Trump signs an executive order allowing mining the moon and asteroids:
In 2015, the Obama administration signed the U.S. Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act (CSLCA, or H.R. 2262) into law. This bill was intended to "facilitate a pro-growth environment for the developing commercial space industry" by making it legal for American companies and citizens to own and sell resources that they extract from asteroids and off-world locations (like the moon, Mars or beyond).
On April 6th, the Trump administration took things a step further by signing an executive order that formally recognizes the rights of private interests to claim resources in space. This order, titled "Encouraging International Support for the Recovery and Use of Space Resources," effectively ends the decades-long debate that began with the signing of the Outer Space Treaty in 1967.
This order builds on both the CSLCA and Space Directive-1 (SD-1), which the Trump administration signed into law on December 11th, 2017. It establishes that "Americans should have the right to engage in commercial exploration, recovery, and use of resources in outer space, consistent with applicable law," and that the United States does not view space as a "global commons."
(Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 14 2020, @08:57AM (7 children)
And I wasn't even aware the IMPOTUS had hemorroids large enough to mine. Learn something new every day, I say!
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 14 2020, @07:45PM (6 children)
I just realized that we're allowing a criminal president to run in the next election.
The US system has failed, with the GOP throwing Molotovs everywhere. If Trump is voted out we'll have a 4 year reprieve to try and rally for true reforms, if he wins the election and conservatives continue to support him then this country is likely doomed.
He claimed he has absolute authority, and on Fox he said “The things they had in there were crazy. They had things, levels of voting that if you’d ever agreed to it, you’d never have a Republican elected in this country again.”
There you have it, he is willing to completely ignore the concept of democracy and every single person that does not at least voice their opposition to Trump will be complicit. Voting 3rd party without telling everyone Trump is a cancer will not count.
(Score: 1) by Sulla on Tuesday April 14 2020, @10:14PM (3 children)
Maybe repeal the interstate commerce clause then because he will use the powers granted there to back up his claim. And he won't be wrong because that clause allows this.
At the end of the day every party in history has taken for itself more power when it was in the position of the executive because they knew eventually they could utilize that power. Did the Democrats try to limit power so far under Trump? Nope, only specific action regarding Iran to make sure the war powers act stayed intact. Did the Republicans limit power under Obama? Nope they let it slide because they knew eventually they would have power again. Back through Bush II, Clinton, Bush I, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, Ike, Truman, Roosevelt ---- wait they did term limits on him so I guess that's something.
Just like the Roman Republic we see the Senators do everything they can to build up federal power but put it out of their own hands so they get the benefit of the power but not the responsibility.
If you cared you would have spent your whole life voting for the likes of Nader, Paul, or perhaps Stein instead of just R or D. Maybe you did do that, as I have, but I doubt it.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 14 2020, @11:11PM (2 children)
Bullshit trolling
The Venn diagram of lifelong 3rd party voters and Trump apologists is joined only by the circle marked liars. So you're either a shill pushing a narrative, a simple liar trying to gain credibility for internet points, or a really fucked up human being with wildly contradictory beliefs AKA insane.
When you are ready to call Trump a criminal president that should be removed from office we can continue this conversation Mr. Third Party Voter.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 15 2020, @04:12AM (1 child)
Well, at least he didn't throw in a reference to "bread and circuses". That was real trendy a few years back where everyone thought it made them sound well read and insightful if they said it, but since so many of them did, they didn't realize how uninsightfully trendy they came off along with their "insightful" observations as well. Was that a Bernie Bros first generation thing? Maybe it was because I think the time frame was about right.
The republic of the United States of America will fall and decline some day, but the some day might not be for a very long time into the future. And when it happens, there will be douchebags then who will have been harping on about it and will feel very smart having predicted it when rather it was their random fortune to have been born at that time in history.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday April 15 2020, @11:00AM
In other words, if you correctly identify a trend, its causes, and its progression to its culmination, you're a douchebag. Only those who bury their heads in the sand are brave and smart and cool, like you.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday April 15 2020, @11:34AM (1 child)
The US system has failed, but it's not the GOP's fault. It's not the Democrats' fault either. Thinking that it is, and that voting in one or the other will fix it, falls into the trap that has defeated American voters for generations.
