Bury me on the moon, preferably on the far side
scientificamerican.com
scientificamerican.com
* https://assets.science.nasa.gov/dynamicimage/assets/science/...
* https://assets.science.nasa.gov/content/dam/science/psd/sola...
* https://www.nasa.gov/solar-system/from-a-million-miles-away-...
* https://science.nasa.gov/resource/from-a-million-miles-away-...
I think it's extremely selfish to expect others to expend so much energy and time to carry your remains so far away, when you wouldn't know the difference.
I also think seeing night lights from a city on the moon would be pretty cool.
Approximately equivalent to a trans-pacific jet flight.
One way is in the fuel itself. For instance the Space Shuttle main engine was powered by combustion generated from liquid hydrogen + liquid oxygen - the exhaust was literally water vapor.
A second interesting nuance is that any fuel burnt outside of Earth's atmosphere is a carbon reduction, so a hypothetical rocket that could get out of the atmosphere on 50% of its fuel would be net neutral/negative.
Also wouldn't the carbon dioxide burned outside of the atmosphere eventually comes back down? The nozzle is usually pointed towards the Earth, so unless the exhaust is on an escape trajectory it wouldn't be lost.
...with no proposal to weigh the value of the development against against the value of good taste or nebulously defined compassion. To suppose that no such development with greater value is possible betrays a poverty of imagination.
IMHO it is authoritarian to constrain the actions of others on the basis of taste and beauty. I don't dismiss their value, I just place it lower than the value of independent agency, as opposed to "you can't do that because I don't like how it looks." A better reason should be needed. That's true of putting a poster on the wall, let alone preemptively blocking huge communal projects.
Clearly, a lot of people feel differently in various settings. For example NIMBY groups, HOAs, landscape or monument protection laws. The list never stops, really.
What conversation do you think you’re in? You going to put cemeteries on the moon without people living there? How would that make sense just from the rocket equation?
Most cities aren't visible from LEO in the day; none are, day or night, from the Moon with the "naked" eye.
We are centuries from building anything on the Moon visible to the naked eye. And given how often I've seen the shaded part of the Moon in pop culture coloured in with stars, I'm not sure most people would notice the lights from a major lunar city either.
The only discussions I can find about light from the moon being visible on earth, talk about whether we would ever be able to see light on the bright half of the moon and that seems to be pretty impossible. The other side is a lot less illumination. People in cities probably wouldn't see it. But rural people can see the milky way.
Lots of things "affect" others, but that does not generate an entitlement not to be affected. IF I choose to quit a job, that affects my employer. I chose not to date someone, they are affected. Neither of those are reason to restrict my choice.
Developing the near side of moon with cities would literally and figuratively change the way we look at the moon; it would be a cultural Rubicon which cannot be uncrossed, and so we need to be very careful with whatever solution we go with, because we can't go back
We’re debating a problem outside the capability of human civilisation for the lifespans of everyone alive today.
For my part, I similarly value the aesthetics of an unblemished moon. I believe the development camp primarily values greed ("an inordinate desire to acquire or possess more than one needs") and I find that unbecoming. Note that I view the developments to be unnecessary (at least in the current context). It really is just aesthetics otherwise, for both camps.
I wouldnt accept the irrelevance of taste and beauty if someone were putting a poster on my wall.
This becomes more tricky when you consider community owned property.
Nimbys, now in space!
How some people hate humanity. Personally, I'd love to see the lights from a lunar colony on the moon.
This reminds me of the people who don't want to "pollute" Mars. Sheesh, it's a dead rock. There is no environment to pollute. It could desperately use people on it, just like the moon.
The solar system is ours, and we can and should do what we want to it. Not cower in self-hatred and loathing.
Or is it just that you suppose that we, as humans who have privilege and comfort, deserve to continue and expand those qualities? You "personally" want to see lights from the moon? You think Mars "desperately" needs habitation? I'm not sure how you're any less self-important about this topic than your opposition.
I'm not really sure what you mean when you say "humanity", because it sure doesn't seem like the same kind of "humanity" that MLK Jr. described. I'm sure there are plenty of people you could speak for. Don't presume that's everyone worth considering.
The history of conquest on Earth shows no such example. If anything, given a choice, humans will happily push the unsavoury to the periphery. I'd much rather e.g. risky biological, chemical and nuclear research happen on the Moon or Mars than Earth.
