[pseudonymousgun]

Simple and genuine question, why does the US feel entitled to all natural resources and do as it pleases ? Isn't the Moon and the mars common to all humanity ? Why does the US assume it can do whatever it wants on these planets ? With this, other countries will join the race, and soon moon and mars will be exploited just like we have unleashed massive ecological destruction on earth.

[keiferski]

The moon and Mars do not have an ecology to destroy.

Ecology (from Greek: οἶκος, "house", or "environment"; -λογία, "study of")[A] is a branch of biology[1] concerning interactions among organisms and their biophysical environment, which includes both biotic and abiotic components.

Furthermore, from a thought experiment point of view: if we jump a thousand or two thousand years into the future, it’s hard to imagine that the Earth retains individual nations but the rest of the universe is managed by a UN-like organization. The moon, maybe, but beyond that seems highly unlikely.

[valuearb]

We don’t know yet if Mars has an ecology or not.

[bryanrasmussen]

The moon does not have an ecology to destroy.

on edit: not that this gives the U.S rights to it, but ecological destruction is not a result of the U.S exploiting the Moon.

[pseudonymousgun]

True, but i wasn't referring to exploitation of the ecology on the Moon - of course, there is no ecology on Moon. I was referring to the ecological destruction on earth (consumer culture and profit motives driving us to the brink of ecological collapse on earth). There are other studies where impacts of the first world countries and their economies on the planet is well documented, but i do not wish to enter into that conversation as such.

Countries are thinking of planets as resources to be extracted and profit from, which in itself is incorrect, imo.

This is a kinder way of living in harmony with our nature (again imo) : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Lc_dlVrg5M

[keiferski]

I would actually argue that the ecologically-minded should push for off-world resource extraction and industrial production, as it would allow for the Earth to return to a more harmonic state.

[pseudonymousgun]

You made some interesting points down below, but i couldn't reply to those, hence responding here :)

Tbh, i am enjoying your arguments as such!

> barring some sort of total worldwide wipe of electronic data, the information and knowledge will still be out there

Isn't the world shifting in its warfare strategies ? We fought with different tools at different times. But the modern warfare seems to be moving towards misinformation, destruction of information etc ?

> I'd say it's inevitable that over time, humans will re-centralize and re-organize.

Agreed! It seems that eventually we would have to re-organize!

> Civilizations seem to benefit from having competition, as long as they don't destroy / are destroyed by them. It's a fine balance.

Agree with this one too, but i am more worried about generations that would follow us. It is a very fine balance indeed, hope humanity treads it with reason :)

[keiferski]

> Isn't the world shifting in its warfare strategies ? We fought with different tools at different times. But the modern warfare seems to be moving towards misinformation, destruction of information etc ?

Well, I meant more like basic industrial and scientific knowledge, e.g., that petroleum can be used as a fuel, or that the universe is quite large and the Earth revolves around the Sun. Even if 99% of the world's civilizations were erased and you had a zombie/nuclear/etc. hellscape, I don't see people losing this basic sort of knowledge. It's simply too pervasive. The idea of humanity returning to a caveman-level of knowledge seems unlikely to me.

> It is a very fine balance indeed, hope humanity treads it with reason :)

Agreed!

[pseudonymousgun]

> The idea of humanity returning to a caveman-level of knowledge seems unlikely to me.

Agreed! :)

Also, do you have or maintain a list of great books which you came across ? I see your profile, and you mention "Philosopher, writer and entrepreneur traveling the world."

I would love to see your bookshelf :)

[pseudonymousgun]

That is an interesting POV, which i have considered too. But in order to reach Mars / Moon - don't we need resources from earth in order to build ? Resource extraction is energy intensive. It consumes a lot of energy here on earth. How much energy would it require to first build and then transport resources from other planets back to earth etc ? What would be the impact in case during re-entry with resource payload from other planets, a spacecraft propelled by nuclear energy bursts ? What are the other unknowns which we are willing to take for granted ?

[keiferski]

I mean, we are already in sci-fi territory here, but it seems inevitable that industry and mining will be pushed off-world, no matter what the short-term ecological costs are. Natural resources on Earth are infinitesimally small compared to the vastness of the universe. It might take a few centuries, or even a millennium, but even on human timescales this isn't really a long time. Consider that the Roman Empire was at its apex 2,000 years ago, and then imagine the world in 4,000 A.D.

> How much energy would it require to first build and then transport resources from other planets back to earth etc ? What would be the impact in case during re-entry with resource payload from other planets, a spacecraft propelled by nuclear energy bursts ? What are the other unknowns which we are willing to take for granted ?

A lot, no doubt, but still probably less than having energy and industrial production on Earth, in the long term.

[pseudonymousgun]

Right :) But all resources are finite regardless of how far we travel. Civilizations may collapse before we accomplish everything we set out to do on other planets. There are two aspects to be taken care of, one is the exploration of space and the other is maintaining the fragile environment (socio-political-economic) here on earth.

Also, if countries co-operate on space exploration it would be better, than making it a race to be first etc. Which will only lead to worse outcomes between nations if history is any indicator. :)

[jjcon]

Conversely - why aren’t any other countries investing as much in space research and development?

[pseudonymousgun]

Space research and development has indeed given us some very useful outcomes - no doubt. Also, other countries are into space research and development too, worried that this could put other able countries in a race that could result in bad outcomes.

We have plenty of problems to solve here on earth. Is technology only about solving for curiosity of what is possible ? Or is technology about solving real problems of energy, minimal impact to the environment etc ?

The ocean cleanup project is a good example of solving problems for humanity here on earth. Now that we managed to dump enormous amounts of plastic into our waterways and eventually into oceans. There are other interesting problems which beg technological solutions too.

[coliveira]

People running space exploration are not interested in making life better for other humans. They just want to develop technology without any strings attached. This is excellent for companies that will later get technology transfers, i.e., free tech researched with public money. In the end it is an excuse to enrich the 1% even more, a free lunch for the rich.

[pseudonymousgun]

I just got downvoted for saying something similar :) That isn't the problem. The reason i shared these opinions here on HN, is due to the faith in the HN community that they would be willing to have a civil discourse even if its opposed to their worldview. That is something i least expect from the HN community. :)

I would be happy if those who downvoted without reading the entire argument, would also contribute their views on why this argument is wrong :)

[coldtea]

Because they don't have more money than sense?

[azernik]

It's not - the US is pursuing an international treaty called the Artemis Accords to clarify rights and obligations, which aren't laid out in detail in the Outer Space Treaty.

If the drafting is completed under the Trump Administration, I suspect it will be tilted towards a free-for-all, but it will need buy-in at least from the Europeans and Japanese (who are building and funding big chunks of the new US moon effort) who will want some form of multilateral control.

[coliveira]

An international treaty signed by the US is worthy absolutely nothing. They are retreating from treaties signed years ago such as nuclear weapons control, OMS, ALCA, the treaty with Iran, etc, with no consequences.

[azernik]

Sure. I'll get pissed off at the US when it actually breaks whatever rules get signed, though, not just because I don't trust it to keep its word.