Monied, connected interests, have defeated the US system. They place their people in positions of authority and influence in the federal bureaucracy, who enable the rent-seeking of the rich and powerful no matter which party is "in power." Around and around it goes. Every attempt at regulation or reform is gutted to mere window dressing so everyone can pretend things have "gotten better." It would be alright on a certain level if those rich and powerful people were the best and brightest, but they're not. They are stupid, venal people. They are a pox on humanity.
So smashing it up is the best we can do at this point. Smash it up, re-convene, and figure out what worked in the previous system and how to mitigate or avoid the flaws.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 15 2020, @07:09PM
Depends on what you mean by "smashing it up." My preferred method was to vote for Sanders and as many real liberals as possible. Burning it down by letting a criminal like Trump burn everything down for another 4 years is a terrible idea.
(Score: 5, Informative) by canopic jug on Tuesday April 14 2020, @09:20AM (51 children)
Except that as long as there is a government in practice, not just name, he cannot, even as ostensible head of the executive branch, unilaterally declare an end to the 2222 (XXI). Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies [unoosa.org]. Treaties take a lot of process to step out of. One can question suitability for office for the nth time today alone.
Here is what the rest of the US agreed to back in 1966 and which went into force October 1967:
Who am I kidding? The seditionists running what has become a kakistocracy are as likely to follow their constitutional obligations with treaties as they are to apply their contsitutional to have applied the 25th amendmendment as they are to fulfill any of their other obligations as officials or citizens. FFS those in the Senate and the House are letting encouraging him to grab a dictatorship [theguardian.com]. So far the only things holding him back are his multiple, crippling deficiencies, such as laziness [latimes.com].
Money is not free speech. Elections should not be auctions.
(Score: 2, Disagree) by driverless on Tuesday April 14 2020, @09:54AM (12 children)
IANAL but that neither mentions mining rights or the moon/asteroids apart from saying you can't militarise the moon. The full text of the treaty doesn't mention it either.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by canopic jug on Tuesday April 14 2020, @09:59AM (11 children)
IANAL but it looks clear in the third bullet point of the introduction where it states, "outer space is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means". Since the details have not been worked out over apportioning resources, including mined minerals, this sure looks like a lame attempt at national appropriation.
Money is not free speech. Elections should not be auctions.
(Score: 1, Redundant) by driverless on Tuesday April 14 2020, @10:59AM (9 children)
And this is where we really need lawyers, mining isn't claiming it. For example Barentsburg is an exclusively Russian, former Soviet, mining settlement on Svalbard, which is Norwegian. Russia doesn't claim it, but it does mine it.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by canopic jug on Tuesday April 14 2020, @12:48PM (8 children)
Russia also has mineral rights there via the 1920 Svalbard Treaty, so no one can complain about the mining. But there is enough disparity between the strengths of the two militaries that they just are in the habit of taking what they want, assuming there is enough fuel in the holds left over from what fills the taxis and cars of various cousins and other relatives.
Russia's not asserting a full claim, yet, but is kind of acting like they will some day. Even though they are signatories on the treaty, it looks like they dispute it. A few years ago they did pester Svalbard [aldrimer.no] and again a few years after that [icds.ee]. Electronic intrusions, such as jamming GPS and other signals, are common place even more recently.
If Moscow Mitch and the rest of his toadies are able to finish their work on the US, then NATO will soon be a non-question and Europe will be open for the taking. In a move against Europe, the obvious course of action would be to take the top part of the North Calotte within 24 hours and dig in, plus maybe strategic weak points like Talinn, Helsinki, Åland and Stockholm at the same time. Then from that foothold, they could roll the rest of the penninsula over in short order.
Money is not free speech. Elections should not be auctions.
(Score: 3, Funny) by driverless on Tuesday April 14 2020, @01:02PM (1 child)
You mean try and take over countries that have surströmming, lutfisk, and rakfisk and can import hákarl if needed? Not even the Russians are crazy enough to brave that.