The honest truth is our first colonies on Mars will be Jamestowns. Unlike the Jamestown in our past, however, this one's horrors will be broadcast real time. The deadliness of space almost promises that we'll be keenly reminded of how special our safe harbor. Not that we'll forget it.
What are the incentives that are wrong with Mars?
#2 I hope we fix earth, but we either will or wont completely independent of Mars policy. Again, I dont see how they are related. Is the idea to prevent Mars activity as a motivating punishment (e.g. Birthday parties are cancelled until you clean your room)?
#3 What does "wrecking Mars" mean? What is a good Mars and what is a bad Mars?
It communicates that environmentalism cant maintain mindshare based on its own merit, and must obstruct and tear down other goals. Unfortunately, this alienates anyone one who holds values on par with environmentalism.
Reposting another of my comments to summarize my thoughts. Mainly read the last paragraph in your case. I think you are too optimistic. It may be the case that environmentalism can't organically get enough mindshare now, and we're waiting on a miracle. But I would say I have a far more balanced view of the situation, especially since mitigating negatives is "pessimistic" by nature, and it is not an agenda I push for so much as something people must either accept or deny.
Do you think that all non-urgent activities should/must be halted until the earth is improved?
>Do you think that all non-urgent activities should/must be halted until the earth is improved?
No, I'm not sure how that follows at all.
If you arent arguing against doing them in parallel, what point are you trying to make.
If you agree they can both be done in parallel, and dont think we should wait, what is your objection?
Except for the logistics, such as funding, brain drain, social attention/PR. Frankly, I don't think we could "improve Earth" effectively without major restructuring of power, resources, social attitudes, etc., even if massive amounts of resources were thrown at it. People would rather work on space exploration because it's more exciting and hopeful.
You might as well argue for a global ban on dancing or fun because it is a distraction from improving the earth.
It was never going to the environment. It was going into space ventures or into some consumer play. There is practically zero competition between space and environmental concerns. (To the extent environmental concerns compete for resources, it's with discretionary social services. Similar donor bases. Similar line items in most national budgets.)
The engineers working on rockets wouldn't pivot to environmental sciences if we closed off space. Some would go to defence. Most would go to random other areas, likely those that pay well, like finance and that consumer play the aforementioned billionaire funded.
> people can't just focus on twenty causes effectively
We're investing more into crypto than we are into space.
We're on Hacker News. Divide a population in two, tell one of them what they have to work on and let the other fuck around with whatever they fancy. Tell me you'd have any uncertainty around which will innovate more.
Like sure, it would be great if everyone dropped what they were doing to work on climate change. But we aren't and don't want to. You're never going to convince all of the engineers inspired by going to space to work on a slightly-better solar panel. But you may get a much-better panel by letting them force themselves to make one that works in deep space.
That "may" is doing a lot of work there, to the point I find it absurd. One of the bigger, more cohesive biases on Hacker News I see (understandably) is that technical solutions trump everything. I consider it wishful thinking.
Not really something you have to hypothesise about. Cordless tools, water-purification technologies, integrated circuits and all manner of imaging, navigation and battery technologies came out of the Apollo programme.
> more cohesive biases on Hacker News I see (understandably) is that technical solutions trump everything
Irrelevant to proving or disproving mutual exclusivity between "populat[ing] Mars and improv[ing] earth."
(Also, wrong. The Outer Space Treaty and failed Moon Treaty inspired significant portions of the UN Convention on the Law of the Seas, including the assertion that the seabed is the common heritage of mankind.)
Last paragraph mainly.
You're right that these pursuits are entirely orthogonal. Unfortunately, whether or not space exploration is in the picture, we are far less enthusiastic about doing what actually matters to fix the environment and whatnot. It's just that I myself only realized this imbalance from seeing Walter Bright's blatant positivity on space exploration. I will maintain that, not only is the negative pursuit a nightmare to work on by itself, but introducing the positive pursuit will be a psychological distraction, like how some people scoff at negative effects of capitalism and focus on the positives. Because we love feel-good stories and gravitate to them.
You can’t distract someone who isn’t in the room. I’ll admit to tuning out a lot of climate catastrophism because it just doesn’t hold my attention. I know the outlines of the situation; it doesn’t strike me as productive to obsess over it. (Or more accurately, it isn’t fun.)
> we love feel-good stories and gravitate to them
There are people who like feel-good stories and people who like catastrophism. I’m arguing you’re never competing for one against the other.
It isn’t a coïncidence that the feel-good sectors of the climate movement, EVs and solar energy, have so much overlap with space start-ups.
