Nasa

[SadisticNature]

What you're saying is quite possible, I suppose. There's little doubt that the American media has degenerated into partisan and sensationalist reporting rather than factual reporting. But as for New Orleans, the primary failure there involved FEMA, and the government bureaucracy as a whole. The military, on the other hand, responded immediately and effectively, particularly the coast guard. As far as overseas disasters, from what I can gather the offers of aid are extended almost immediately. But when local governments refuse that aid until it's too late, there's little the US, or any other nation, can do other than wait it out.


I have no answer for this. I've never understood international politics. Hell, I can hardly understand local politics.


I agree, the problems involved are extreme. Certainly I wouldn't advocate the US should claim the entire moon, as we've only managed to put feet on a very tiny portion, and we have not built any kind of habitation. That should be a major requirement, I would think, for any claims: nothing is yours unless you build on it. Just landing and poking a flag in the dust won't qualify.


Why does a nation have to own it? Let the corporation own it, as long as it maintains a viable population/work force and continues utilizing it. No property taxes needed, since no nation would be providing any infrastructure or services to the asteroids. And no royalties, either, unless a corporation mines an asteroid under contract to another corporation/nation/individual.

But overall, I agree there are a lot of problems to overcome. However, we aren't going to overcome them by sitting on our asses looking up at the pretty stars. We're going to have to go there, and soon, before we find ourselves following the dinosaurs down the inevitable path of extinction.

I think the chances of governments approving the idea of land subject to whatever laws the corporations so impose, where corporations could move their headquarters to reduce taxation and other such exploits is near 0%. There is also a problem where if there are legal complications and no jurisdiction and no nation attached, where are those matters resolved? If the corporation is headquartered in its own nation which lacks a legal system how do you even handle legal disputes with the entity? When one starts to ponder the complexities here one wonders why nations would ever allow this to occur.

I also think following the dinosaurs down the inevitable path of extinction is probably hyperbole. The time scale is such that we probably have another 500+ years to get this done, and political conditions making space unpopular are likely to change by then.

[Thorne]

I think the chances of governments approving the idea of land subject to whatever laws the corporations so impose, where corporations could move their headquarters to reduce taxation and other such exploits is near 0%.

Maybe, but with governments seemingly eager to get out of the space race, the time may come when there's damned little they can do about it.

There is also a problem where if there are legal complications and no jurisdiction and no nation attached, where are those matters resolved? If the corporation is headquartered in its own nation which lacks a legal system how do you even handle legal disputes with the entity?

They would have to be dealt with as a separate nation, I suppose. Like the Vatican. A whole new area of law, maybe: Interplanetary Law.

When one starts to ponder the complexities here one wonders why nations would ever allow this to occur.

Chances are they won't. But their need for the production of these industries will force them to at least tentatively accept the situation. I have no particular love of the Corporation as supreme lawgiver, by any means. But I also don't like the idea that every scrap of dust throughout the solar system has to be controlled by some greedy government entity already on Earth.

I would imagine that the whole situation would become similar to the opening of the American West, with small communities forming and establishing laws, with large corporations replacing the old cattle barons, all leading eventually to either the establishment of new nations or the invitation of old nations to take control. If some rich recluse wants to build a home on a rock in the Asteroid Belt, why should he have to pay taxes and declare fealty to some government that's 100 million miles away on a good day?

I also think following the dinosaurs down the inevitable path of extinction is probably hyperbole. The time scale is such that we probably have another 500+ years to get this done, and political conditions making space unpopular are likely to change by then.

500 years is not a long time as far as a species is concerned. That would represent about 0.3% of total span of homo sapiens existence. Just because we point to an asteroid impact as being the smoking gun which ended the dinosaurs doesn't mean they died off immediately. It took thousands of years, perhaps tens of thousands, for the last of the species to die.

Aside from that, looking back through history I don't see a hell of a lot of improvement in political conditions over the last 500 years, or even the last 1000 years. How can we expect their to be any change over the next 500?

