REM%IMSSS@SU-AI.ARPA (Robert Elton Maas) (11/04/86)
In regard to the "Moon Treaty" and related issues of preserving
astronomical bodies in their native condition rather than "pollute"
them with human activities... Although most comparisons between Earth
(early pioneers destroying bison and native americans) and Moon show
that we really don't have to worry about the Moon because there's no
native life to destroy, the following election measure may be of
interest, on the ballot this November 4 in San Mateo County, California:
It is supposed to be for preserving coastal and other agricultural
lands from urban encrochment, but observe the following passages:
8.7 Ridgelines and Hilltops
a. Prohibit the location of new development on ridgelines and
hilltops unless there is no other buildable area on the parcel.
c. Restrict the height of structures to prevent their projction
above ridgeline or hilltop silhouettes.
8.17 Alterations of Landforms
Minimize the visual degration of natural landforms caused by cutting,
filling, or grading for building sites, access roads, or public
utilities by:
a. Concentrating development so that steep hillsides may be left
undisturbed.
b. Requiring structures to be designed to fit hillsides rather than
altering the landform to accommodate buildings designed for lval sites.
c. Prohibiting new development which requires grading, cutting, or
filling that would substantially alter or destroy the appearance
of natural landforms.
Imagine if a similar measure were law for building habitat and
manufacturing facilities on and mining the Moon and asteroids?
Wouldn't it put a bit of a cramp on activities? Question: Is natural
topography so valuable to preserve that such a cramp is desirable? Or
is this sheer folly which precludes industrial progress? If such
measures are enacted on Earth, will similar measures follow on other
planets moons and asteroids where they could as easily apply?