Excellently put - the idea of every trive and sect to suddenly lay claim to our greatest objective in the near term is ludicrous.
Interestingly, one of the first questions I get from more materially minded people who lack a technical beckground, is whether mining the Moon wouldn't change its mass so much that tides and our orbits would be altered. An innocent and well intentioned question, to be sure, but I cannot but draw some kind of thread between it and the Navajo claim.
Preservation can't stand in the way of progress, but preserving the Apollo 11 landing site seems a no brainer. If we destroy the place where a human being first set foot on another celestial body we can never get that back.
"With the defensive preamble about not turning back the clock, the author demands a pause on actual development. There is no real logic here - it is simply someone with a desire to veto something they don’t like grabbing an improvised rhetorical weapon."
Almost right. It's someone who likes to veto things for the sake of it, because it makes them feel powerful to prevent their betters from acting in the world, scenting an excuse to flex. We've given them every reason to believe they'll get their way, too, because we continue treating them like people worth noticing.
I couldn't care less if someone disturbs Neil Armstrong's footprints on the moon. Set up a memorial on the site of the moon landing if it's important to you. Make a cast of the prints and display it in a museum if you want. But why would anyone expect or want footprints in moondust to endure for posterity? They're destined to disappear anyway, as the moon gets pelted with meteorites and accumulates more dust. Why recognize anyone's exclusive claims to the moon, whether Navajo, Chinese, Americans, or anyone else?
Excellently put - the idea of every trive and sect to suddenly lay claim to our greatest objective in the near term is ludicrous.
Interestingly, one of the first questions I get from more materially minded people who lack a technical beckground, is whether mining the Moon wouldn't change its mass so much that tides and our orbits would be altered. An innocent and well intentioned question, to be sure, but I cannot but draw some kind of thread between it and the Navajo claim.
Preservation can't stand in the way of progress, but preserving the Apollo 11 landing site seems a no brainer. If we destroy the place where a human being first set foot on another celestial body we can never get that back.
"With the defensive preamble about not turning back the clock, the author demands a pause on actual development. There is no real logic here - it is simply someone with a desire to veto something they don’t like grabbing an improvised rhetorical weapon."
Almost right. It's someone who likes to veto things for the sake of it, because it makes them feel powerful to prevent their betters from acting in the world, scenting an excuse to flex. We've given them every reason to believe they'll get their way, too, because we continue treating them like people worth noticing.
I couldn't care less if someone disturbs Neil Armstrong's footprints on the moon. Set up a memorial on the site of the moon landing if it's important to you. Make a cast of the prints and display it in a museum if you want. But why would anyone expect or want footprints in moondust to endure for posterity? They're destined to disappear anyway, as the moon gets pelted with meteorites and accumulates more dust. Why recognize anyone's exclusive claims to the moon, whether Navajo, Chinese, Americans, or anyone else?
Not to worry. Armstrong’s footprints have been carefully preserved in that studio, known on television as the lunar surface.
Wait what? Kinda scooping with a big spoon there...places in the universe? Which ones exactly?