Jump to content

Space Mining - Should most of Space be declared "National Parks"


The Anti-Targ

Recommended Posts

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/may/12/protect-solar-system-space-mining-gold-rush-say-scientists

Quote

Great swathes of the solar system should be preserved as official “space wilderness” to protect planets, moons and other heavenly bodies from rampant mining and other forms of industrial exploitation, scientists say.

The proposal calls for more than 85% of the solar system to be placed off-limits to human development, leaving little more than an eighth for space firms to mine for precious metals, minerals and other valuable materials.

Interesting. Assuming no other life forms that could be said to have an intrinsic interest in planets asteroids and moons in the solar system, is preserving the unspoiled environments of other solar system bodies, a valid issue?

I think there need to be international treaties so that space doesn't become the next lawless wild-west. But I'm not sure there is necessarily a need to protect extra-terrestrial environments to the point of banning all resource extraction from almost everywhere. Firstly, I don't see much of the solar system having a great deal of resource extraction appeal. Everything further away from us than Saturn seems like having a very low business case for extraction commercial activity. Jupiter and Saturn themselves seem unattractive places. Venus seems like a hard nut to crack being extremely inhospitable. Mercury also seems like a bad option too. So really it's the moons of Jupiter, (and maybe Saturn), Mars and the Asteroid belt that may have competing aesthetic (space tourism) and resource extraction interests.

Though we should recognise the possibility of finding exotic forms of life elsewhere in the neighborhood, and commit to leaving them alone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

we have some minimal space law already.

 

Who ARE the freaks that make proposals like this? 

conflating an alleged character defect of the proposers with an alleged defect in the proposal is a rylean category mistake. even if the proposers are 'freaks,' how does that make the proposal wrong? by contraposition, even if the proposal is wrong, how do we infer freakishness therefrom? these sort of inferences normally are prohibited.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Who ARE the freaks that make proposals like this? 

The solar system opens up amazing opportunities for humanity, and is the stepping stone to the galaxy.

The proposal is to make 15% of the solar system open to resource exploitation (85% off limits, means 15% is open for business). For the moment that is probably a shit ton of resources if you pick the right places. The total mass of the earth is only 0.3% of the mass of all the planets+the asteroid belt. Given we're years off actually starting to mine space, my guess is access to 15% of the solar system will probably serve our needs for several centuries.

Edit: and maybe 99.9% of the Earth's mass is inaccessible to us for resource extraction, so much so that it seems people are much more inclined to look above our heads as realistic prospects for resources than look deeper into the earth. So at the moment we are only exploiting perhaps less than 0.03% of the solar system's mass for our resource needs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, sologdin said:

we have some minimal space law already.

 

Who ARE the freaks that make proposals like this? 

conflating an alleged character defect of the proposers with an alleged defect in the proposal is a rylean category mistake. even if the proposers are 'freaks,' how does that make the proposal wrong? by contraposition, even if the proposal is wrong, how do we infer freakishness therefrom? these sort of inferences normally are prohibited.

Ok.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Ser Scot raises a valid point: would the people who live there even listen to whatever their distant Earthly ancestors have to say on the subject?

Also, I think depleting all resources in 400 years is an exaggeration. First, most the stuff we use is conserved and can be recycled. Second, space is really, really hard -- the best analogy we have is sailing to a new continent, but this doesn't do it justice. The scenario where humanity is in a position to use more than 10% of the Belt's resources within centuries is quite optimistic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If "scientists" are that worried about preserving the lifeless void, it makes me want to discount whatever their eco-faith makes them say about using Earth's resources for the good of humanity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not against reasoned resource extraction in space, but I'm very much against private ownership of it. Fuck the idea of whoever gets there first getting to claim it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Pure private ownership of resources* in space is a pipe dream. Or, rather, the supposition that some private companies will be able to "corner the market" there, as it were.

The only way that'll happen is that some dystopian version of the future occurs where a handful of people control/own more than half of absolutely everything (including people themselves), and in that scenario they are writing their own laws anyway.

Whatever resources exist out there only has economic value down here. The people are here, the markets are here, everything is here. Add to that the huge and ubiquitous risks involved in ventures like these, and you know that the money invested in it will be of the Fsck You-variant (as in "Fsck You I'm Elon Musk and I spend on what ever I want!"), not money that is expected to provide a return.

 

I would sooner expect the Moon to be declared US territory. State-subsidized private ownership in space is a possibility, but then that would be an offshoot of general state-empire building, not of Weyland-Yutani sending out Space-Hat Columbus to plant their logo everywhere.

And "state-subisidized" means the resources being exploited really were here all along, not out there.

 

* Resources can of course mean many things, and some things are easier for private money to exploit than others. Mostly those that are in the immediate adjacent space of Earth already.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...