Lunar property rights: buy me to the moon - FT中文网
登录×
电子邮件/用户名
密码
记住我
请输入邮箱和密码进行绑定操作:
请输入手机号码,通过短信验证(目前仅支持中国大陆地区的手机号):
请您阅读我们的用户注册协议隐私权保护政策,点击下方按钮即视为您接受。
FT商学院

Lunar property rights: buy me to the moon

If you can buy a home in the metaverse, why not on the moon?

If you can buy a home in the metaverse, why not on the moon? The heavenly body has already hosted visitors, played a key role in earthly geopolitics and may be home to untold mineral treasures. Traffic jams, collisions and debris all point to outer space facing some of the issues that bedevil planet earth. High time, reckons the neoliberal Adam Smith Institute, to consider privatisation.

This is a long shot, to put it mildly. As things stand, the moon — like other celestial bodies — cannot be appropriated by any sovereign or militia, under the Outer Space Treaty it is the “province of all mankind”. Changing that would require international consensus and a mindset shift rather too grand for a world struggling with earthly borders and reappraising globalisation.

Virtually every country has lunar ambitions but the big muscle comes from the US, Russia and China, an uneasy set of bedfellows at the best of times. Increasingly, space is in the sights of individuals who have amassed earthly wealth: Elon Musk, Amazon’s Jeff Bezos and Virgin founder Richard Branson, among others. That illustrates the shift in motivations, from national pride to financial incentives. The global space economy was worth an estimated £270bn in 2019 and is projected to almost double to £490bn by the end of this decade.

There would be losers too from a carve-up that allotted parcels to the modern equivalent of 16th century colonisers. Imagine a sovereign controlling not just a gas pipeline but entire communications. The UK has estimated that blocked access to global navigation satellite systems for just five days could cost the country £5.2bn. Consider too that the triumvirate of countries leading the way have vastly different ideas about both property and human rights.

Rebecca Lowe, the author of the paper, proposes getting round this with temporary and conditional ownership of plots. Owners, more akin to long term renters, could not hand their plots down from generation to generation.

Because rent cannot be paid to the man in the moon, a philanthropic fund would take the money and redistribute it into areas of common good such as conservation, say, or scientific endeavours.

Plenty of critics see this as about as likely as chunks of moon going on sale at the local fromagerie. But precisely because humanity has made such a hash of carving up the earth, it is a worthwhile debate to start.

版权声明:本文版权归FT中文网所有,未经允许任何单位或个人不得转载,复制或以任何其他方式使用本文全部或部分,侵权必究。

战略利益刺激海湾地区可再生能源支出

阿联酋和沙特阿拉伯引领该地区努力减少对石油和天然气的依赖。

2024年清洁技术投资有望达到2万亿美元

但这一支出仍不到2030年代初实现净零排放目标所需估计水平的一半。

非洲是否应该用化石燃料支持绿色转型?

支持继续使用化石燃料的人说,这是非洲大陆实现工业化的唯一途径。

Lex专栏:空客展示了双头垄断力量的局限性

这家欧洲集团并不能从竞争对手波音的困境中获利。

埃克森美孚巨型项目或将造就世界最后的石油国

批评人士担心,石油资源将使圭亚那成为“资源诅咒”的受害者。

欧洲极右翼崛起后,投资者面临的真正风险是什么?

梅勒:如果断定法国正处于经济灾难的边缘,那就太极端了。但在法国国家和欧盟层面都存在风险,可能会对企业和市场造成长期影响。
设置字号×
最小
较小
默认
较大
最大
分享×