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。

美国和沙特的伙伴关系是如何修补的?

拜登上任之初曾扬言要让沙特王国成为一个被厌弃的国家。但在动荡不安的中东,他们的关系比以往任何时候都更加紧密。

Z世代引领金融硕士课程的复兴

科技行业裁员让寻找高薪商业职业的年轻人转向金融业。
1天前

英国央行会发出即将降息的信号吗?

《市场问题》是英国《金融时报》对未来一周的指南。
2天前

印度颁布出口禁令后巴基斯坦大米出口量创下纪录

这对于面对两位数通胀和经济增长乏力的巴基斯坦来说是一个好消息。

美国高管薪酬以14年来最快速度增长

数据显示,2024年迄今,标普500成分股公司首席执行官的薪酬中值上升了12%。

更少的肉和更少的新场馆:奥运会是如何努力走向绿色的

巴黎奥运组织者承诺将温室气体排放量从伦敦和里约的水平减少一半。
设置字号×
最小
较小
默认
较大
最大
分享×