|
|
|
|
|
|
by itishappy
571 days ago
|
|
|
> We don't have the capability, today, to ruin a celestial body by any reasonable definition of those terms. I don't think we all agree here. The author seems to think that lights would be inappropriate, and Native American tribes have claimed that burials and even human waste desecrates the moon. I'm of a somewhat different mind, I think seeing lights would be neat, but I can't justify blasting the eye off the man-in-the-moon to make it easier to roll the lunar megatrucks in easier. > What threshold of sureness would you propose for what amount of activity? Great question. I see this as an argument for cautious incremental progress rather than immediate resource extraction. I'd actually agree that a small human settlement focused on samples and surveys is a logical next step here. We're just so much more efficient than single-purpose robots. I would just urge caution. |
|
|
If they're "visible with the naked eye from Earth." From what we can tell, no lights on Earth are visible from the Moon. So sure, when MGM is developing the Luxor Mare Imbrium, we can talk.
> Native American tribes have claimed that burials and even human waste desecrates the moon
With all due respect to the Navajo Nation, I'm putting this one the wrong side of reasonable. (It's remarkably close to the extraterritorial projection of ownership and demand for control that cost them their lands in the first place.)