(Score: 2) by looorg on Wednesday April 15 2020, @12:35PM
Have you smelled Surströmming? Teargas wasn't as bad as that even with the mask taken off. I think I would rather get invaded by the ruskies then have them open enough cans of that again.
(Score: 3, Informative) by PiMuNu on Tuesday April 14 2020, @03:33PM
France and UK have nukes - invasion of the Scandinavian peninsula would be a big risk. OTOH it would be interesting, to see Russia bogged down fighting Scandinavian insurgents for the next 50 years. I believe the Scandinavian countries still have conscription for exactly this reason.
What would be the strategic benefit to Russia? North sea oil is pretty much done for. Better to retake South East Europe and build influence in the Middle East to get access to the Black sea and Red sea oil fields (oh look at that! this is exactly what they have done). This way they can attempt to build in monopoly over oil a la OPEC...
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday April 15 2020, @11:08AM (4 children)
C'mon, canopic. This kind of flight of fancy was fun during the Cold War, but now it's silly. Russia is a pale, pale shadow of the Soviet Union. It cannot invade and conquer Europe.
If you want to game out geopolitical scenarios, at least choose one that is within the realm of the plausible, like "How is Russia going to keep from being swallowed by China from the East, in great big gulps at a time?" There are documentaries on Prime or Netflix about how Beijing functionally controls swathes of Siberia already.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by canopic jug on Wednesday April 15 2020, @12:06PM (3 children)
Russia is a pale, pale shadow of the Soviet Union.
Yes, though the strength is relative. The European countries are also a pale, pale shadow of the force they were even a few decades ago. So it is not a reduced Russia going against a strong and mighty military in Europe. It is Russia going against a weak and enfeebled Europe with few to no soldiers and the few that are there are mostly out of shape and smuggling trackers^W phones [thedrive.com] around with them, if they even bother to show up for exercises.
Money is not free speech. Elections should not be auctions.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday April 15 2020, @12:34PM (2 children)
Most European countries still have a universal draft and robust industrial bases to supply the materiel of war. Russia doesn't. And for all the hullabaloo, Europe still has NATO with the US in it. Russia has, well, Russia.
Russia would get badly spanked on Day 1 of the glorious Putin offensive.
So, as an exercise in, "Hey, imagine if..." it's weak beer. There are a couple real games to be had, though. India vs. Pakistan, This Time It's Nuclear! China, The Once and Future Middle Kingdom. North Korea, The Mad Dog Must Be Put Down.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by canopic jug on Wednesday April 15 2020, @12:45PM (1 child)
There are a couple real games to be had, though. India vs. Pakistan, This Time It's Nuclear! China
There are a lot of proxies from around the world feeding that fight there. But of the three conflicting parties, China seems to be working effectively to play the other parties off against each other so that it can stay out of the limelight as it continues to annex parts of that territory for its Belt and Road. However, they are not the only country goading the other agressors so it does have potential to get out of control in a way that adversely affects the rest of the planet.
Money is not free speech. Elections should not be auctions.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday April 16 2020, @11:42AM
Nobody around the world cares about India vs. Pakistan but the two principal parties. China is not playing them off against each other because it is firmly on the side of Pakistan, having fought more than one war with India in modern times. Beijing's Belt and Road project mostly follows the old Silk Road, which does not run through Pakistan or India.
India and Pakistan, beyond being adversaries to each other, are rivals to China and counterweights to it.
Twenty years ago when George W. Bush was talking about invading Iraq on a flimsy pretext I was shouting to the hills that America and NATO needed to enlist China's neighbors to encircle it. They are the existential threat, not a bunch of bearded tribesmen scratching rocks in the hills of Central Asia. We should have done that, and now we are beginning to count the cost. The stand-off with the Soviet Union will look like a cakewalk in comparison.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 14 2020, @07:32PM
what a goofy bastard
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday April 14 2020, @10:03AM (24 children)
The treaty is basically meaningless, anyway. The first colony to raise a few generations of native born children, and become capable of feeding themselves, will become de facto independent, and do whatever the hell they want to. No nation state on earth is going to enforce regulation of much of anything.
The new wild west is coming to space near you.
