The Economic Development of the Moon 408
MarkWhittington writes "Andrew Smith, the author of Moondust: In Search of the Men Who Fell to Earth, recently published a polemic in the British newspaper The Guardian, entitled Plundering the Moon, that argued against the economic development of the Moon. Apparently the idea of mining Helium 3, an isotope found on the Moon but not on the Earth (at least in nature) disturbs Mr. Smith from an environmentalist standpoint. An examination of the issue makes one wonder why."
Wonder and amazement (Score:5, Insightful)
If you looked at the sky through a telescope and saw a tiny robot mining plant there, mining the moon for energy resources, would you be filled with a sense of wonder and pride about the ingenuity and courage of your fellow man, or with forbidding and dread that the moon was being raped?
The moon doesn't have an "environment" (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems that many in the "environmental" movement just want nothing to change from its "natural" state, even where there is no nature.
I would say his arguments are specious... (Score:5, Insightful)
Are we to avoid mining the moon because it will harm the native lifeforms? Oh yeah, there aren't any.
Do we need to invent the word "rock-hugger"?
Re:Wonder and amazement (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The Grand Canyon is pretty low on observable li (Score:3, Insightful)
visible life in the Grand Canyon?
http://digital-desert.com/grand-canyon/wildlife.html [digital-desert.com]
The moon is a great big dead rock. Moving the pieces of that
rock around won't affect anything in the slightest. Sure, we'll
probably preserve the Apollo sites, and maybe a few particularly
picturesque spots, but the rest of it is a future mining site.
Mr Moonbeam (Score:4, Insightful)
He doesn't even give a reason why the environmental movement might want to stop mining the Moon. Maybe he thinks environmentalism is about "pretty Nature, don't hurt her", rather than survival and legacy, but he doesn't even say so.
The only argument his protest makes about mining the Moon is in favor: mining the He-3 would reduce the need to damage the Earth producing energy here.
There might be an argument for science preserving the layout of the Lunar surface for study (eg, the record of impact angles and composition which accumulate billions of years of astrophysical history), but there are technical solutions to that problem, and he doesn't even mention them (except some handwaving about lacking "science" in our goals).
That is the kind of taking "environmentalism's" name in vain that gives legitimate environmentalism a bad name.
Flawed Philosophy (Score:5, Insightful)
But this idea of preserving the lunar environment seems to me to be based on the idea that objects are better left untouched by humanity. That things should be left untouched, even when it is detrimental to humanity, and no worse than neutral to our ecosystem. This is the type of nonsense that, in the extreme, calls for humanity to let itself go extinct, so as to stop our plundering of the Earth.
Nothing in nature is a value, without something living that gives it that worth.
Simple solution (Score:4, Insightful)
Ummmm. o-kay. (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously - if it was an argument about contributing to space junk (which can be a hazard to life and limb), or an argument about leaving nascent life (like, say, on Europa or Titan) alone to develop, play... I can grok those arguments.
But the ones presented? ...it's the friggin' Moon! There ain't jack shit for life or biomass there! The only non-commercial value it currently has offhand are the Apollo landing sites (for historical value), and that's it!
IMHO, tear that bastard up if it generates commerce, gives us extra space to live, acts as an astronomical platform, and more importantly, if it takes humankind that much closer to becoming a space-faring race. It's not like we'll reduce its mass enough to really worry about instability (at least not within the next billion years or so), and it's (IMHO) free and open for the taking - belonging (nor should it ever belong) to no earth-bound nation.
What environment? (Score:5, Insightful)
That that said, I must ask: what environment? The moon is a lifeless, barren hunk of rock. All that has ever occurred in its history, is being pummeled by countless meteors to create a scarred and pulverized surface. There is no environment to protect, only dust and rocks. And as pristine and spartan beauty that may be, there's simply no one to admire it.
Right now, the universe appears devoid of life, except on our tiny blue rock, and it's always in danger of being snuffed out by one stray asteroid. Getting humanity up into space is the best thing we can do, for us, and for the Earth. Where we go, we will bring life with us. We will create new environments on any planets we settle. We are the seed by which Earth's life can spread throughout the galaxy.