> In 2019, air pollution caused about 6.7 million deaths. Of these, almost 85% are attributable to noncommunicable diseases (NCDs), including ischemic heart disease, stroke, lung cancer, asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and diabetes. This makes air pollution the second leading cause of NCDs globally after tobacco. [1]
[0] https://www.unicef.org/press-releases/air-pollution-accounte... [1] https://www.who.int/news/item/25-06-2024-what-are-health-con...
but they are also the activities that extend our life expectancies. You can't separate them.
Claiming that pollution is killing without point out the benefits of what is creating the pollution is lying. Industrialization created the world we all enjoy, the largest population of humans enjoying their lives at the same time as have ever lived. It is the essence of intellectual vacuuity to miss that.
It is indeed true that we have unprecedented life quality among more people than ever. It is also very true that industrialization has played a gigantic part in that. However, from one line of history does not come them all. We do not know that this exact path of industrialization was or continues to be necessary. If, in an alternate history, there were less humans with very high quality of life for longer and then they discovered less polluting forms of industry to reach this point, were they worse off? Are you saying we are already minimizing pollution to the level necessary for progress, or quickly working on it? If you're trying to justify the current level of pollution with the current level of progress, you have a lot of explaining to do. Cutting down plastic bag usage alone would probably be high impact for reducing pollution/environmental harm and low impact on impeding progress.
Cutting down forests for farms asserts a human privilege. Arguing for colonies on the Moon or Mars isn't asserting a human privilege, it's arguing for a biological one: the privilege the living should enjoy over the non-living.
When we cut down forests for farmland, we're saying our (human) need for that land supercedes the needs of the creatures living on it. That the needs of humans trump those of other living things. (While cute to debate, this isn't ever actually in doubt. Effective arguments for conservation, et cetera, come down to decidedly human systems of values and ethics.)
When we build a colony on the Moon, we aren't taking land from Moon people. That tabula rasa makes the previous discussion about humans versus other living things moot.
Instead, the practical trade-offs aren't about any inherent rights dead things have (they don't), but how it impacts life on Earth. In particular, for humans.
My metametaethical argument would be it's only humans debating the metaethics.
> if you think the farmland/Moon settlement must be done for human survival
I don't. To the extent there's a contender for necessary for human survival, it's farmland. This isn't a discussion about survival, it's about aesthetics.
> why is human-human wealth redistribution not on the table?
One, it's literally easier to colonise the Moon than do this on a global scale. Two, because that's a separate topic.
After which you take it as given that humans come first even metaethically? You can't from-first-principles your way around it; even your metaethics must have some axiomatic basis. It's obviously the same with me, and not a matter of right or wrong, but not acknowledging it is wrong.
> This isn't a discussion about survival, it's about aesthetics.
I addressed this in my last sentence. So then ultimately it comes down to human privilege, just not at a specific part. Again, I'm utimately going off of aesthetics too. It's just that you should recognize that, and not make arguments that revolve around not recognizing it.
Sure. But that base is, for the present time, being set by humans. Not acknowledging that is naïve.
> ultimately it comes down to human privilege, just not at a specific part
How do you define human privilege?
When I've seen the term, it's been framed against non-human life. It thus doesn't make sense to assert human privilege against non-living entities. When one does, one isn't asserting a human privilege, but a privilege of the living. (Or more accurately, of the sentient. Those with agency.)
This itself requires explaining too. Axioms can't be justified except by axioms outside of their system, so you're still relying on something to place humans on top. It is something you may agree with, but I am not bound to it for my basic beliefs.
> When one does, one isn't asserting a human privilege, but a privilege of the living.
Sure. I am against any arguments put forth by living beings for lunar development in the way that humans have right now. I was under the impression that we all implicitly use "human" for succintness; do you personally see a difference in how another sapient being might make the argument, all else being equal?
Whatever you bind yourself by, you're doing so as a human. That's my point. At the most meta level, our ethics and value systems are chosen by humans, whether they place humans at the centre of them or not.
> I am against any arguments put forth by living beings for lunar development in the way that humans have right now
Sure. Fine. This is common argument, if one I don't see finding purchase in our lifetimes.
> I was under the impression that we all implicitly use "human" for succintness; do you personally see a difference in how another sapient being might make the argument, all else being equal?
Humans means humans. Different sapient beings are irrelevant when we’re discussing a lifeless body.
