Future of the "Space Treaty"

[Dominatus]

FTL travel is 100% more possible than it was 30 years ago. Considering the probability of us obtaining the means to travel FTL is estimated at .01-.1% which may seem stupidly unlikely. It was considered impossible in the past, and so assuming future advancements make it possible, Human colonization of the galaxy is inevitable. So how would the nations of the world decide things such as ownership of colonies? Would each nation be allowed exoplanet territory on a planetary basis? Would these habitable planets be divided by region? Would humanity found a global governing body that allows equal access to every nation in the name of the human race?

On a more short term scale, proposed lunar and Martian colonies could pose a similar issue. Should nations be allowed to found colonies on planetary bodies without ownership? Should private corporations be the only ones allowed to colonize other planets, and if so would that eventually lead to the most powerful corporations becoming nations in their own right? This is not only an interesting topic to think about, these are very real questions about our future in the stars. Personally I feel that nationalistic, regional and cultural divides be abolished. China, Russia, Iran, Iraq, India, Pakistan, basically every nation must put down their arms, join together under a single body that governs not nations but the planet, and work together towards a brighter and more survivable future for humanity. This way, their are no private entities vying for control of the resources available on other planets, nor for the scientific advantage this research gives their nation. Instead, this is used to advance Planet earth as a whole, humanity as a species. Thoughts?

[Scoundrel]

This is an excellent question and one that I am currently exploring as I work on a novel about humanity being forced to flee Earth to survive.

I think the biggest challenge facing humanity is that of the individual. Technologies that enable the individual to be free of corporate and government control are the same technologies that will allow humanity to survive amongst the stars. This will create a conflict between individuals and entities that seek to control people, be it directly or indirectly, as individuals will no longer be dependent (and in fact must not be dependent on) those same entities in order to thrive. That outcome of that battle will be what determines whether or not humanity continues to thrive, or if we collapse in a cycle of violence and expansion.

This, of course, brings up some uncomfortable ideas: the right to self-determination; the right to own what one builds; the right to self-defense; the right to travel freely. Humanity as a whole always has rationalizations to oppress people - traditionally for the "common good" - and as human nature has not fundamentally changed over the last 20,000 years or so, I don't see the problems that we still have today of people initiating violence upon each other going away any time soon.

Anyways, I best stop now before I challenge the text limit of the forums for post size. I could (and have) write essays about this all day.

[michaelsteele3]

It be great if we all came together.

But if the US congress fights a lot now, let's throw in all the countries into one room. There would be giant fights, some may last decades or something like that.

[Sirrobert]

I don't think there will ever be a united earth goverment. Atleast not while cultures exist as they do today. (and it'd require tearing down all current goverments and starting anew. So it'd be bloody)

I believe it'll go like in a scifi book I read long ago, and can't remember the name off (which makes me sad, cause it was a triology and I only ever read the first book. I would love to read the rest one day).

In that universe, new planets are formed by taking a group of 1 etnicity (so french cristians for example, or indian muslims, or whatever. Name a combination of culture and religion), stuffing it in a colonization ship, and sending it off to a planet. The result is that Earth is still as culturaly diverse as it is today (with all the different goverments, and relgions, and everything), but new planets all have a single governing body, and a single religion, ect (PS: If that rings a bell for anyone who knows the books, I'd love to know)

[Captain Sierra]

I think the concept of 'unowned' space is admirable, but never gonna happen. Human beings are greedy little b****rds, depressingly so. Matter of fact, I'll throw money on the fact that the argument of "who gets to own the moon" will be the start of WWIII.

The only way to achieve such a feat is to have a morally sane, united earth government. The only way I can ever see that happening in my lifetime involves nuclear weapons. Daring to assume that someone pulls the trigger and what comes out of the ashes is a united planet (I still dare say good luck), then there's a chance we could have a shred of respect for other planets.

I think the most realistic option right now is a policy of "your base is your base, nothing more." Nobody would own planets, or land, or anything outside of hardware they sent themselves once you slip earth's atmosphere.

