10 opinions, 11 replies
Add your opinion:
Preview:
(mouse over or touch to update)
Add your opinion
100
User voted No.
2 votes
Sep 28, 2015

The moon belongs to whoever lives there.

No one lives there?

It belongs to no one.

If and when people live there? Then the moon belongs to them - they will be a sovereign country.

subscribe
100
2 votes
Sep 29, 2015

I hope that when/if we colonize the Moon that it can be an international effort. It would be easier to meet the costs of such a venture if many countries paid for it and not just one. Also, the value of the moon at this time is purely scientific. Building an observatory on the dark side of the moon will give us a better view of the stars than any Earth-based observatory because of the absence of light pollution. And developing the skills to colonize the Moon will aid in the endeavor of eventually colonizing Mars. I think such scientific and engineering gains should be shared by all nations.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
100
User voted No.
main reply
1 vote,
Nov 9, 2015

I agree, but I must pose the question. If colonizing the moon would be for purely scientific purposes, why colonize at all? By the time we have the technology to realistically found a moon colony, we will also have far superior technology allowing us to establish unmanned research tools on the moon. So why do we need live people up there?

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
100
1 vote,
Nov 9, 2015

As I said, the value of the moon at this time is purely scientific. If we find a more economical way to get there and back, there might or might not be some value of having mining operations there. But if we are going to colonize Mars one day, the Moon would be a decent place to test the habitat modules we would use on Mars, and to test the people who might one day go there. The Moon and Mars both have low gravity and both lack a magnetic field to protect them from radiation, so the similarities between the two would make the Moon a proving ground for the technology that would be needed to make a safe habitat for people on Mars.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
User voted No.
0 votes,
Nov 9, 2015

Excellent point. Thank you!

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
main reply
0 votes,
Nov 3, 2015

Great opinion, I absolutely agree! But what will we do if only America will have the technology to colonize Mars? I also hope humans will be mature enough to not start some new wars while they're there, but if the colonization happens in this century, I'm afraid.

subscribe
100
User voted No.
1 vote
Oct 17, 2015

No.

The principle of international sovereignty over outer space is as important as the principle of Mare Liberum. It recognizes that areas where people do not live should not be divided up the way land is.

subscribe
100
User voted No.
1 vote
Oct 23, 2015

The moon probably shouldn't belong to anyone.

In a practical sense, it belongs to whoever is able to defend it. Hopefully, though, we simply work it out with agreements, and don't have to resort to force. The best solution is probably that it remain open to anyone who can get there to explore, but with the agreement that no one alter it in any significant way.

Right now the moon seems to be similar to oceans and Antarctica....a shared resource.

subscribe
100
User voted No.
1 vote
Oct 4, 2016

Whether it is the moon, or any cosmic body above or equal to the size of New York City, it should be deemed the property of no one, but the property of all living beings. No one nation should own any such cosmic body. Perhaps, a UN-like international league of justice, who, in the words of Lincoln, are "of the people, by the people and for the people" should govern the heavens. After all, in the words of the great humanist Eleanor Roosevelt, "[People] are like teabags. You dont know how strong they are until you put them in hot water."

subscribe
-1
User voted Yes.
1 vote
Sep 24, 2015

I hesitantly say yes, although i think anyone who can get there should have every right to do so without a permit/visa/etc, I think this on the grounds that we were there first and we planted our flag up there, so by that logic i think that we own it i.e. we've got dibs on it.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
50
main reply
2 votes,
Oct 22, 2015

This logic was controversial in the 16th and 17th century, when England used it to claim all of North America while Spain, France, and the Netherlands (to say nothing of the Native Americans) rolled their eyes at it's absurdity. It has not turned into wisdom during the intervening years. Planting a flag doesn't mean anything.

(Also, the United States has declined any claims of possession over the moon.)

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
User voted Yes.
0 votes,
Oct 23, 2015

I stand by what i said before, did you not read what i said about the Indians? they claimed America first that's why we should have been grateful that they were willing to let us colonize beside them and even engage in trade with us as neighbors, but we had no right to take what they had already claimed, what you are saying whether you know it or not sounds more like this, "the Indians had no right to the land because it's not about who found it first," or it even sounds like you are denying their Humanity by talking like they couldn't make a valid claim, not saying that you said that per se, but i am saying that is what it almost sounds like to me, but it's not really a racial issue, it's a property issue, and the point is, that's how it works, he who claims the land first and guards it with weapons is king, and woe to he who would challenge his sovereignty ill prepared.

The Whites should have respected the Indians prior claim to the land and only settled where they were permitted to, and also, Spain, France and the Netherlands also stole land from the indigenous peoples.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
50
2 votes,
Oct 23, 2015

Did you read what I said? Flags and footprints to prove possession was an English fiction. Native American residence was their proof of possession. No one lives on the moon, so thete's no claim of possession.

Flags and explorers don't establish possession except in an absurd, discredited English policy circa the 17th century. The natives had no flags; their claim came from residency. No one lives on the moon, so no one owns it. A flag and some footsteps mean nothing.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
User voted Yes.
0 votes,
Oct 23, 2015

"No one lives on the moon" ,...Yet, and thus far we are the only ones who have been there, so since possession is 9/10ths of the law we already own it, and the Indians just replaced flags with skulls and bones etc, to mark their territory and if you crossed the wrong tribes boundary marker it could've meant certain death, regardless of whether or not they had even used that land in recent times.

subscribe
load further replies (1)
::unhide-discussion::
-1
main reply
1 vote,
Oct 9, 2015

This logic >> I saw it first! It's mine!

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
User voted Yes.
0 votes,
Oct 12, 2015

That's about how it works in real life, that's why it was wrong for us to run the Indians off of their land during manifest destiny, it was rightfully theirs because they "saw it first" and laid claim to it first, so they were gracious enough to let us colonize some of the land that they didn't have any major claim on, but then in the 1800's starting with the presidency of Andrew Jackson it all started to go awry, so in the end what I'm trying to convey to you is this, that's how land claims on unsettled/uninhabited land works.

subscribe
0
User voted No.
0 votes
May 9, 2016
subscribe
0
opinion
0 votes
May 27, 2016

We do own the moon, if you base it on a first come first serve basis.

subscribe
0
0 votes
Jun 12, 2016

How can we talk about a different planet when we know very little information about it?

subscribe
0
User voted No.
0 votes
Aug 5, 2016

The moon isn't anybodies.

subscribe
Add your opinion
Challenge someone to answer this topic:
Invite an OpiWiki user:
OR
Invite your friend via email:
OR
Share it: