Science
Related: About this forumU.S. Space Mining Law Is Potentially Dangerous And Illegal:
U.S. Space Mining Law Is Potentially Dangerous And Illegal: How Asteroid Mining Act May Violate International TreatyUS companies like it but
But some lawyers and experts voiced potential conflict between the Act and the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, which declares points such as states shall avoid harmful contamination of space and celestial bodies, and that celestial bodies and outer space in general are not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means.
Planetary Resources President and Chief Engineer Chris Lewicki himself said a number of investors expressed concerns about the issue.
Professor Ram Jakhu from the Institute of Air and Space Law at McGill University thought of the U.S. Space Act as directly violating the treaty, as it allows states, private firms, or international organizations to appropriate natural space resources.
Dr. Gbenga Oduntan of University of Kent, an international commercial law expert, said that it can be assumed that the list of states with access to outer space will grow from the current dozen or so, and institute their own space mining programs.
That means that the pristine conditions of the cradle of nature from which our own Earth was born may become irrevocably altered forever - making it harder to trace how we came into being, he wrote, warning that once celestial bodies are contaminated with earthly microbes, humans chances of discovering alien life could be ruined.
Dr. Oduntan added that space mining could also potentially damage the environment surrounding Earth and eventually result in resource-centered conflict.
more
http://www.techtimes.com/articles/111534/20151128/u-s-space-mining-law-is-potentially-dangerous-and-illegal-how-asteroid-mining-act-may-violate-international-treaty.htm
nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)that's not going to end well.
lastlib
(23,251 posts)No--it WON'T end well. I thought it would run afoul of the '67 Treaty.
qazplm
(3,626 posts)to get rid of all the primordial stuff floating out there to "trace how we came into being."
Second, I don't think/understand how "contaminating" a lifeless hunk of rock with microbes is a bad thing. Should we not expand to Mars because we might "contaminate" that planet?
Expand or die humanity, we can't stay on Earth forever.
Yes I know, some of you actively look forward to humanity dying out, but the rest of us, resources are going to be necessary and the planet we are on now does not contain an infinite stock of them.
If you think conflict comes from resources, then what do you think comes from a lack of resources?
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)Remember that plaque on the moon? It doesn't say private corporations.
Its say for all of mankind.
This should be ''an earth' thing and not shareholders, sure develop it
but the bill doesn't give that Its like the international banksters running things.
xocet
(3,871 posts)If that is your initial assumption, that is the problem with your thinking and understanding.