SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Legal questions linger as governments and companies keep pushing into space:
The Perseverance rover's landing on Mars is still fresh in people's memories, privately owned companies are ferrying people and supplies into orbit, and NASA continues to work on "the most powerful rocket" it has ever built. But as world governments and private enterprises continue to eye the skies for opportunities, a SXSW panel called "Who on Earth should govern Space" makes clear that the laws dealing with space aren't evolving as fast as the technology that gets us there.
"People like to think of space as the Wild Wild West — nothing out there, there's open frontier, we can do whatever we want," said Michelle Hanlon, president of For All Moonkind, a non-profit devoted to preserving mankind's cultural heritage in space. "Unfortunately or fortunately, that's not true at all."
Hanlon was referring to the Outer Space Treaty, which was developed in 1966 and ratified by over 60 countries in early 1967. Considering the treaty was put into effect a full two years before mankind landed on the moon, it's little surprise that the document is heavy on broad principles, but light on specifics. Among its greatest hits: outer space shall be free for exploration and use by all states; states should avoid harmful contamination of space; celestial bodies shall only be used for peaceful purposes; and, perhaps most importantly, the assertion that outer space isn't subject to claims of sovereignty by Earth-bound governments.
[...] There have been efforts to more fully codify a set of rules to govern the way we approach space, including most recently the Artemis Accords signed by the United States, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Japan, Luxembourg, Italy, Ukraine, the United Kingdom and the United Arab Emirates in 2020. Ten countries are a start, but a slew of significant space-faring states — including China, India and Russia — have not bought into the largely US-brokered accord. It's hard to say exactly what (if anything) it will take for the international community to agree to a comprehensive set of guidelines for the use of outer space. But one thing is clear: With the technology to get us and keep us in space growing more advanced by the day, these are issues we can't afford to keep punting.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 22 2021, @10:38PM (5 children)
I was going to say, Iroquois? But if this is how conservatives conceive of the world order, no wonder they are so afraid.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Tuesday March 23 2021, @03:02PM
It's history, not how I would wish things had happened. Even, if I wished things could have been different. In the event they were, I likely wouldn't exist. Throughout history, one thing can be certain, if you don't have enough power to protect yourself, you will be destroyed. Why do think a place like North Korea wanted Nuclear Weapons? It's all about the power.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Tuesday March 23 2021, @04:38PM (3 children)
It's not just conservatives - it's an unfortunate truth that has followed mankind back as far as we can track.
Go ahead - name one place on Earth where the powerful *didn't* conquer and pillage their weaker neighbors when conquest was a cheaper way to get their resources than trade. We did it in the past, and we're still doing it now, or do you imagine our ongoing military presence in the Middle East has something to do with defending freedom? Or how about the Banana Republics, where US military power was leveraged to assure the profits of American banana-growing corporations?
We tend to use puppet governments these days rather than open conquest, but the end result is very much the same.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday March 24 2021, @01:30AM (2 children)
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Wednesday March 24 2021, @02:34AM (1 child)
Touche'. Though Antarctica is kind of a special case since it has few resources worth the cost of exploiting in the harsh environment. Even with nobody to steal the resources from, it wasn't worth the effort. I seriously doubt the non-exploitation treaties would have been signed if anyone really thought they could make a decent buck otherwise.
Nothing protects you from theft like having nothing worth stealing.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday March 24 2021, @06:17AM
Nobody has looked that hard. Treaty and the harsh environment nix that.