Glenn points out an article at MSNBC about a group that wants to fence off the Moon from development. They apparently want to use Antarctica as a model. This is in tune with many of the people who think that mankind is too immature to colonize space.

Mr. Smith says Mr. Steiner?s proposal fails to take into consideration how proposed lunar projects such as a solar-power plant designed to help fuel earthly activities could actually help the environment back on the home planet.

Mr. Steiner counters that the same kind of solar plant could be designed to operate in the moon?s orbit, without marring the lunar surface.

Which shows that he doesn't get it. A major part of the solar power proposal is to utilize lunar resources for the construction. Putting the satellites in orbit might be a good idea for other reasons, but it doesn't change the need to develop the Moon.

?You know,? he says, ?the moon is a stunningly beautiful place, and it shouldn?t be defiled.?

It's the ANWR battle writ large--in which they want to close off development of an entire world, and there aren't even any lunar caribou.

It kind of makes me wish that I were going to the Space Development Conference this weekend, just to see the fireworks when this is proposed to the assembled.

[Update at 5PM PDT]

The Times is covering this story as well.

And I just want to clarify, I don't want to strip-mine the whole orb.

There are obviously some sites that need to be preserved--the Apollo XI and other Apollo landing sites, impact sites of some of the first Rangers, the Monolith from 2001, the B-17s and V-2 rockets that got lost and ended up there in WW II...

Steiner's proposal is plain nuts. But it does illustrate that perhaps the subject of lunar commercial development and human settlement has entered the mainstream.

God, I'm losing patience with these tiresome brats.

Surely this childish waste of time was inspired by the "Cancer on the Face of the Universe" letter by Lori M, along with the ensuing discussion in the comments section. I have not run across such an idea anyplace else, save perhaps the Niven, Pournelle and Flynn novel "Fallen Angels".

Please do not interpret the above as placing blame in any way on you or your excellent blog, from which I learn quite a lot. Blame for this lies solely and totally with the environmentalists, who daily increase the load of CO2 and methane in the atmosphere by making these proposals, as well as burning quite a lot of the environment every night in their bongs.

"Lunar caribou"? I am certain there are no lunar amino acids, but we won't know for sure until we go. When we do colonize Luna, we will learn how to do everything better-lighter, for less cost, and with less use of resources. I wonder if anyone has even tried explaining that to these loons.

>> we will learn how to do everything better-lighter, for less cost, and with less use of resources.

Why do you assume that doing something is one of their goals?

For many, the goal of CAFE is not efficient cars, but no cars....

>>Why do you assume that doing something is one of their goals?

For many, the goal of CAFE is not efficient cars, but no cars....

I freely concede your point. Progress--real progress, the kind where everybody becomes a little more healthy, wealthy, and wise--is certainly not a selling point to this bunch of, for want of a more precise term, religious fundamentalists.

However, I think we have derived quite a few benefits from space, and so a space program, government or private, is an easy sell for me.

I hope it is possible to convince these people by sweet reason, and that they don't increase in numbers. If we must have fundamentalists, I would rather have the kind with four-part Southern Gospel harmony, and some good preachin'. No one would confuse me with any kind of believer, but I like a little fiery preachin'.

But the eco-weenies provide none of that. Crappy sermons, and lousy singing.

?the moon is a stunningly beautiful place, and it shouldn?t be defiled.?

If beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and that beauty is impossible to behold, then is there any beauty?

In any case, these people are in love with abstractions of their own making, the worst form of narcissism.

Why is it that the second a blasted wasteland or fetid swamp goes on the list for possible development, the environ-mentally deficient types suddenly discover its "Stunning Beauty"? For God's sake, IT'S THE MOON! IT'S A BUNCH OF ROCKS IN VACUUM! Go discover the "stunning beauty ' in South Compton, and leave us alone!

The problem, as folks elsewhere have noted, is that environmentalists (at least the fanatical ones) are motivated by quasi-religious fervor, not necessarily the facts.

For a (semi-)amusing take on this, I'd recommend a Harry Turtledove short story, wherein Queen Isabella of Spain receives a report from a learned committee on the likely environmental and other impacts of an expedition she's thinking of funding.

The meek shall inherit the earth. But I'm getting the hell outta here...

I'm reminded of a bumper sticker I saw a few years ago:

EARTH FIRST
We'll strip-mine the other planets later...

Rand, Rand, didn't you know the B-17 isn't there any more? When the aliens found out we knew it was there, they realized we "know too much" and moved it.

I know it's true because I read it in the Weekly World News. I'm pretty sure it was the same issue that mentioned vampires were going to be trick-or-treating that year because they were worried about catching AIDS.