[delichon]

> I propose that we all agree to ban all permanent lunar development that is visible with the naked eye from Earth.

...with no proposal to weigh the value of the development against against the value of good taste or nebulously defined compassion. To suppose that no such development with greater value is possible betrays a poverty of imagination.

IMHO it is authoritarian to constrain the actions of others on the basis of taste and beauty. I don't dismiss their value, I just place it lower than the value of independent agency, as opposed to "you can't do that because I don't like how it looks." A better reason should be needed. That's true of putting a poster on the wall, let alone preemptively blocking huge communal projects.

[generic92034]

> IMHO it is authoritarian to constrain the actions of others on the basis of taste and beauty.

Clearly, a lot of people feel differently in various settings. For example NIMBY groups, HOAs, landscape or monument protection laws. The list never stops, really.

[zbrozek]

Yeah, and they ought to be told to stuff it. I don't know why they deserve all the pandering that they get.

[Miraste]

How far would you take this? That rhetoric taken to its conclusion leads to travesties like destroying national parks to install oil wells and strip malls, a net negative for 99.999999% of humanity.

[s1artibartfast]

The limiting principle is ownership IMO.

[shortrounddev2]

It's not exactly about personal taste; it's about a kind of spiritual pollution. If we etched a big McDonalds advertisement on the moon, it wouldn't just be in poor taste, but it would irrevocably cheapen (destroy, even) something which has been constant throughout all of humanity's evolution. The moon is particularly important in a cultural sense because it's something shared by everybody. If we bulldozed Mount Fuji to put in some apartments, it would be a loss for humanity in general, but Japan in particular. Changing the moon could potentially redefine us as a species

Developing the near side of moon with cities would literally and figuratively change the way we look at the moon; it would be a cultural Rubicon which cannot be uncrossed, and so we need to be very careful with whatever solution we go with, because we can't go back

[JumpCrisscross]

> If we etched a big McDonalds advertisement on the moon, it wouldn't just be in poor taste

We’re debating a problem outside the capability of human civilisation for the lifespans of everyone alive today.

[s1artibartfast]

I generally agree, but dont think there is anything wrong with being authoritarian over ones own property.

I wouldnt accept the irrelevance of taste and beauty if someone were putting a poster on my wall.

This becomes more tricky when you consider community owned property.

[happytoexplain]

You start off implying support for the idea of "weighing the value of the development against against the value of good taste", but then your second paragraph seems to imply the opposite extreme: That there can be no case (or vanishingly few) where we can justify the restriction of the destruction of nature/geography if it is purely aesthetic.

[vacuity]

I think the author agrees on valuing agency, seeing as they call for agreement rather than forcing it on everyone. Unless you suppose that a populace and legislature can agree, but, say, a newborn in that territory has not given agreement. I think such matters are entirely orthogonal, and your remark about agency is disingenuous or not thought out. The matter at hand is whether agency directed towards beauty and compassion outweighs agency towards whatever values this development appeals to. The author ignores the latter, which I agree is folly, so I would like a more balanced discussion here.

For my part, I similarly value the aesthetics of an unblemished moon. I believe the development camp primarily values greed ("an inordinate desire to acquire or possess more than one needs") and I find that unbecoming. Note that I view the developments to be unnecessary (at least in the current context). It really is just aesthetics otherwise, for both camps.

[hinkley]

If I build an ugly house that affects fifty people. If I build an ugly moon base that affects 8 billion people.

[IncreasePosts]

Your ugly moon base would need to be how many thousands of square miles to be visible from earth?

[hinkley]

I think you’re confusing a NASA base with inhabitation. Inhabitation means geometric structures, lights, and disturbance of the immediate environment.

What conversation do you think you’re in? You going to put cemeteries on the moon without people living there? How would that make sense just from the rocket equation?

[JumpCrisscross]

> inhabitation means geometric structures, lights, and disturbance of the immediate environment

Most cities aren't visible from LEO in the day; none are, day or night, from the Moon with the "naked" eye.

We are centuries from building anything on the Moon visible to the naked eye. And given how often I've seen the shaded part of the Moon in pop culture coloured in with stars, I'm not sure most people would notice the lights from a major lunar city either.

[hinkley]

On the moon any dust you kick up will travel much, much farther than on earth, and you could hardly build a moon civilization without mining regolith. It's practically crushed ore. With no atmosphere there's going to be less light attenuation (but also less diffusion).

The only discussions I can find about light from the moon being visible on earth, talk about whether we would ever be able to see light on the bright half of the moon and that seems to be pretty impossible. The other side is a lot less illumination. People in cities probably wouldn't see it. But rural people can see the milky way.

[IncreasePosts]

Considering you can't see any of the "geometric structures, lights, and disturbances of the immediate environment" of the Earth from the moon, I don't really understand how you think humans could possibly do the opposite.

[goatlover]

So an massive "ugly city" on the moon is what you meant? I don't think a cemetery on the dark side of the moon will be visible.

[hinkley]

That’s the discussion we’re having. Near side vs far side.

[s1artibartfast]

yeah, That is kinda their point. "affect" alone should not be the basis for law or regulation.

Lots of things "affect" others, but that does not generate an entitlement not to be affected. IF I choose to quit a job, that affects my employer. I chose not to date someone, they are affected. Neither of those are reason to restrict my choice.