Lunar property rights: buy me to the moon - FT中文網
登錄×
電子郵件/用戶名
密碼
記住我
請輸入郵箱和密碼進行綁定操作:
請輸入手機號碼,透過簡訊驗證(目前僅支援中國大陸地區的手機號):
請您閱讀我們的用戶註冊協議私隱權保護政策,點擊下方按鈕即視爲您接受。
FT商學院

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.

版權聲明:本文版權歸FT中文網所有,未經允許任何單位或個人不得轉載,複製或以任何其他方式使用本文全部或部分,侵權必究。

和平協議的藝術

美國和俄羅斯之間的談判能否就烏克蘭問題達成持久的解決方案?歷史學家瑪格麗特•麥克米倫認爲,目前的跡象並不樂觀。

詹姆斯•邦德:屬於美國的英國間諜

伊恩•弗萊明的虛構作品,對英國情報機構來說既是福音又是負擔,如今將由科技巨擘亞馬遜來重新定義。

曼聯正在處理錯誤的問題

十年來積累的體育失敗如今正在衝擊俱樂部的盈虧底線。

政治學家比約恩•隆堡:『你不能在所有事情上都花錢』

這位「持懷疑態度的環保主義者」曾利用成本效益分析來反對減排。現在,他將注意力轉向了海外援助。

建立了一個隱祕全球房地產帝國的孟加拉政治家

賽福扎曼•喬杜裏和他的家人在海外購買了482處房產,花費了2.95億美元。新政府希望收回其中的一部分資金。

脫碳的自私指南

新的研究表明,即使美國對全球協議完全不感興趣,仍然會看到減少排放帶來的成本效益。
設置字型大小×
最小
較小
默認
較大
最大
分享×