Comment by palata | Hacker News Reader

Comment by palata | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> “We need to preserve the far side for exciting science that includes measuring magnetic fields associated with potentially habitable exoplanets and uncovering the mysteries of the unexplored Dark Ages of the early universe—using low radio frequency observations”

Does that sound completely crazy? Like... the fact that they want to study it before private companies destroy it for their own benefit?

> Moving development from Earth into space should count as an overwhelming win for the environment.

I don't think this is obvious at all. Actually I don't believe it at all. First because enabling development in space will not at all make us reduce it on Earth. Why would it? If we can make money in space and on Earth, it's more money than just on Earth. It's even completely possible that having development in space will make it even worse for the environment on Earth.

> Moving development from Earth into space should count as an overwhelming win for the environment.

the CEO discourse for justifying Earth being explored for future space companies profiting +6 figures

Nothing will "move". Think of it as "cp", not "mv".

The rust belt will grow to planetary scale.

Once the market believes that gold or other precious metals will imminently be returned from space, the price will plummet, making many destructive mining operations unprofitable.

As a tangent, have you seen that gold rush show on discovery? Taking acres of lush and beautiful Klondike Forest and bulldoze it barren so they can maybe get a few oz of gold. It's terrible.

That’s a subplot in Arthur C. Clarke’s 2061: Odyssey Three, where a mountain-sized diamond is discovered on Ganymede.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2061:_Odyssey_Three

It's a balance. You could also say, why should humanity be kept away from something just so a few astronomers can have an easier time measuring something? Like demanding all city lights be turned off to allow easier observations.

We've been able to carve out national parks before, why do you think we can't do that on a larger scale?

National parks require a nation, who owns parts of the Moon? Why would they be interested on making "parks" on their part of the land? Think of it more like Antarctica, which actually makes things fine I guess, since Antarctica is basically a big scientific lab, with almost no industrial development

The people with the biggest guns who want to own it own it, just like on Earth.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com