But, on a more short term - if mining an asteroid for a quarter million tons of iron benefits just me and my company alone, we can claim that we've done it for the benefit of mankind. If Peru doesn't like it, what are they going to do about it? They can just send their own miners out, and mine a quarter million tons of iron from some other asteroid - or maybe even the one I'm mining.
Weapons in space? Good luck enforcing that. I thumb my nose at the pale blue dot. I don't need much excuse to post this video once again. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YH3c1QZzRK4 [youtube.com]
“I have become friends with many school shooters” - Tampon Tim Walz
(Score: 5, Interesting) by canopic jug on Tuesday April 14 2020, @10:44AM (20 children)
The first colony to raise a few generations of native born children, and become capable of feeding themselves, will become de facto independent, and do whatever the hell they want to.
Absolutely correct there. However, the role of the treaty is to keep the contestants peaceful as we (as a species) approach, fight over, and (hopefully) achieve that goal. If the treaty is ignored then orbit, being the stepping off point fron this gravity well, becomes a free-for-all with one of the many undesirable outcomes being the Kessler Syndrome. Several space powers have been working towards the Kessler Syndrome through useless pissing contests involving orbital detonations. India did one as recently as a few months ago.
Strategically one of the things the new Space Force could and should concentrate on is the inevitable clearing that will need to take place. There is already too much junk and debris in orbit, threatenign launches more and more. Being able to deorbit it safely is a strategically important capability, and a public relations win. Being able to deorbit competing satellites, probes, and space stations is just a nice miltary bonus that comes as part of the purchase price. Even though the series was a comedy, the principles behind Quark [imdb.com] were a good idea, even from a military perspective.
Money is not free speech. Elections should not be auctions.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by maxwell demon on Tuesday April 14 2020, @11:04AM (18 children)
So if a future self-sustainable colony in space ever wants to defend itself against Earth, they know what to do: Initiate a Kessler syndrome, and then they can develop for centuries without Earthly interference.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Farkus888 on Tuesday April 14 2020, @11:30AM (17 children)
Or, as Heinlen pointed out in the moon is a harsh mistress, the gravity wells are asymmetric. It takes far less effort to nudge city ending rocks in the direction of earth than for earth to send munitions up. This asymmetry gives the nation that controls any space station a huge military advantage. It also gives that station a huge advantage to gain their independence if their leaders back on earth get annoying.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by canopic jug on Tuesday April 14 2020, @12:04PM (16 children)
It's the same principles as with land strategy:
We're downhill, gravitationally so to speak, from the Moon and the Moon + Earth are downhill from the asteroids and Mars.
While the Earth is small compare to the solar system, the latter is so big that there is room to not have to fight. If we can get this matter back into the hands of adults, then there will be no need to fight over access or territory.
Money is not free speech. Elections should not be auctions.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Farkus888 on Tuesday April 14 2020, @02:22PM (15 children)
Proper adults understand that other people don't need to get hurt for them to benefit. Positive sum solutions to problems are everywhere. With them in charge we'd have room for a lot more people here on earth.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Immerman on Tuesday April 14 2020, @03:07PM (11 children)
>With them in charge we'd have room for a lot more people here on earth.
Not without some major changes we wouldn't. We're already grossly overtaxing the carrying capacity of the planet, strip-mining the ecology for short-term gains at thee expense of long-term viability. If we can get everyone on a diet of mostly yeast and microbes, consuming only energy produced from non-fossil-carbon sources, then yes, we could support a lot more people here. So long as we kept everyone in cities so that the surrounding ecology could recover to a state that could support our reduced demands. But it would still likely mean economic near-stagnation as per-capita energy consumption flatlined.
Our economic growth has largely been driven by a doubling of per-capita energy consumption every twenty years or so (3% per year growth) Efficiency can help, but efficiency has been increasing for a long time too, so it's already included in to the 3% per year energy consumption growth. Current global energy demands could be served by covering Nevada in solar panels. In a century or so we'll need to cover the entire planet. Even advances to 100% efficient solar panels would only buy us another few decades. Either we expand into space, or we face eventual stagnation and decline on Earth in the not too distant future.