[SadisticNature]

Maybe, but with governments seemingly eager to get out of the space race, the time may come when there's damned little they can do about it.


They would have to be dealt with as a separate nation, I suppose. Like the Vatican. A whole new area of law, maybe: Interplanetary Law.


Chances are they won't. But their need for the production of these industries will force them to at least tentatively accept the situation. I have no particular love of the Corporation as supreme lawgiver, by any means. But I also don't like the idea that every scrap of dust throughout the solar system has to be controlled by some greedy government entity already on Earth.

I would imagine that the whole situation would become similar to the opening of the American West, with small communities forming and establishing laws, with large corporations replacing the old cattle barons, all leading eventually to either the establishment of new nations or the invitation of old nations to take control. If some rich recluse wants to build a home on a rock in the Asteroid Belt, why should he have to pay taxes and declare fealty to some government that's 100 million miles away on a good day?


500 years is not a long time as far as a species is concerned. That would represent about 0.3% of total span of homo sapiens existence. Just because we point to an asteroid impact as being the smoking gun which ended the dinosaurs doesn't mean they died off immediately. It took thousands of years, perhaps tens of thousands, for the last of the species to die.

Aside from that, looking back through history I don't see a hell of a lot of improvement in political conditions over the last 500 years, or even the last 1000 years. How can we expect their to be any change over the next 500?

Political conditions have improved dramatically in the past 500 years. We've gone from Monarchies to Democracy's, from an institution where everyone is subject to the whims of the leaders to a government of law.

If we have a similarly 'lackluster' change in the next 500 years, then I think progress will be just fine.

Furthermore a lot of the barrier is technological, and we've had huge technological advances even in the last 10 years. If that continues, eventually the price of spacecraft will come down so far that exploration is viable.

[Thorne]

Political conditions have improved dramatically in the past 500 years. We've gone from Monarchies to Democracy's, from an institution where everyone is subject to the whims of the leaders to a government of law.

The forms have changed, perhaps, but the people running them haven't. Ask the women of Afghanistan if things are better for them than 500 years ago. Or the people in central Africa. Or countless other nations around the world who's political leaders' only concerns are improving their own lives at the expense of their people. No, the conditions are the same. It's only the rhetoric which has changed.

Furthermore a lot of the barrier is technological, and we've had huge technological advances even in the last 10 years. If that continues, eventually the price of spacecraft will come down so far that exploration is viable.

Which is precisely my point. It has gotten to the point where corporations, instead of nations, will be leading the way. That's what will cause the prices to fall. That's what will fuel the colonization of space and the planets. Only when the corporations and the rugged individualists have gone in and tamed things will the governments step in and start trying to control things. Hopefully, this time we won't let them.

[SadisticNature]

The way I see it is:

Corporations and Individualists are unlikely to try for getting land in space unless the claim laws change.

Governments are unlikely to change the claim laws because of all the disadvantages they would face for doing so.

So until this becomes changed there isn't going to be a lot of individualist oriented exploration/claiming of space.

As for region by region analysis, perhaps my view is biased, but I don't think the governments to which you refer are the most likely candidates for space exploration, so concentrating on governance in countries with actual Space Programs would suggest my 500 year claim is valid. As far as it goes with democracy, if change isn't occurring its because people aren't making it happen. This isn't as easy as it sounds but its certainly possible in a democracy, in a monarchy the main methods of policy changes were executions and civil wars.

[Thorne]

Corporations and Individualists are unlikely to try for getting land in space unless the claim laws change.

But if the governments aren't going into space, how can they stop the claims? Possession is nine-tenths of the law, and so forth.

As far as it goes with democracy, if change isn't occurring its because people aren't making it happen. This isn't as easy as it sounds but its certainly possible in a democracy, in a monarchy the main methods of policy changes were executions and civil wars.

I think there's been a lot of change in the democracies lately. Unfortunately, the changes I've seen haven't been for the better. More restrictions, less liberty, less governing but more government, less innovation, more baby-sitting. The more things change the more they stay the same.

Geez, I'm just full of platitudes today, aren't I?