The Moon Agreement and Other Space Escapades
As there has never been a time in history that humans occupied a non-owned entity such as other planets, how would that affect a new settlement, say on Mars, if all countries have an equal shot at it? Or do they? We know that the US, Russia, China have galactic ambition and have the means to do it if there's ever a planet found to be suited for human settlement.
There is already a treaty made in 1979 -- Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies. But this treaty is nothing like a settlement treaty. It was made to protect the celestial bodies from being disrupted and calls the celestial bodies as "common heritage of mankind". If there were resources that could be harvested from the moon and other planets, an international body of control should be created for this purpose.
But what if we could actually create human habitat on Mars? Should territories be created and laws established on Mars similar to Earth? What about ownership? Economy?
Hint: Should we outlaw wars, terrorism, overpopulation, and pollution?
There is already a treaty made in 1979 -- Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies. But this treaty is nothing like a settlement treaty. It was made to protect the celestial bodies from being disrupted and calls the celestial bodies as "common heritage of mankind". If there were resources that could be harvested from the moon and other planets, an international body of control should be created for this purpose.
But what if we could actually create human habitat on Mars? Should territories be created and laws established on Mars similar to Earth? What about ownership? Economy?
Hint: Should we outlaw wars, terrorism, overpopulation, and pollution?
Comments (14)
Antarctica.
Quoting L'éléphant
I'm not sure what this means. Meaningful galactic ambition depends on the ability to travel faster than light. Current science says that's not possible.
Quoting L'éléphant
Questions -
If it turns out space is worth going after, rules could be decided by 1) International treaty or 2) First come/best military first served. Method 2 is how it worked on Earth.
Quoting L'éléphant
If we could have, we probably would have already.
Antarctica is a continent on a planet that's already organically occupied by humans. When I said "entity" I meant a separate body of a planet. Sorry for this neglect.
Quoting T Clark
Space exploration, to put it bluntly.
Quoting T Clark
That's why this thread is a thought experiment but not without basis -- like I said, there's already been a treaty made back in 1979 in hopes that if someday we could harvest the resources there, we already have governance in place. No treaty for settlement yet -- this is wishful thinking.
Quoting T Clark
Okay, so this is your answer.
Quoting T Clark
Peace is part of the Moon Treaty. And why we couldn't have the same on Earth is obvious. But, I think that settlement on another planet would be just like on Earth -- or would it be a big lab like Antarctica? I believe, though, with increasing intelligence, as I have already been told in this forum by other forum members, humans will try to figure out a way to carve out another settlement somewhere. If Antarctica melts, and as big as it is -- much bigger than the US size, that could be a possibility. But guess what, 7 nations already claimed territories on Antarctica.
I think Antarctica might a good model for how it could work in space.
Quoting L'éléphant
If there is nothing to be gained in space other than knowledge, I don't see why anyone will care what happens there. If there is no economical way of bringing resources available in space back here to earth, the only value of space will be military.
Quoting L'éléphant
It wasn't an answer.
So far, humans have traveled 250,000 miles from earth to the moon. Mars is about 34,000,000 miles away. The galaxy is 107,000 LIGHT YEARS in diameter. Successfully traveling to our nearby moon does not make us a space-faring civilization, as depicted in science fiction.
IF and when something we want or need is found on a moon planet, or asteroid, someone will try to go get it, space treaties or not. Common heritage? We have dumped shit on heritage sights that are a lot closer than the moon.
All of our problems have to be solved under the sky that is overhead. The solutions are to be found here, not there, or they won't be found.
BTW, I like science fiction, and I like reading about humankind traveling to other solar systems. Of course, in some books, we run into beings more powerful than us who end up eating our lunch. Or, we turn out to be more powerful and we eat somebody else's lunch.
Or, another theme in science fiction: we travel for a very long time in space and never find anyone else.
The new melting pot: Mars.
Quoting T Clark
I thought Antarctica is already owned by Nazi Germany.
No, because Antarctica was never earmarked for settlement, only scientific exploration. Second, only those who have the means to go to the chosen planet could lead the international treaty. (If settlement is already a possibility),
Quoting T Clark
I said, if a planet could be inhabited. Which implies that it is fit for human habitat. Could you guys try to envision this scenario?
Quoting T Clark
What was it then? You said it would be first come first served -- we already know which countries have the means to go. In reality.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Humor me.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
You think so, but no.
Why not? Hasn't the International Space Station already turned into a sort of melting pot, with people of all different nationalities going there? Wikipedia: "As of 30 December 2021, 251 people from 19 countries had visited the space station, many of them multiple times."
The ISS is a scientific lab. Like Antarctica. Not a settlement or habitat. Wait until a planet is habitable. Then you get the same attitude as on Earth.
Here's a passage from nasa.gov/centers on Space Colonization:
Please read the above post. Thanks.
I think that the other planets are known to be fundamentally uninhabitable, any colonization would be within an artificial structure, just like the space station. You appear to be dreaming about something which will never happen.
Yes, I actually was thinking of something similar to Earth habitat. But yes, artificial structure would be more realistic. Nonetheless, if that's the case, there is a possibility of creating one since ISS has already established that long term stay is possible in such structure. It's just a matter of time. So, obviously not in the near future. But still my question about the political consequences of such arrangement. We're not going to escape the political and economic domination as we are experiencing on Earth. There's not going to be a utopia.
Being confined to an artificial structure in an extremely hostile outside environment is definitely not my idea of utopia. Many of the political issues on earth would not be applicable out there, where people would have to live together to survive. But there would be other problems derived from being cooped up with others, for a long duration, mental health problems like anxiety and depression, or one person annoys another, and the annoyance becomes intolerable. I don't see overpopulation as a problem.
Death by exposure would become fashionable again.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Admiralty_law
And again from the same film: