SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Everyone is planning to return to the moon. At least 10 missions by half a dozen nations are scheduled before the end of 2021, and that's only the beginning.
Even though there are international treaties governing outer space, ambiguity remains about how individuals, nations and corporations can use lunar resources.
In all of this, the moon is seen as an inert object with no value in its own right.
But should we treat this celestial object, which has been part of the culture of every hominin for millions of years, as just another resource?
[...] As a thought experiment in how we might regulate lunar exploitation, some have asked whether the moon should be granted legal personhood, which would give it the right to enter into contracts, own property, and sue other persons.
Legal personhood is already extended to many non-human entities: certain rivers, deities in some parts of India, and corporations worldwide. Environmental features can't speak for themselves, so trustees are appointed to act on their behalf, as is the case for the Whanganui River in New Zealand. One proposal is to apply the New Zealand model to the moon.
[...] Can we support the legal concept of personhood for the moon with actual features of personhood?
Journal Reference:
Eytan Tepper, Christopher Whitehead. Moon, Inc.: The New Zealand Model of Granting Legal Personality to Natural Resources Applied to Space, New Space (DOI: 10.1089/space.2018.0025)
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Immerman on Friday September 04 2020, @02:04PM
I've already provided you with a reason - the same reason people spent fortunes sending armies across the Atlantic to the Americas, eventually colonizing when it proved lacking, and then resurging when it was discovered in California: vast quantities of gold (and other precious metals).
Huge habitats exploring alternate forms of governance and economy are a nice idea - but the leading edge of colonization has always been driven almost entirely by by money, not ideology. Probably because it's effing dangerous and expensive even on Earth, and the promise of great wealth is one of the few ways to reliably motivate people into risking their life and wallets.
And of course we know how to support people in space - the ISS has been doing it for years. Current practice involves a supply line from Earth, but with enough gold on the line that's acceptable. Meanwhile the raw materials for oxygen, water, and rocket fuel are plentiful almost everywhere in the asteroid belt, so with just a little infrastructure they can be eliminated from the supply line, reducing it to a tiny fraction. Moreover NASA's old hydrogen-eating microbe research for quickly growing food is now being commercially developed for use on Earth to produce things resembling palm oil, protein powder, flour, and sugar. All the staples needed to eliminate dietary staples from the supply line, drastically reducing it even further.
And of course - we don't actually need a lot of people up there to get the money flowing. Most of the physical labor can be done by machines, and the logistics can all be managed from Earth. All you really need people out there for is to maintain and troubleshoot the machines. Which dramatically reduces the cost of the supply line necessary for each kg of gold, etc. returned to Earth. Eventually the price of "rare" elements will fall through the floor as the market is saturated by the vast quantities returned, but by then the infrastructure will be well established and optimized, and people who just want to get away and create their own "micro-countries" will probably be well into developing more permanent and self-sufficient settlements.
Meanwhile, we already have cheap access to Earth. Getting into space is hard - the combination of high gravity and a thick atmosphere make rockets insanely inefficient, and the only viable alternatives seem to involve massive infrastructure projects. Getting back down again only requires heat shielding and a powerful catapult. Or cheap rockets with a little fuel. And a parachute or space-plane if you want a gentle landing.
>(otherwise, why have no developing nations left that categoy in one hundred years?)
I'd say China, India, parts of Africa, etc,etc prove you wrong. As for the rest - colonialism is a huge contributor. It's hard to get ahead when your country has been, and is continuing to be, strip-mined by powerful foreign interests who profit from keeping you powerless. Europe and the U.S. have really dialed back the open military conquest, but international corporations have taken up the slack, and the military is still likely to intervene on their behalf (see - Banana Republics, decades of war in the Middle East, etc.)