[prophet_01]

My question would be: what could nation A do if nation B starts to mine a claim on the moon or an asteroid? What if the mined rare earths or fuel for orbital stations/ships (just for example) get sold to others? The question of ownership, property and legal profits aren't that clear. If you just stick to the treaty my best guess would be that it's not allowed to gain profit as a country or enterprise. But I doubt that anyone would have a reason to react with serious consequences. We aren't at the point when resources in space matter. It all comes down to limited amounts of resources, being it ore, water or simply a good place for a station/colony/whatever.

I think it will develop in a similar way as the market for geostationary satelites did. Nowadays there are rules on where you are allowed to place a satelite (yes the space up there is actually limited, funny enough). Sooner or later there has to be another regulation. The number of organisations that have acces to space right now is very limited anyway and they all come from countries that already work and communicate with each other on many different aspects.

My bet is on a big table with maps and people arguing about what they think is already theire teritory But tbh there is currently nothing up there to justify much more than the regular prestige struggle

[StrandedonEarth]

The "Red Mars / Green Mars / Blue Mars" by Kim Stanley Robinson (IIRC) has an interesting take on how cultures could affect Mars colonization.

Space is huge, and so is the amount of real estate on the Moon. There should be little need to fight over a rock. The South Pole craters are an exception, as the only known spot on the Moon with significant amounts of water.

[Jovus]

Whoever gets to the Moon first with enough mining equipment (and has the balls to use it) wins. But then, I don't think we'll ever actually see a permanent Moon colony.

[RainDreamer]

I think it would once again be a race for land. "First come first serve" again. So any nation with the technology to get as much stuff up there and squat on as much land as possible will be the one owning majority of land. Unless we have some kind of dramatic paradigm change that abolish nations and unite us into "humankind" (like contact with another intelligent life form), it won't be much different than Earth, no matter where we go.

[Karriz]

There probably won't be any kind of formal ownership at first. Different countries and corporations will set up their own colonies, there's plenty of space for everyone. Some of them will work together while some will be more independent.

After a while, I think the ties to Earth will weaken as the colonies become more self-sufficient. It will be completely up to them how they want to govern themselves. Working together with different nationalities would make sense, especially in harsh conditions of Mars. I doubt there would be any big war over it, nobody would win.

[Louella]

Old sci-fi is full of stuff exploring this issue.

One of the examples is a mining colony on the moon declaring independence from Earth. Earth responds with warships. The miners use their mining equipment (mass drivers) to bombard Earth in return.

As soon as a population is capable of existing without continued support from Earth, there is going to be some move towards establishing independence.

One of the other things that is explored in some old sci-fi, is "claim-jumping". Nation A sends a ship towards Planet X, with the intent to claim it as an annexe to Nation A. Nation B gets wind of this plan, and sends a faster ship, lands and establishes a colony on X, before the arrival of A's ship.

This causes problems - Nation B has claimed the whole planet, by virtue of establishing the first colony, while Nation A's colonists, probably won't be able to just turn around - lack of supplies, or health issues with re-entering cryosleep, or whatever - so also have to land on Planet X. Sometimes this escalates into war, both on planet X and on Earth.

[StrandedonEarth]

It's a delicate balance. People have to be willing to share without getting greedy about it. It's far too easy to destroy so that no one can have "it," whatever it is

[Kryten]

If you just stick to the treaty my best guess would be that it's not allowed to gain profit as a country or enterprise.

Corporations selling mined resources is definitely legal under the treaty; this has been tested. NPO Lavochkin auctioned off some lunar soil samples returned by soviet probes.

[flashcactus]

The "Red Mars / Green Mars / Blue Mars" by Kim Stanley Robinson (IIRC) has an interesting take on how cultures could affect Mars colonization.

Wanted to mention the mars trilogy myself. Also, 2312 by the same author.

[Nibb31]

One of the examples is a mining colony on the moon declaring independence from Earth. Earth responds with warships. The miners use their mining equipment (mass drivers) to bombard Earth in return.

Which is why nations will probably never venture into 17th Century colonialization again. It was a stupid strategy that hardly ended well for any of the colonizing countries.

