eat or protect yourself from weather, predators, etc. We wouldn't be here, comfortable enough to spend time in discussions, if many people over many centuries hadn't already done these "terrible" things. Sure, there are costs. And costs need to be minimized. But that is no reason to stop completely! We cannot stop. We owe our present existence to just exactly these activities. Instead of being simply indignant, be part of the solutions to making these utterly necessary activities truly sustainable, indefinitely.
In the future man will leave planet earth after it being totally destroyed and... the same will be done with our precious moon! Unless all of the toxic gases and things will stop being set into the atmosphere and later on the moon into orbit, our whole universe will be destroyed in a few billion years. As soon as mankind sets foot onto the moon for colonizing there, it's going to be to late. Factories will be built, cars will be driven etc. Nothing can then be done to stop the moon from being polluted. First a solution for pollution has to be found and only then the moon can be colonized without us destroying it, wrecking it, however you want to call it.
- WEBstormers
That is why the exploration and colonization of the moon should be done by non-profit organizations and governments or the UN. Not by private corporations. For the creation of a technocratic democracy ´.
I belive there shouldn't be any rights to private property on the moon. Let's not make the same mistake again that we made here on earth and that led to so many wars and greed. Let's start a new ,bright future on the moon for all mankind devoid of landproperty. Based on scientific princiiples, on societies like the ancient Minoan that shared space and supplies, or even the early american settlers. But this doesn't mean there shouldn't be any laws or rights. The right to privacy in your own home should be a right strictly followed and respected by all.
Everbody take a deep breath, and calm down. The real question should be, if an individual can reach the moon, whether in actuality, or by telepresence, should they be allowed to internalize the benefits of that effort, or should they be compelled to share the benefits with others who did not take part in the effort?
If you're trying to decide whether to invest the astronomical (literally) time, effort and money involved, which answer would persuade you to proceed? Which answer would convince you to keep your money on Earth?
The future belongs to the bold. If you want to "protect" the moon, you'd better be living on it. Otherwise, shut up and get out of the way.
Who are we to think that the moon is ours for the taking? No parts should be sold! Though I believe there needs to be a permanent facility there owned by none and maintained by all.
No one should build on the moon. traffic should be limited. NOT because of some sentimental reasons or even financial or philosophical. It's simply scientific, added mass changes the movement. It may not be simple as far as physics is involved but the short of it is that it HAS to affect it and if major development does happen, there could be ramifications that are currently unforeseen. Anything is possible simply because we don't know what isn't.
What in the first place makes it anybodys own right on this planet? that's like saying somebody owns air.nobody can own something so enormous,precious, and inrediably important. Unless somebody is trying to put harm to the moon then EVERYBODY and ANYBODY should have the right to have access on the planet.as long as it can b funded by themselves!!!
Manifest Destiny was pretty obnoxious the first time around...
oh please the earth is going to fade away anyways just go to the moon , i would love to live there , seriously how cool would that be , LIVING ON THE MOON!!!!!!!!!
plzzzzz....................spare the moon v have already destroyed the earth now plz dun do the same with our moon..................our else it wont b as shiny as it is nowwwwwwwww
In response to aaa's comment I think that that is one "mistake" (I'd call it something different) that we are going to be making. However whatever we do up on the moon and on other planets has got to be sustainable and with a good eye on the long term in mind. Other wise we'll be shooting ourselves in the foot by prioritising short term growth over long term survival something that was a mistake here on earth. So in short I think while we should develop areas we should also preserve large parts too partly as once we hit the Moon's surface we'll become stewards as well as prospectors. If we aren't already!
No one should have rights to any part of the moon.
We already made this mistake for the earth. Please, don't be stupid enough to do it again.
I read Thomas Gangale's "The Development of Outer Space: Sovereignty and Property Rights in International Space Law", as suggested by Will Pomerantz back on the old forums, and the book details that essentially, property rights are not allowed by the Outer Space Treaty---but you do have a legal right to anything you collect or mine (with the surface being a commons), and any ship/building interior is yours, so lunar property rights are really not necessary, and probably more trouble than they are worth.