Slashdot Mirror


Scottish Academic: Mining the Moon For Helium 3 Is Evil

MarkWhittington writes "Tony Milligan is a teaching fellow of philosophy at the University of Aberdeen and is apparently concerned about helium 3 mining on the moon. In a recent paper he suggested that it should not be allowed for a number of reasons which include environmental objections, his belief that the moon is a cultural artifact, and that too much access to energy would be bad for the human race."

37 of 462 comments (clear)

  1. Useless academic is useless. by jcr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is probably the most publicity that Milligan will ever have in his life.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    1. Re:Useless academic is useless. by noh8rz10 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Ali G [talking to Buzz Aldrin]: People have been arguing about this for years, and I want to bring it up here and settle the issue once and for all - does the moon really exist?

    2. Re:Useless academic is useless. by wagnerrp · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Environmental objections... What environment? It's the god damned Moon. It's a lifeless near-vacuum.

      Cultural objections... Culture has admired the Moon from afar. Helium-3 mining collects helium produced by billions of years of bombardment from solar wind. That means it only exists on the surface. You're not going to notice any difference between today's Moon, and a Moon mined of its helium.

      Too much access to energy would be bad... Seriously, just go fuck off.

    3. Re:Useless academic is useless. by mdenham · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Aside from that declaring it "evil" is specifically a move to shut off debate?

      It's an intentionally bad choice of words on his part, designed to garner publicity and be entirely unproductive. Referring to it as "bad" still allows room for the debate to exist - it puts him specifically on one side of it, but that's fine - whereas referring to it as "evil" shifts it from a "should we do this or not" debate to a debate about morality, which, honestly, is not what a debate about mining anything should be about.

      For what it's worth, I agree with two of the three terms you're using to describe mining the moon (the point of disagreement being "completely futile", as I'd like to see advancements in automated mining technology, which would have uses down here in the old gravity well).

    4. Re:Useless academic is useless. by real-modo · · Score: 5, Informative

      Thanks. Two good paragraphs.

      Current global power consumption, 15 TW, is enough to raise the surface temperature by something the order of a hundredth of a degree. So if we used 10,000 times as much energy as we do now, it could be bad.

      Agreed, that's not an immediate prospect; and there are five and a half billion people who need more cheap energy.

    5. Re:Useless academic is useless. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Informative

      Too much access to energy would be bad...

      And even this is ignoring that fact that we have no idea how get net energy from fusing He3. Fusing deuterium and tritium is orders of magnitude easier, and we are decades away from achieving even that. I don't think we really need to worry about a massive moon based industry mining something that is more or less useless. Someday the Sun will supernova. Maybe he should worry about that instead. It is a more immediate concern.

    6. Re:Useless academic is useless. by the+gnat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What exactly is wrong with the proposition that mining Helium-3 on the moon is evil

      Seriously? How about the fact that it privileges an inanimate, lifeless celestial body over the development and happiness of the human race? Most environmental concerns focus on the danger (and immorality) of fucking up biospheres, but the moon has never supported life, and never will (unless we alter it even more radically).

    7. Re:Useless academic is useless. by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      What exactly is wrong with the proposition that mining Helium-3 on the moon is evil

      Seriously? How about the fact that it privileges an inanimate, lifeless celestial body over the development and happiness of the human race? Most environmental concerns focus on the danger (and immorality) of fucking up biospheres, but the moon has never supported life, and never will (unless we alter it even more radically).

      So when country X goes to the moon and mines the helium, are they going to come back and distribute it to all of the world's inhabitants or does it just belong to country X? I'm curious, because before mining the moon began, it would seem that we would need to know who owns the moon? Does it belong to the first one who gets there? Does it belong equally to all people? Or will it belong to some mining company? Because if you get that first basic question wrong then potentionally everything after that becomes immoral because it infringes not on the privelige of some inaimate lifeless celestial body, but real people, here on earth. And if it is immoral, then technically one could consider it evil (although that is a strong word).