(Score: 2) by exaeta on Tuesday April 14 2020, @06:32PM (1 child)
The Government is a Bird
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Tuesday April 14 2020, @09:10PM
Absolutely. Now - do you want to have that argument head-on with the same power structure that has kept a lead foot on the accelerator for centuries while they're rapidly destroying our world, quite possibly the only naturally habitable world humanity will ever know? Knowing that we probably have no more than a few centuries to to turn things around?
Or shall we try redirect that avarice (and bounty - we all benefit immensely) towards the far vaster, richer, and (mostly?) lifeless opportunities in space? Once we have a solid foothold there, Earth will be small potatoes. It'll be a nice place to live, but doesn't really have much else to offer compared to the alternatives. We'll still reach the limits of exponential growth eventually - but it pushes the "drop dead date" back by millenia, and positions our precious green oasis of a world as a resort location with little else of value to attract those who would destroy it for profit.
Personally, I think the latter option has a much better chance of preserving our world.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by barbara hudson on Tuesday April 14 2020, @06:45PM (3 children)
"In COVID We Trust "
One way or another the population is going to g o down.
And once disease, hunger, and poverty get on a roll, the trend will feed off itself. One side effect of COVID19 is that hundreds of millions will not be vaccinated for measles. Multiply this by a few other diseases and much of the developing world is doomed.
China is going to discover that its belt and road strategy bought it dominance over a burdensome hellhole in parts of Asia and Africa, not the billions of captive consumers they planned for.
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 14 2020, @08:41PM
See subject & a NICE DOSE of PUBLIC HUMILIATION for your own local FREAK barbara hudson folks: I "apologized" to you TRANNY twisto https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?cid=937346&sid=35327 [soylentnews.org] ? FUCK NO, not ever: That's NOT me but I DESTROYED YOU PUBLICLY on every level including proving you barb stalk me on THIS SITE https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?noupdate=1&sid=33430&page=1&cid=889582#commentwrap [soylentnews.org] with more proof QUOTED FROM YOU DIRECTLY barbara (tom) hudson proving are a technical incompetent brain-damaged transsexual fool BULLSHIT ARTIST FUCKUP worthless creep that also failed on tech vs. me.
My post LITERALLY also shows links to stopping hundreds of threats of MANY KINDS via hosts (since 99% of malicious threats online use hostnames - block them as I do in hosts (less overhead vs. ANYTHING else by FAR & pure kernelmode TCP/IP stack efficient no less)? Can't TOUCH you nor you it. That's ONLY a 1 year only as a sample and I'd done TONS MORE many hundreds more at slashdot before that and yes 99% use hostnames so hosts work against them harming you).
So much for your usual lies barb and useless online troll chatterbox you has never done better work and I fairly challenged you to show you did. You have not.
NOW: You RESORTING TO IMPERSONATING ME on your end only PROVES I really got to you barb/tom hudson tranny.
So much so you are reduced to showing us your true scum bag self in fact. Thought YOU were going to SUE me? LMAO for what? FACTS ABOUT YOU??? LOL!
* YOU WILL ALWAYS FAIL vs. me just as you FAILED @ being a MAN & since you couldn't GET ANY PUSSY you (lmao) DECIDED in your DRUG ADDLED BRAIN to SLICE OFF YOUR COCK & build your OWN pussy (only way you'd "get some", ever).... OMG!
APK
P.S.=> Hey FREAK? I'm going to PUBLICLY EMBARRASS YOUR ASS SO BAD on this site you will have to SLINK AROUND IN SHAME publicly but then, "your kind" (massive MASSIVE total losers in life) are USED to that, aren't you? You don't LIKE IT but I LOVE doing it, exposing you as the TRASH you are fucker... apk
(Score: 4, Interesting) by maxwell demon on Wednesday April 15 2020, @08:12AM (1 child)
I don't think China's main goal is to win consumers in Africa and Asia. Rather they want the resources.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Wednesday April 15 2020, @07:12PM
I've got to agree - China seems to be looking for Africa to do for them, what they did for the U.S. and Europe - provide cheap resources, labor, and places to dump trash and pollution rather than their own back yard.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday April 15 2020, @11:24AM (4 children)
We are grossly overtaxing the carrying capacity of the planet by current methods of production. But we are on the cusp of another huge revolution in material science. Several, actually. Better energy storage via new battery technology is almost there. Better energy generation via renewable means is almost there (fusion won't be along for another 50 years). Additive manufacturing + better recycling will greatly alleviate human pressure on the environment. Carbon nanotubes and graphene by themselves revolutionize energy transport, storage, and computation, and serve many structural requirements, too; we have plenty carbon, enough to last us 1,000 lifetimes.
So we don't need to eat a diet of yeast and microbes. Though I am curious to try Impossible Human (tm).
And as far as room to put people goes, gosh do we ever have so, so much room to put more people if we want to. Even California, the most populous state in America, has gobs and gobs of room to put more people: there's almost as much room in that state east of the Sierra Nevadas as there is west of them. The Central Valley has tons of room, too (if you can bring yourself to live there). If we employed Japanese densities we could almost fit the population of the entire nation in California's area.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Wednesday April 15 2020, @02:11PM (3 children)
>So we don't need to eat a diet of yeast and microbes. Though I am curious to try Impossible Human (tm).
So, what do we eat then? We're currently consuming a year's worth of ecological production in a few months, the rest of the year we "eat the capital", so that next year it takes longer to get the same amount of production (slightly, we've got a whole lot of capital, so the change over a single year is small - but you only need to compare oceanic "trophy fish" pictures from 50 - 100 years ago to see how quickly it adds up). It might not have to be microbes, but it can't be farmed "naturally", we'll need some sort of "industrial" food production with a drastically reduced ecological footprint.
Space for people themselves is not the problem - space for all the things people need to survive (including a healthy global ecology) is the problem.
And yes, large-scale recycling would help immensely, as would pivoting away from making non-recylable products. I don't see how additive manufacturing would have much effect though - the waste from subtractive manufacturing is generally extremely easy to recycle, and injection molding is far more efficient for everything except extremely small production runs.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday April 16 2020, @11:54AM (2 children)
Balderdash. We produce far more food than we need. We are not starving, and we are not eating our seed corn. And that's with traditional means of food production. If people repeal civic codes that prevent people from gardening and keeping food animals like chickens, then we'd produce even more food. If we get a little more creative we can raise that an order of magnitude (urban farming, hydroponics, etc).
Additive manufacturing plus recycling lets you throw that broken bowl into the hopper and print yourself a new one. It costs energy to do that, but far less than shipping the thing from China and transporting it overland all over creation.
Plunk a community down in Northwestern Colorado, in the middle of fucking nowhere, with efficient solar panels and they have all they need. You could do that with half the population of China and you'd have plenty of middle-of-fucking-nowhere in Colorado left over.
We are not out of food. We are not out of space. We are not out of resources. We are not out of energy. Humanity has many tricks up its sleeve to play.
But I am 1000% with you that the 19th century bullshit we've been coasting on must go. The miscreants who want us to keep coasting on it must go, preferably with rope.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Thursday April 16 2020, @01:10PM (1 child)
The problem is not that we can't farm enough food - it's the ecological toll that farming takes. Which includes the damage from mining for fertilizers that get shipped halfway around the world, the poisoning of ecosystems downstream with herbicides, insecticides, and fertilizer overdoses, etc. Combine that with the tolls for livestock, fishing, lumber, etc., etc., etc. We make great demands on the planet's ecology, far more than it can recover from in a year. (I think current estimates are we consume about 3 years worth of ecological production per year)
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday April 21 2020, @04:37AM
That's partly a matter of process, partly of perspective, and partly of time scale. Hog farms, for example, produce a lot of effluent. It has to be contained, remediated, before it can be released into a watershed. But that effluent is incredibly valuable fertilizer; at least, it would be if it were collected, composted, and returned to farms as an input. It would close the loop. It could even be further used to produce biogas as an energy source, to cut the costs of closing the loop further. That is, the process could change such that we think of closing loops in our economic processes instead of our old, linear processes that will always race to depletion.
Whether the effluent being released into a watershed is a pollutant/poison is also a matter of perspective. When effluent is released into watersheds there are often algal blooms. Those are called negative effects by most current pundits. But for the algae, it's a mega bonanza. Suddenly, a rich, new food source has dropped out of the clear blue sky and boy are they thriving. Creatures that eat the algae also get a bonanza, as do the creatures that eat those creatures, and so on. So, for Life Writ Large, the pollution represents a win for some, and a loss for others. Who are we to say that humans deserve what they desire more than the algae do? That's specie-ist.
Finally, there's timescale. Plastics were introduced on a large scale in the middle of last century. The stuff has been filling up landfills and fouling bodies of water since. But recently scientists have discovering microbes that seem to enjoy eating the stuff. If plastics stick around long enough, there will be other lifeforms that adapt to eat it. It's evolution at work, and only a matter of time until it exploits the new niche humans have created.
In short, Life will be just fine on Earth no matter what we humans do, given a long enough timeline. Humans, on the other hand, might be screwed, but, then, we too are pretty goddamned adaptable. We didn't get to be kings of the Earth for nothing.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by Chocolate on Tuesday April 14 2020, @05:41PM (2 children)
Sadly we have evil people on this planet. Some types have been killing and taking over others for centuries. They just take.
They may very well claim the moon as their prophet split it and reformed it centuries ago.
Bit-choco-coin anyone?
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Wednesday April 15 2020, @08:22AM (1 child)
Yeah, typically they are the people in power.
As far as I know, of all the nations likely to claim the moon, none follows a prophet who is claimed to have split it.
Those I know to have space programs have Christian background (USA, Russia, EU — yes, the latter is not a nation, but it applies to all the nations in it), Hindu background (India), or Confucianist background (China).
Can you tell me any country with Islamic background that has a space program?
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 15 2020, @03:46PM
A space program is not required to claim the moon. Some people will wage war over anything logic be damned.
Also, Islam has taken over India. It's only a matter of time now.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday April 14 2020, @12:50PM
The first trick is getting clearance to launch, whatever profit you might make offworld will be taxed as you takeoff and land past the atmospheric defense forces.
🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by driverless on Tuesday April 14 2020, @11:05AM (1 child)
Yes they will. Earth will try and established control via Earthforce, then later during the Earth-Minbari War things go downhill when Mars declares neutrality, but Mars only actually declared independence after President Clark starts hitting civilian targets there.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Tuesday April 14 2020, @03:07PM
Unless, of course, that Earth military is led by Richard Nixon and Zapp Brannigan, in which case they'll gain independence almost immediately.
"Think of how stupid the average person is. Then realize half of 'em are stupider than that." - George Carlin
(Score: 2) by looorg on Tuesday April 14 2020, @11:05AM
Isn't this why he, Trump, formed Space Force (or was it Space Command or ... I wish it was Space Marines). Can't have any pesky people settling the moon (and other places) without his say so.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Muad'Dave on Tuesday April 14 2020, @11:29AM (8 children)
That treaty only mentions "States" - that means governments. The treaty is moot on corporations; that's what his EO is about. In 1967 it was unthinkable that a company could have the resources to build/launch/recover their own rockets or have any meaningful access to space. Things have changed.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 14 2020, @12:25PM
I figured he did it because he heard Obama was against it.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 14 2020, @12:49PM (4 children)
Sure, but if the companies are using Trump EO, then that means they are "flying under the flag" of the US.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by khallow on Tuesday April 14 2020, @01:18PM (2 children)
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 14 2020, @01:54PM (1 child)
I thought I heard that the Outer Space Treaty was the WORST treaty EVER negotiated, and that the US was being RIPPED OFF and taken advantage of, and that the other nations were laughing at us.
