Leonard David reports on the International Space Development Conference, and particularly on Rick Steiner's (loony) proposal to fence off the Moon from development.

Diving headlong into the lair of wannabe lunar colonists, Steiner said that the industrial development paradigm that's existed on Earth for some three centuries has been "utterly devastating". Imposing a George Bush senior idiom, the conservationist urged that a "kinder and gentler" approach to space is needed.

What was it that was devastated? Is he looking at it from the viewpoint of rocks, or people?

"We should put our best foot forward, not as greedy industrialists or empire builders or with militant intention, but rather with compassion, respect, humility and with genuine curiosity," Steiner said.

How does one have compassion and respect for a lifeless sphere of rock?

What's wrong with greed? Doesn't he have any idea how economics works?

Why do I even ask?

What about using lunar or other space resources to help an energy-impoverished Earth?

"Personally, and I think millions and millions of people on Earth see the Moon as a sacred icon and it should remain as such," Steiner said. "To turn the Moon into a quarry and strip mine?I think if you put this out to a global referendum, I would virtually predict that 80 percent to 90 percent of people on Earth would object to this idea," he said.

Yes, I'm sure that the billions on earth will be happy to live in squalor and poverty, as long as the Moon is untouched...

"If the Moon is owned by anybody?it's owned by everybody," Steiner argued.

That's an argument? It sounds more like a mindless polemic. It doesn't even make any sense. My house is owned by me. Does that make it owned by everybody? To economic illiterates like Rick Steiner, it probably does.

Actually the reality is just the opposite. That which is owned by everybody, is owned by nobody, to disastrous effect. But I'm guessing he's never read anything by Garrett Hardin, despite the fact that he's supposedly a "professor."

"Most of the people on this planet would object to the notion that the primary reason or even a reason to go to the Moon or into space is for resource extraction and exploitation. That's my political guess," he added.

Yes, and of course, politics should reign, rather than economics or rationality.

Though I suspect that, given the choice between additional resources to improve their lives, or a pristine Moon, most on earth would choose the former. That's my political guess. Not that political guesses should mean anything.

There is virtually no way, Steiner said, that space resources can be applied in the near-term aggressively enough to reverse the course of biosphere destruction on our home planet.

Well, attitudes like his make it a certainty. It's called "self-fulfilling prophecy."

The way to short-circuit the prospect of a dead-end Earth is to control population and consumption. "We need to start living within our means. We need to deal with this in the next 10 to 20 years. This is hugely serious," Steiner said.

Indeed. Authoritarian notions like this are always serious.

What Rand said.

The moon belongs to the first ones who can take it and then to the first ones who can take them. In between some money might be traded for parcels.

The basics of real estate haven't changed in thousands of years. A change of venue is no reason to expect anything new in the conduct of human affairs.

What Rand said. And what Ken said. And what Eric said.

I've always thought that the "natural" law of property rights was that if something was unowned and you develop it or atleast sit on it it was yours. Based on that and the fact that the moon is HUGE (much bigger if we go subterranian which is a good idea for other reasons) i don't think that anyone will ever own it all with the possible exception of a lunar state (can you tell i've been reading heinlein). Whoever goes there and settles signifigant tracts of land will have one of two goals, maintaining a mining/industrial/tourist industry or living like kings on a large estate(my dream). Either way i don't believe the apearence of the moon will change much in the first decades after settling. Which i believe was Mr. Steiner's main objection. (sorry for the rambling)

Another thing that comes to mind is IIRC a Woody Allen quote: "90% of success is showing up."

People whose nations have no public or private investment in building capacity to reach the moon on a regular basis really have no place in the conversation. If you really want some say in how the Moon is developed first you have to be there. Otherwise the ones who are there will just laugh at the silly groundhogs.