I think the key distinction in this discussion is your view that the Moon belongs to no people yet, versus the opposing view established by the Outer Space Treaty that the Moon belongs to all people.
You're describing the Moon Treaty, which was never ratified [1]. It would have made the Moon the common heritage of all manking [2]. The Outer Space Treaty is far less restrictive [3].
And even if the Moon Treaty were in effect, it still wouldn't make lunar colonisation an assertion of human privilege. It would be an assertion of certain humans' privileges over others. But there is no non-human concern in play to any practical effect.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_Treaty#Provisions
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_heritage_of_humanity
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty#Provisions
"The exploration and use of outer space shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries and shall be the province of all mankind."
Outer space meaning the universe beyond Earth's atmosphere, and Province of all mankind meaning an area of special knowledge, interest, or responsibility belonging to all mankind. Perhaps others don't read it this way, but this is the meaning of my comment.
I don't like the view that we shouldn't go to space as long as there are problems on Earth to fix. There are always problems to fix. It's an excuse to never explore space. There's no reason that going to Mars would prevent addressing pollution on Earth. I don't even see how they're related. If anything, trying to live on Mars would probably help us deal with climate change on Earth.
> I would be (grudgingly) fine with populating Mars if I felt that we as a race were remotely trying our best to improve Earth. By opening up Mars, incentives are wrong and we will probably become even more lax.
You can't see how terraforming Mars and solving Earth's climate crisis could be related? And you want us to consider your opinions at all?
Frankly, the least selfish reason to go to Mars is to avoid extinction. Barring that, is it such a great thing for "humanity" to explore Mars for curiosity, commercial ventures, and leisure? Apparently many of the commenters here seem to extol things that can be great for "humanity" while lashing out at mentions of real issues not getting enough attention right now. I'll restate what I said: is it so important that we with privilege continue to have greater privilege? Or if you believe we can just fix these issues and get our space exploration too: do you really think that will happen with reasonable likelihood? The feel-good narrative of having our cake and eating it too is just too delectable.
And to those of you saying I would shut down everything for one cause, you're blatantly wrong. I'm saying we should focus on this cause and look to the remainder for things like space exploration. What we have in reality is focusing on things like space exploration and hoping. We are misallocating resources. Yes, perhaps we will get magical technology from the money currently going into it, or from space exploration. I ask you if you think the likelihood is reasonable. If you're here to talk about mere possibilities, don't complain when others bring up feasibility.
[0] Or just a lot of people dying, doesn't have to be nearly everyone.
I used to share this view until I read Kim Stanley Robinson's Red Mars. There is aesthetic value to preserving Mars in its pristine form, within reason, if only so future generations can enjoy it.
That doesn't mean full space NIMBY, as this article suggets. But it does argue against being cavalier about an alien landscape simply because it's lifeless.
What part of any argument in this thread requires this?
Also, being part of something doesn't mean you can't also be distinct from it, for the most part.
> National parks are designated for their natural beauty, unique geological features, diverse ecosystems, and recreational opportunities, typically "because of some outstanding scenic feature or natural phenomena."
Fits the bill, don't it?
Have you seen our zoning and construction codes? It might actually be simpler to erect a structure in a national park.
The only constant in life is change. The future will be different. If Mars is worth colonizing, we'll colonize it.
The pristine Mars everywhere forever advocates are considered radicals and lose out. If I remember correctly, Mars is terraformed in a way that leaves parts of it as unchanged as possible, e.g. the extra-atmospheric peaks of Olympus Mons.
As for Mars, suggesting that it is merely a "dead rock" with "no environment" grossly oversimplifies its geology. It's a seismically active planet with an atmosphere.
> It's a seismically active planet with an atmosphere.
It's still a dead rock. There's nothing sacred about it.
So no, we shouldn't just dump random crap on Mars based on your ignorance.
Sure we do. It's a dead rock. All investigations have turned up nothing.
> you have no idea whether it used to be alive or not.
Scientists have given up on it being alive. They're reduced to looking for evidence of ancient life.
I don't think those floating rocks have any urgent needs at all.
Manifest destiny without pre-existing sapient life.
Like, the problem with manifest destiny wasn't the expansion. Nobody is running around decrying the Polynesians for the deigning to exist on more than one island. Primordial humans weren't monsters for leaving Africa.
That it's irrelevant to this conversation? Conquest means conquering. To conquer means to take possession of a foreign land by force [1]. There are no Moon Men our rovers are waging war with. Lunar colonisation is manifest destiny in the way my dog peeing on a fence post is. (Practically speaking, less so.)
