Who do you think should regulate Space ?

[Brian Ellis]

"My utopian ideal..."

[Dr Mordrid]

Utopia from theGreek: οὐ no, and τόπος, place, i.e. "no place" or "place that does not exist"

At best escapism, at worst an imposed dystopia because one mans utopia is more likely than not another mans prison. See "Brave New World", "Fahrenheit 451", "Tunesmith" or "Demolition Man's" undercurrents, minus the comedy.

Personally I'm with Edgar Friendly;

You see, according to Cocteau's (Utopian!) plan I'm the enemy, 'cause I like to think; I like to read. I'm into freedom of speech and freedom of choice. I'm the kind of guy likes to sit in a greasy spoon and wonder - "Gee, should I have the T-bone steak or the jumbo rack of barbecued ribs with the side order of gravy fries?" I WANT high cholesterol. I wanna eat bacon and butter and BUCKETS of cheese, okay? I want to smoke Cuban cigar the size of Cincinnati in the non-smoking section. I want to run through the streets naked with green jello all over my body reading playboy magazine. Why? Because I suddenly might feel the need to, okay, pal? I've SEEN the future. Do you know what it is? It's a 47-year-old virgin sitting around in his beige pajamas, drinking a banana-broccoli shake, singing "I'm an Oscar Meyer Wiener".

Save your utopia for your afterlife.

I want the right, and the means to protect myself and my nation from utopians and dystopians (not much difference IMO) where ever they may tred; on land, sea, air and in space.

[ND66]

Aliens!!!!!!!

Because human beings can’t agree on anything!

Just read any post from the whole MURC Forum, except for the one titled “Happy Birthday”…… .

.

[cjolley]

...The rules should be the same as on the high seas.

What would be the vertical territorial limit?

I'm not sure a model on the law of the seas would be a good one.
Indonesian pirates are not much concern to America.
The equivalent in space would be.
In fact, everything that happens in space is just about everyones concern.

Who or what would enforce regulations of space?


PS @ND66: I disagree.

[ND66]

PS @ND66: I disagree.

LOL!

Of course!

Would I even dare to expect otherwise?



.

[schmosef]

"My utopian ideal..."

Hey Brian, it's my ideal too. I wasn't criticizing it. I'm just wondering how it could ever be achieved.

[GT98]

Hey Brian, it's my ideal too. I wasn't criticizing it. I'm just wondering how it could ever be achieved.

Never, its just human nature...as for changing that, well I dont think we can.

[Jessterw]

I'm more worried about what happens when the aliens show up

[ND66]

I'm more worried about what happens when the aliens show up

Not much, except for lots of slapping on the forehead and pulling on the ears…. .

Know what I’m talking about?
.

[schmosef]

Not much, except for lots of slapping on the forehead and pulling on the ears…. .

Know what I’m talking about?
.

no

[Jon P. Inghram]

I can't believe nobody has mentioned the obvious choice, the Federation!

Seriously, until humanity as a whole becomes more "civilized," the high seas version is probably the most realistic one.

[lowlifecat]

Outer Space Treaty

Outer Space Treaty

The Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies also known as the Outer Space Treaty (the Treaty), was opened for signature in the United States, the United Kingdom, and the Soviet Union (the three depository governments) on January 27, 1967, and the Treaty entered into force on October 10, 1967. As of January 2006, 98 countries are states-parties to the treaty, while another 27 have signed the treaty but have not yet completed ratification.
The Outer Space Treaty represents the basic legal framework of international space law and, among its principles, it bars States Parties to the Treaty from placing nuclear weapons or any other weapons of mass destruction in orbit of Earth, installing them on the Moon or any other celestial body, or to otherwise station them in outer space. It exclusively limits the use of the Moon and other celestial bodies to peaceful purposes and expressly prohibits their use for testing weapons of any kind, conducting military manoeuvers, or establishing military bases, installations, and fortifications (Art.IV). However, the Treaty does not expressly prohibit the placement or use of weapons in orbit, so long as they are for peaceful purposes. It does explicitly forbid any government from claiming a celestial resource such as the Moon or a planet since they are common heritage of humanity. Art. II of the Treaty states, in fact, that “[o]uter space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means.”.

██ signed and ratified ██ signed only


Article VI of the Outer Space Treaty deals indeed with international responsibility, stating that "[t]he activities of non-governmental entities in outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, shall require authorization and continuing supervision by the appropriate State Party to the Treaty" and that States Parties shall bear international responsibility for national space activities whether carried out by governmental or non-governmental entities.
Following discussions arising from Project West Ford, a consultation clause was inserted in Article IX of the Outer Space Treaty: "A State Party to the Treaty which has reason to believe that an activity or experiment planned by another State Party in outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, would cause potentially harmful interference with activities in the peaceful exploration and use of outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, may request consultation concerning the activity or experiment."

[Brian Ellis]

The trouble is that civilisation is relative and ephemeral. The Greek philosophers and poets believed they were civilised and Alexander's armed branch likewise. The Romans thought their Empire was civilised, with gladiatorial combats, crucifixions etc. The Brits took their brand of civilisation to where the sun never set, while the Franch civilised Europe and North Africa. Lenin civilised Tsarist Russia, just as Hitler did for the Third Reich. Today, the UK and the US are civilising Afghanistan and Iraq. The very word 'civilisation' has come to mean the imposition of foreign ideals by force. This is why it is ephemeral. Force can never be permanent and, as soon as it weakens, so do the ideals that accompany it. I don't think any civilisation has lasted more than about six generations without some radical change. This is why the UN can hardly do better than it does. In Soviet days, Kruschev wanted to impose his civilisation on it. Today, Bush is attempting to do the same. You mark my words, in 10 or 15 years from now, it will become a puppet of China. None of these attempts have been/are/will be very successful; it will always be the Disunited Nations, by its very nature. Where it is useful is that it is a forum towards moderation of extremist views.

You talk about a Federation. Maybe a Confederation could be envisageable in a century or so, but the UN would have to undergo very radical changes in its structure for this to happen. A federation would have too much central power over sovereign nations and would be resented. Malaysia may be a confederation to ponder upon as it combines over a dozen states, some of which are kingdoms and some are republics. The central political power lies in an elected parliament and each kingdom/state has its own parliament. It is perhaps too centric, at the moment, like the USA and the EU, but this is weakening as the personality of Dr M (PM for decades) is fading. What is interesting is that the kings elect from among themselves the Federal head-of-state, in rotation, so that the country is unique in having an elected king with a prescribed term of office!

Utopia may be an unattainable ideal. Aldous Huxley and George Orwell satirised the notion, as did Samuel Butler's Erewhon a generation before them, not to mention Gulliver's Travels before that. If world peace is to be attained, it requires a global change of mindset. I believe that it may become possible only if the individual is at peace with himself. In my wide travels, I have been very impressed by the mindset of Buddhist monks who seem to approach this ideal of inner peace. Even though he is a political figure, this shines through, to some extent, in the Dalai Lama. It needs men like him to lead the nations (and the United Nations), men who have no notion of self. Maybe it should be mandatory for every national leader to take office two years after election, those two years being mandatorily spent in a Buddhist monastery, living on alms, and learning inner peace. It might help to cut them down to size.

[ND66]

no

THIS post should explain.

.

[ZokesPro]

Who do you think should regulate Space ?

It doesn't matter who when you compared what happened in the past versus what's probably going to happen in the future. Generally speaking, but on a larger scale.