THAT'S why we have to withdraw from it.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday April 14 2020, @01:57PM
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Tuesday April 14 2020, @08:07PM
Note that a lot of European colonisation in the 18th century was driven by private interests. For example, the British East India company led colonisation in the Indian subcontinent; and likewise colonisation in much of south east asia was driven by private enterprise. Nonetheless I don't think anyone would claim that it wasn't "British" colonisation.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Wednesday April 15 2020, @02:17PM (1 child)
>The treaty is moot on corporations;
Not so. The first line of Article VI: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty_of_1967 [wikisource.org]
i.e., it's the responsibility of every signatory government to ensure that their citizens, corporations, etc. adhere to the treaty. Treaties bind the citizens of a nation, not just the government.
(Score: 2) by Muad'Dave on Thursday April 16 2020, @11:36AM
I guess that could be interpreted that way. I read that to say:
The highlighted part to me means actions taken on by or on behalf of a nation; i.e. it would still be illegal for the president to contract with a private company to militarize the moon. That doesn't (IMHO) mean Musk couldn't mine the moon on his own.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by khallow on Tuesday April 14 2020, @01:13PM (2 children)
See Article XVI [unoosa.org]:
The Outer Space Treaty's obsolescence has already been planned for and the process to "step out" is very simple. The catch here is that stepping out of the treaty means a lot of other stuff needs to be renegotiated from the ground up (particularly, who bears responsibility for breaking stuff in space and militarization). So far, nobody at the US has been interested enough to do anything about that.
(Score: 2) by GlennC on Tuesday April 14 2020, @02:47PM (1 child)
Even that appears to be too much work for our Toddler In Chief. Never mind the consequences should a private company's launch or operations damage anything belonging to a signatory.
Assuming that Trump bothers to think about the consequences of his actions, which I admit is quite a huge assumption.
Sorry folks...the world is bigger and more varied than you want it to be. Deal with it.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday April 14 2020, @07:49PM
It's been too much work for half a dozen presidents. The flaws of the Outer Space Treaty have been known for some time.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 14 2020, @02:34PM
Treaty broken in 1968
(Score: 2) by Username on Tuesday April 14 2020, @11:25AM (6 children)
Makes sense. Why would anyone invest billions into a spacemine if anybody can just send people there and take it.
I say if you stake out an area, in person, it's your asteroid mine. Forever.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Immerman on Tuesday April 14 2020, @03:10PM (5 children)
Strong property rights = government-enforced handouts to the rich. Why should the rest of us cooperate?
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Tuesday April 14 2020, @03:52PM (2 children)
> Strong property rights = government-enforced handouts to the rich
Weak property rights = everyone needs to run their own personal army.
Like it or not, enforcing property rights (in whatever form) is the core task of government.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by isostatic on Tuesday April 14 2020, @06:21PM (1 child)
The most sensible way to fund such a government would be a tax on the value of that land. You own land, you want a government to protect it, you pay your membership fee.
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Tuesday April 14 2020, @08:01PM
Land tax! What a good idea!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Land_Tax [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 14 2020, @07:37PM (1 child)
This historically was not really how things worked. See: Homestead Acts [wikipedia.org].
The thing is that there's a whole lot more land than there are people. And everybody tends to be benefit when land is developed. This is why during the westward expansion of America land was literally given away even to the poorest.
This will get more complex on places like Mars since you'll need some fairly expensive equipment just for basic survival, but I think the general theme will likely return. Whichever nation colonizes Mars the most will likely imagine themselves having a more legitimate claim to it and whatever new exploitable resources/utility we discover there.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Immerman on Tuesday April 14 2020, @08:56PM
You're talking real estate - "property" includes all forms of wealth - money, tools, etc.
Also, the Homestead act was possible precisely *because* strong property laws were ignored. That land was flat out stolen from the natives to give wealth to the invaders.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by linkdude64 on Tuesday April 14 2020, @03:57PM
Didn't RTFA or RTFS, but how else would we be able to do thinks like "3D Print a moonbase out of regolith", dig for water, etc without this being okay? It doesn't say mining dust to launch it at the Chinese, does it? Or am I presuming too much?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 14 2020, @11:15PM
He's a sick human being our little Lord of the Flies orange dingus
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1250075668282576898 [twitter.com]
For you lazies or non-JS people:
He really is too stupid for his own good, can't even find a proper movie analogy that doesn't make him look stupid and evil.