> we'll have an acceptable Mars civilization...for a bit. Or is it fine if they aren't pre-existing life?
Making nonsense arguments doesn't exactly advance your point.
[1] https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/conqu...
I'm aware. I see it as analogous, though. Clearly many people would feel entitled to Mars whether or not there are pre-existing beings to wrest control from. The narrative feels the same: "we could do it and there's nothing wrong in doing it, so we did it and no one can complain". I only have further objections if there are pre-existing beings involved.
> Making nonsense arguments doesn't exactly advance your point.
You seem to be saying that manifest destiny that doesn't harm pre-existing life is fine. Let's say I agree to that (which I don't, above). To take it to its logical conclusion, you and I seem to agree that harming (sapient) life needlessly is bad. I pointed out that humans are, uh, bad at following that rule. True, that doesn't indict Mars colonization specifically. Also true, I have a bone to pick with how humans do things in general, which I think is even more pertinent. But we were already on the general-human-things tack by dicussing manifest destiny.
Maybe, maybe not. I question the relevance of a moot hypothetical.
> seem to be saying that manifest destiny that doesn't harm pre-existing life is fine
I'm saying if there is nothing living--let alone sapient--is harmed, it's not analogous to Manifest Destiny in a fundamental way. We have no cultural memory of colonising terra nova. So we're analogising to conquest, which I'm arguing is reductive.
This is closer to the first people to leave the African continent. Or first humans to get on boats and colonise North America and the Pacific Islands. Something motivated those people into the unknown, and while an element of that is preserved in Manifest Destiny, it's--I'd argue--in a corrupted form.
Reread Mr Bright's post I'm responding to and hopefully it's clear why I find it alarming. Do you think he'd want to stop if we discover life out there? What mechanism would there even be to stop once there's an economic incentive not to?
There are some abominations in our history and it's our responsibility to sincerely repent and learn to avoid repeating them. So far we're simply saying it's different this time.
It feels a bit like natural parks to me. Of course they contain resources! We can tear all the trees out and strip mine the land, but I'm glad we don't! They're pretty in ways the lit Coca-Cola billboard that replaces them can't imitate. I'm honestly a bit depressed to hear this preservation framed as "self-hatred" and "loathing."
Also, we should be super freakin' sure that these rocks are actually devoid of life before we start moving all our stuff in (and the recent asteroid sample contamination shows we move in hard and fast). I don't think we're anywhere near as certain about this as you imply, and it would suck to burry the evidence for abiogenesis before we understand it.
> There is no environment to pollute.
The moon has an environment. "We towed it outside the environment" was a joke!
It strikes me as naively presumptuous more than hateful. We don't have the capability, today, to ruin a celestial body by any reasonable defintion of those terms. Maybe we figure out what we can do and what's over there before we loop in the space NIMBYs.
> it would suck to burry the evidence for abiogenesis before we understand it
What threshold of sureness would you propose for what amount of activity? Even massive (1mm+) colonisation wouldn't ruin evidence planet-wide.
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.)
Wait, really? That's surprising to me!
> With all due respect to the Navajo Nation, I'm putting this one the wrong side of reasonable.
Totally fair, and I tend to agree. My point is that not everyone does. I'm sure there's reasonable compromise. To bring it back to my earlier example, we do actually mine national parks (at least the UK does), we're just careful with our approach. I hope this type of approach would suit the author.
Yup [1]! (To put it in context, Earthlight on the Moon [apparent magnitude -17.7] is brighter than the full Moon on Earth [-11s]. Maybe during a lunar eclipse?)
[1] https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/38922/could-apollo...
If we do allow building on the lit lunar surface though, props to the first telescope company to build a sign that says "You'd be able to read this better with a Celestron."
I'm firmly opposed to your proposal. Having lit cities on the moon does not impinge in any way life on earth.
Are you also firmly opposed to airplanes?
Do you propose any one group can have the right to put whatever they want into the sky of every human on Earth?
> does not impinge in any way life on earth
A good portion of the life on Earth looks up at the Moon, often with magnification. Treating it like a nature preserve would be a gift to all posterity and they would praise us for it. Treating it like another resource to harveest will ultimately mean covering it in colonies and forever changing the face of an astral body that has remained virtually untouched for all of our species' history. Presuming to utilize it for industry or colonization is so short sighted a view I can't believe anyone harbors the thought.