Seeing lights glittering back at us from human settlements during a new moon shouldn't be viewed as a desecration of something worth saving, but the growth of new life where there was none before.
You Can't Skip Steps (Score:5, Insightful)
It's all getting destroyed by the sun in a few billion years, anyway.
Re:Wonder and amazement (Score:5, Insightful)
If I looked at the sky through a telescope and saw a tiny robot mining plant there, mining the moon for energy resources, I'd be filled with a sense of wonder at how far telescope technology had come. Even the most powerful scopes we have here on Earth can't pick out the man-made stuff already on the moon.
Re:The moon doesn't have an "environment" (Score:5, Insightful)
Number of humans currently on earth, massively rounded up: 10^10.
That means that every person on earth would need to use up
seven TRILLION Kg of material to exhaust the moon. Every single
person on earth could grab ten tons of moon-material and have no
appreciable effect on the Moon's mass or it's effect on the tides.
And If We Don't... (Score:3, Insightful)
Just look at all the beautiful He3. Isn't it beautiful? Aren't you glad your daddy stopped them from plundering the Moon of all of it so that we can almost enjoy this unspoiled view of it through the completely polluted atmosphere of Earth because we never got that clean energy source from up there?
Yeah, right! There are some real clowns in the world, and the guy against this qualifies as two of them when weighted in the average of clown foolishness.
Re:Wonder and amazement (Score:2, Insightful)
Control of distribution (Score:2, Insightful)
Forget environmentalism-what about Int'l Relations (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think environmentalism is the important issue here. I'm more interested in what impact the economic development of the moon will have on international relations.
Whose moon is it? Of course we have treaties, but when a company starts mining up there, you can bet the profits aren't going to be distributed very widely. Besides the ethical implications of this, how are other states going to react to an American or Chinese company mining a resource that used to be considered off-limits and belonging to all, until it was convenient for that to no longer be the case? Is this just a case of first come, first serve capitalism? There are more things at stake here than just environmentalism.
Re:I would say his arguments are specious... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:running the numbers (Score:4, Insightful)
Which still doesn't solve the main problem. We don't have Helium 3 fusion yet. And we aren't likely to for years. We'll probably have flying cars and Duke Nukem Forever first.
We haven't even gotten the easiest fusion reactions working yet to the point where they will generate a net gain of electricity.
Linked article author is troll... (Score:4, Insightful)
Just because one (or a few) environmentalist has a (to us) wacky view, doesn't mean he represents the whole of environmentalists. The only reason you'd imply this is if you had an agenda, and the author of the linked article clearly does.
Re:Wonder and amazement (Score:5, Insightful)
There is no legitimate environmentalist standpoint worth discussing about the Moon. There is no life on the Moon. There is no environment for environmentalists to worry about. If they're worried about the faint possibility that human mining will somehow create some crater on the moon visible from the Earth, they can just pretend an asteroid made it, same as the millions of other craters littering the moon's surface. Or just perform the mining on the horribly scarred side of the Moon facing away from the Earth and dare anyone to claim that man's activities make it look worse.
Re:Falacy (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, but this isn't just any rock. It's the most significant rock in human history, from ancient times to now.
Here is a precedent. There is absolutely no question that Uluru [wikipedia.org] deserves protection. It's protected by a World Heritage Order, which puts it in the global crown jewels. What is it? It's a bloody big rock, just like the moon.
Re:Wonder and amazement (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Falacy (Score:5, Insightful)
Environmentalists ought to be leading the charge for space colonization. Forget saving ecosystems that do pretty well without your help... what about the ecosystems that don't even exist yet? Biodiversity? You ain't seen nothing yet. If you love life, don't stand in front of it.
Re:Wonder and amazement (Score:4, Insightful)
I personally believe that _anything_ that helps us get off this planet is basically a good thing. I don't just believe this because of the eggs in one basket argument, though that is an important reason for humanity to not just live on Earth. The main argument in my eyes is that the faster we get into space, the faster I (or my son/daughter, or their son/daughter, etc) am going to get a spaceship.
Also, it's a big dead rock in space now. Geologically it's pretty useful. Militarily it's an imperative to control it so that someone else doesn't. It _will_ be of strategic importance in the future.