    8. Re:Useless academic is useless. by icebike · · Score: 4, Informative

      No the consumption of 15tw has raised the Global land temperatures by 1.5 degrees C over the past 250 years. (http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings)

      And most of, if not all of that effect has been due to the (at the time) unavoidable pollution, not the simple expenditure of energy.
      Helium 3 (fusion) suggests an energy approach that eliminates all of the green-house gas and pollution, leaving us with just the heat byproduct of using electrical energy. As our energy use becomes more and more efficient, even this is reduced.

      However, with lower greenhouse emissions the excess heat would just dissipate into space, with no measurable ill effect. (Well some say it will balloon the gas envelop a tiny bit).

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    9. Re:Useless academic is useless. by the+gnat · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So when country X goes to the moon and mines the helium, are they going to come back and distribute it to all of the world's inhabitants or does it just belong to country X? I'm curious, because before mining the moon began, it would seem that we would need to know who owns the moon? Does it belong to the first one who gets there? Does it belong equally to all people? Or will it belong to some mining company?

      I have no idea, but I think it's ultimately just an academic exercise. If a single country is able to immediately leap from initial mining operations on the moon to total dominance of the entire surface before anyone else can even start, that implies such an advanced level of technology that the rest of the world would be grovelling at their feet anyway.

    10. Re:Useless academic is useless. by z0idberg · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Energy mined on the moon doesn't necessarily have to be used within Earths atmosphere either.

    11. Re:Useless academic is useless. by Jarik+C-Bol · · Score: 4, Funny

      So mine on the far side of the moon. Unlike popular myth, it is NOT always dark on the far side of the moon, and we never see it from earth anyways, so you could strip mine off the entire far side and never notice it from earth. (now THAT would be an amusing thing to do as an interstellar culture. Go leave huge markings on the far side of a tidally locked bodies around a inhabited world, then hang around and see how long it takes them to notice.)

      --
      I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
    12. Re:Useless academic is useless. by Albanach · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Aside from that declaring it "evil" is specifically a move to shut off debate?

      You realize that 'evil' is the /. heaadline, not the paper title. Indeed the paper itself doesn't appear to use the word. The article itself seems much more balanced than the article summary would like to make out.

      For example, here's the start of the conclusion:

      What this leaves us with is, on the one hand, the significant terrestrial advantages of abundant and comparatively clean energy (assuming that a comparatively clean form of fusion can be made to generate more power than it consumes) and, on the other hand, a duty to extend life (or human life) which might be served by the lure of this unique resource and by the terrestrial breathing space that a better kind of energy production could offer us. If we do mine the Moon it will, no doubt, help to equip us as we extend our reach and attempt to improve our survival chances. However, with regard to terrestrial benefits all is not so simple as it may seem. Access to new forms of energy production are likely to open pathways to terrestrial harm as well as pathways towards a healing of the planet (or to the healing of our seriously-fractured and power-hungry societies). Eco-minded critics, with whom I am broadly in sympathy, who argue that we already have more energy than we can handle without causing terrestrial damage may have a point. Such damage has, up to the present, resulted not just from the limitations of existing fuels but from their inappropriate usage. A change of fuel source may make some of us more powerful but it is unlikely to make us any wiser.

      It's a lot less dramatic than simply claiming such mining is wrong in absolute terms.

    13. Re:Useless academic is useless. by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Milligan prefers the term "ethically problematic." He doesn't actually use the word "evil" in the paper. Only Mark Whittington, blogger extraordinaire, dares make the connection.

    14. Re:Useless academic is useless. by mdenham · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Good point (and one that basically points out that Mr. Whittington is the one attempting to shut off debate, in this case by basically implying Milligan is a fucking loony).

      That said, the author of the paper is still just wanking at best. :-) To point at one particular issue with his conclusion: the argument from "eco-minded critics" he claims sympathy with that we have more energy than we can handle without causing damage is an argument brought from ignorance at best and from willful intent to send humanity back to the Dark Ages at worst.