Why would the US Government (or any other national entity) fund self-sufficient colonies on another planet, when those colonies would eventually end-up claiming independance ? It's a no-win situation and would be strategically idiotic.

[Frozen_Heart]

Why would the US Government (or any other national entity) fund self-sufficient colonies on another planet, when those colonies would eventually end-up claiming independance ? It's a no-win situation and would be strategically idiotic.

I agree with this. A government would gain no advantage from setting up a colony. If it wasn't self sufficient then maybe but the second it no longer depends on Earth then they are just pouring money down a sinkhole that isn't going to be given back to them.

[worir4]

Maybe the colony will declare independence from it's mother nation and come back and attack Earth....

[Sirrobert]

Which is why nations will probably never venture into 17th Century colonialization again. It was a stupid strategy that hardly ended well for any of the colonizing countries.

Why would the US Government (or any other national entity) fund self-sufficient colonies on another planet, when those colonies would eventually end-up claiming independance ? It's a no-win situation and would be strategically idiotic.

That's why corporations are going to be doing it. And setting up juicy trade contracts that support the colony in it's early years, and rake in big bucks once it's become a full fledged nations.

Offcourse, these would be multi generational plans, so they'd require a big change in corporate structure

[Nibb31]

Yeah, wake me up when corporations start planning beyond the next few quarters.

[Frozen_Heart]

Yeah, wake me up when corporations start planning beyond the next few quarters.

All it takes is a single one to be successful...

If just one company looks far enough ahead to set things up and turn a profit on the long term, others will follow suite, if only to limit the others influence.

I suspect it will happen eventually. However waiting for a company proactive enough to come along is a completely random interval of time. It could be a few years, it could be a thousand.

[Louella]

That's why corporations are going to be doing it. And setting up juicy trade contracts that support the colony in it's early years, and rake in big bucks once it's become a full fledged nations.

Offcourse, these would be multi generational plans, so they'd require a big change in corporate structure

Well, once the colony is self-sufficient, what stops them from declaring independence, and renegotiating the trade contracts to suit them, rather than the corporation that initially set it up ?

That's a thing that occurs in other sci-fi. Independence for colonists who refuse to be subservient employees, and rebel.

Just like if a national government set up the colony, once it's self-sufficient, then there'll be a push, to ensure that the colonists are the ones who benefit the most, not the government or corporation that set it up.

And what happens then ?

[Frozen_Heart]

And what happens then

If they're self sufficient then we can do sweet FA.

[Rakaydos]

Well, once the colony is self-sufficient, what stops them from declaring independence, and renegotiating the trade contracts to suit them, rather than the corporation that initially set it up ?

That's a thing that occurs in other sci-fi. Independence for colonists who refuse to be subservient employees, and rebel.

Just like if a national government set up the colony, once it's self-sufficient, then there'll be a push, to ensure that the colonists are the ones who benefit the most, not the government or corporation that set it up.

And what happens then ?

Just because a colony is self sufficent, doesnt mean it stops being a market for exports. If SpaceX builds a mars base, then sells transportation to and from it, it doesnt matter if mars is independant, as spaceX will get a share of all the import/export buisness the martians set up.

[Sirrobert]

Well, once the colony is self-sufficient, what stops them from declaring independence, and renegotiating the trade contracts to suit them, rather than the corporation that initially set it up ?

That's a thing that occurs in other sci-fi. Independence for colonists who refuse to be subservient employees, and rebel.

Just like if a national government set up the colony, once it's self-sufficient, then there'll be a push, to ensure that the colonists are the ones who benefit the most, not the government or corporation that set it up.

And what happens then ?

Where in my story am I talking about dependance? The colony is already independantly governed. But the corporation owns most industries on the planet (because it funded the development).

So it'll be like BP or whatever owning the entire oil industry in some Middle Eastern country.

What's stopping the planet from kicking them out? The same thing that's stopping said Middle Eastern country from kicking BP out.

Edited January 21, 2015 by Sirrobert

[Nitrous Oxide]

Whatever happens, there'd better be space pirates. I'd be sorely disappointed in humanity if it was all a lie.