Mining the moon for minerals is _not_ raping it. Firstly, you're using the word rape badly (rape requires ability to consent, unless you look to some archaic texts). The moon cannot give consent. It's a rock. It cannot be raped. Secondly, why on earth would mining the moon be considered bad in the first place? I mean, as you said, it's just a big old rock.
Re:Linked article author is troll... (Score:5, Insightful)
Most aren't. But unfortunately the few that are have a lot of influence. Look at the utterly irrational fear of nuclear power they've created, when by any environmental standard it's tremendously better than fossil fuels. For them, the real problem is not environmental damage but our decadent materialist lifestyles, and anything that allows us to continue on that path must be opposed.
Re:Falacy (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Wonder and amazement (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Wonder and amazement (Score:3, Insightful)
This is no different.
The city view in Honolulu is offensive to those that choose to stay on Molokai or Kauai.
Some who live in the plains might like the city view in the mountains that Honolulu has to offer.
Re:The moon doesn't have an "environment" (Score:3, Insightful)
And you're one of the large majority of poor reasoners who pick some lone nutcase and assume he speaks for most of whoever he claims to speak for.
Though I am definitely an environmentalist, I'll only claim to speak for myself when I say: If helps make the Earth any nicer for humans, Fuck the Moon. Strip mine it and pave what's left it in radioactive waste.
As a practical matter, getting to space takes so many resources that I don't see it ever being a win to acquire resources from off-planet. The earth is all we've got, and all I think we'll ever get, even in the magic sci-fi future; which is why I'm an environmentalist.
Re:Wonder and amazement (Score:1, Insightful)
And Innumeracy [wikipedia.org] rears its ugly head again.
Sometimes I wonder exactly how many issues are blown totally out of proportion based on the hard wired inability of people to understand scale.
Or to put it another way: "Space is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind- bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space."
In a similar way: The moon is big. Really big. You just don't understand how vastly hugely mind-boggingly big it is. I mean, you may think that an appartment building, or a mining operation, or a mountain are big, but their just peanuts compared to the moon.
Seriously though, based on this [columbia.edu], the total per-capita material moved by the USA in 1991 was 20 tons per person. This includes logging, agriculture, mining, and fossil fuels.
If the USA had been doing this for 2000 years, the total mass moved would have been approximately 10 trillion tons = 1E13 tons.
The total mass of the moon is 1E19 tons. That`s 1 million times larger. So, the net impact would have been to move
I really don't mean to pick on your post in particular, but I see this kind of statement a LOT...from a lot of really smart people, on numerous different topics. Just a complete miscalculatin of the numeric scales involved. I really really really wish innumeracy were treated the same by our education system as illiteracy. It`s becoming as important that people understand the numbers & statistics involved in modern society as it is that they understand the terms & concepts. Possibly even more important....
Re:space tourism and resources (Score:3, Insightful)
Years back, I worked at a moderately-sized gas station (16 pumps, and not near any major highways), and it was normal to sell ~10,000 gallons of fuel per day. There was a McDonald's nearby on the same road, and I don't ever remember seeing a tanker truck come by daily to being them new cooking oil.
How much does a typical fast-food joint use per week, and how much biodiesel could be produced from it? How much of that biodiesel would be wasted in the process of collecting that fuel, processing it, and redistributing it? Or do you expect McDonald's to start making biodiesel on-site and retailing it directly to customers? Fuel dispensing pumps are federally-regulated and a typical example can easily cost ~$10,000 alone--not even including the storage tanks, installation and other related equipment.
The "free biodiesel from cooking oil" line strikes me as kind of like saying "if you had an electric car, you could put solar panels on the roof and get FREE ELECTRICITY!!!".... which is true, technically--but the amount of electricity you can get from the area of a typical car's rooftop is not going to be that significant compared to what the car will end up using, considering the expenses involved with buying the necessary solar cells.
I would think a better idea for using old cooking oil might be to use it at the point of production--burn it for heat at the restaurant directly. This would utilize the energy in it, and still avoid the problems of the glycerol produced by making biofuel with it, as well as the extraneous transportation/distribution losses.
~