      Basically, the issue is not that we need to necessarily reduce our energy usage, but that we need to improve our methods of handling energy production - which is something the critics he's referring to would find a ghastly prospect, having entrenched interests in making negative predictions about humanity.

      And, of course, the implication in his conclusion that because there are risks, an action is not worth taking... well, I find that attitude ethically problematic as without risks, you stunt the potential of humanity.

    15. Re:Useless academic is useless. by BlueStrat · · Score: 5, Insightful

      there are five and a half billion people who need more cheap energy.

      Need? Or want?

      Nobody "needs" a longer and healthier life, adequate food, or any of the thousands and thousands of other benefits of affordable energy that makes modern civilization possible.

      We didn't even "need" to pick up that jawbone as the black monolith "suggested".

      Just a thought, though; Higher energy costs affect the poorest first and to the greatest degree in a negative way. The reverse is also true.

      Want to see more people existing above poverty/starvation levels?

      Lower energy costs.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    16. Re:Useless academic is useless. by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 4, Funny

      But most of the backwards nations are miserably hot. If they had cheap power they would be using it largely for A/C, which everyone knows cools down the local environment.

      --
      This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
  2. ...a cultural what!? by Penguinisto · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Seriously - does this guy have any clue as to how frickin' BIG the Moon is? You could carve a hole in it the size of New York City and it would barely be noticeable. You could carve out the entire dark side of the Moon and no one would ever see it (and misnomer aside, it gets just as much sunlight, thus He3, etc...)

    The environmental angle? Maybe if it all got brought back here, okay... having not RTFA, I hope he isn't worried about the Moon's "environment", namely because it really doesn't have one of note.

    --
    Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
  3. Well of course by roc97007 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Too much access to large amounts of cheap energy would mean that we don't continue to buy it from current sources. We can't have that.

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    1. Re:Well of course by mdenham · · Score: 3, Informative

      Taking into account assorted opportunity costs as well (including reduced productivity from pollution-related illnesses from other sources), I would say the correct answer is "yes".

    2. Re:Well of course by real-modo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Fair enough. Lots of people seem to have in mind the old "too cheap to meter" idea when they talk about fusion. I could never see that.

      I agree: fission is way cheaper than fossil energy when costs are properly apportioned, and people are rational about risk. Wish I lived in that world.

  4. Short sighted by mechtech256 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Given a long enough time frame, the human race will either inevitably fizzle out on our single planet, or move on to be an interstellar civilization for at least some period of time. If the second possibility is to happen, utilizing the moon will most certainly be a stepping stone there. Whether it's covering the surface in solar panels, mining it for helium 3, or something entirely different like simply using it as a staging area for longer range launches, we can't say, but it's virtually guaranteed that humans will be all over the moon in some capacity if they are to expand beyond our planet/solar system. On another note, the moon is a boring bland rock compared to Earth. I bet the moon is incredibly desperate for us to do something interesting on its surface... "please, let something, anything happen aside from getting smacked with another space rock and getting a 15 millionth identical crater!"

  5. lol by Lehk228 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    teaching fellow of philosophy

    sounds like the sort of individual who's opinion I certainly give a fuck about

    --
    Snowden and Manning are heroes.
  6. Thanks but no thanks. by pla · · Score: 5, Insightful

    too much access to energy would be bad for the human race.

    Ah, so the classic "we should all live in the dark and grow our own food" argument. Beautiful. Give King Ludd my warmest regards.

    Free hint, Tony - Yes, many of the energy booms of human history have come along with a variety of ills. But they have also come along with the single greatest periods of progress as well, both social and technological. The industrial revolution caused a good bit of pollution, but basically made human slavery a net loss, economically. And fusion, as a nice perk, pollutes less than fission (which we already do), which in turn pollutes less than dinofuels (which we also already do because the hippies would rather let birds - and us - die that build more fission plants).

    So in summary - Go fuck yourself, Tony. Live in the dark if you want. I like computers, and air conditioning, and cars, and concrete, and aluminum cans, and cheap plastic bottles.

