[vacuity]

Are you saying that farmland production is unnecessary (at least at its current rate) but spce colonies aren't? If your concern is that humans need the latter to live, shouldn't the former be justified too? Is the Earth too doomed for the former to work? I don't follow.

[JumpCrisscross]

> Are you saying that farmland production is unnecessary (at least at its current rate) but spce colonies aren't?

When we cut down forests for farmland, we're saying our (human) need for that land supercedes the needs of the creatures living on it. That the needs of humans trump those of other living things. (While cute to debate, this isn't ever actually in doubt. Effective arguments for conservation, et cetera, come down to decidedly human systems of values and ethics.)

When we build a colony on the Moon, we aren't taking land from Moon people. That tabula rasa makes the previous discussion about humans versus other living things moot.

Instead, the practical trade-offs aren't about any inherent rights dead things have (they don't), but how it impacts life on Earth. In particular, for humans.

[vacuity]

That makes a lot of sense. I acknowledge there is an asymmetry that favors Moon development. I think "while cute to debate philosophically" is itself an amusing stance, given you presuppose that humans come first even metaethically, but not the main point. My main gripe is that, if you think the farmland/Moon settlement must be done for human survival, why is human-human wealth redistribution not on the table? (If you don't, your motivation is just shallow greed.)

[JumpCrisscross]

> given you presuppose that humans come first even metaethically

My metametaethical argument would be it's only humans debating the metaethics.

> if you think the farmland/Moon settlement must be done for human survival

I don't. To the extent there's a contender for necessary for human survival, it's farmland. This isn't a discussion about survival, it's about aesthetics.

> why is human-human wealth redistribution not on the table?

One, it's literally easier to colonise the Moon than do this on a global scale. Two, because that's a separate topic.

[vacuity]

> My metametaethical argument would be it's only humans debating the metaethics.

After which you take it as given that humans come first even metaethically? You can't from-first-principles your way around it; even your metaethics must have some axiomatic basis. It's obviously the same with me, and not a matter of right or wrong, but not acknowledging it is wrong.

> This isn't a discussion about survival, it's about aesthetics.

I addressed this in my last sentence. So then ultimately it comes down to human privilege, just not at a specific part. Again, I'm utimately going off of aesthetics too. It's just that you should recognize that, and not make arguments that revolve around not recognizing it.

[JumpCrisscross]

> even your metaethics must have some axiomatic basis

Sure. But that base is, for the present time, being set by humans. Not acknowledging that is naïve.

> ultimately it comes down to human privilege, just not at a specific part

How do you define human privilege?

When I've seen the term, it's been framed against non-human life. It thus doesn't make sense to assert human privilege against non-living entities. When one does, one isn't asserting a human privilege, but a privilege of the living. (Or more accurately, of the sentient. Those with agency.)

[vacuity]

> But that base is, for the present time, being set by humans.

This itself requires explaining too. Axioms can't be justified except by axioms outside of their system, so you're still relying on something to place humans on top. It is something you may agree with, but I am not bound to it for my basic beliefs.

> When one does, one isn't asserting a human privilege, but a privilege of the living.

Sure. I am against any arguments put forth by living beings for lunar development in the way that humans have right now. I was under the impression that we all implicitly use "human" for succintness; do you personally see a difference in how another sapient being might make the argument, all else being equal?

[jfactorial]

> When we build a colony on the Moon, we aren't taking land from Moon people

I think the key distinction in this discussion is your view that the Moon belongs to no people yet, versus the opposing view established by the Outer Space Treaty that the Moon belongs to all people.

[JumpCrisscross]

> the Moon belongs to no people yet, versus the opposing view established by the Outer Space Treaty that the Moon belongs to all people

You're describing the Moon Treaty, which was never ratified [1]. It would have made the Moon the common heritage of all manking [2]. The Outer Space Treaty is far less restrictive [3].

And even if the Moon Treaty were in effect, it still wouldn't make lunar colonisation an assertion of human privilege. It would be an assertion of certain humans' privileges over others. But there is no non-human concern in play to any practical effect.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_Treaty#Provisions

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_heritage_of_humanity

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty#Provisions

[jfactorial]

No, I'm describing the first bullet point of the Outer Space Treaty:

"The exploration and use of outer space shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries and shall be the province of all mankind."

Outer space meaning the universe beyond Earth's atmosphere, and Province of all mankind meaning an area of special knowledge, interest, or responsibility belonging to all mankind. Perhaps others don't read it this way, but this is the meaning of my comment.

[WalterBright]

Belonging to all people means the Tragedy of the Commons.

[jfactorial]

Only if there is no policing of it. Natural preservation from mankind's industry is possible. It's quite a depressing thought that anything belonging to humanity is doomed.