  7. Re:it's puritanism by mdenham · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Eh, some of the trends are unsustainable projected into the long run.

    That said, projected into the long run, there's a 100% chance of the Earth being destroyed.

  8. Man is actually part of the universe by Beeftopia · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The elements in our bodies come from exploding stars.

    The earth coalesced from a swirling ball of gas and dust. Which had various quantities of these elements. Then yadda yadda, lifeorms started popping up. Of which man was one of the later variants.

    Man needs this fishbowl of earth to survive in the universe, just like goldfish need a fishbowl to survive in our living room. Imagine if the goldfish could get to the refrigerator.

    We're just trying to get to the refrigerator. Or maybe even go outside.

    The earth is not the center of the universe. It's a smallish planet in the solar system. It's part of the universe. Just like man. Eventually the sun will red giant. If we don't go outside - leave the womb - we're finished. A fruit that died on the vine. Seems like we should be working on that problem now.

    1. Re:Man is actually part of the universe by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The elements in our bodies come from exploding stars.

      The earth coalesced from a swirling ball of gas and dust. Which had various quantities of these elements. Then yadda yadda, lifeorms started popping up. Of which man was one of the later variants.

      Man needs this fishbowl of earth to survive in the universe, just like goldfish need a fishbowl to survive in our living room. Imagine if the goldfish could get to the refrigerator.

      We're just trying to get to the refrigerator. Or maybe even go outside.

      The earth is not the center of the universe. It's a smallish planet in the solar system. It's part of the universe. Just like man. Eventually the sun will red giant. If we don't go outside - leave the womb - we're finished. A fruit that died on the vine. Seems like we should be working on that problem now.

      And the problem if mankind dies on the vine? Are we that critical to the universe that the universe will suffer if the human race is no longer here? There are two possibilities one, there is other intelligent life in the universe or two, there is not. If there is, then we are not unique, so our loss would not be a loss at all. If there is not other intelligent life, then our loss makes no difference as what we are trying to preserve is of no use, nobody but us cares about it -- there is nobody to leave a legacy for.

      In either case, when mankind ceases to exist, our actual existence will not even have been a blink of the eye on the cosmic time scale. The Catholics say "Remember you are dust and to dust you shall return." That phrase was coined long before we knew much about the universe, but has more truth in it than many people realize. At some point in the future, the cosmic dust that created the human race will be returned to the universe. What we are will go on, in new forms, new stars, new planets, maybe even new lifeforms. But who we are will cease and there won't be anybody to care.

  9. Of course it doesn't. by sconeu · · Score: 4, Funny

    The Moon: A Ridiculous Liberal Myth

    It amazes me that so many allegedly "educated" people have fallen so quickly and so hard for a fraudulent fabrication of such laughable proportions. The very idea that a gigantic ball of rock happens to orbit our planet, showing itself in neat, four-week cycles -- with the same side facing us all the time -- is ludicrous. Furthermore, it is an insult to common sense and a damnable affront to intellectual honesty and integrity. That people actually believe it is evidence that the liberals have wrested the last vestiges of control of our public school system from decent, God-fearing Americans (as if any further evidence was needed! Daddy's Roommate? God Almighty!)

    Documentaries such as Enemy of the State have accurately portrayed the elaborate, byzantine network of surveillance satellites that the liberals have sent into space to spy on law-abiding Americans. Equipped with technology developed by Handgun Control, Inc., these satellites have the ability to detect firearms from hundreds of kilometers up. That's right, neighbors .. the next time you're out in the backyard exercising your Second Amendment rights, the liberals will see it! These satellites are sensitive enough to tell the difference between a Colt .45 and a .38 Special! And when they detect you with a firearm, their computers cross-reference the address to figure out your name, and then an enormous database housed at Berkeley is updated with information about you.

    Of course, this all works fine during the day, but what about at night? Even the liberals can't control the rotation of the Earth to prevent nightfall from setting in (only Joshua was able to ask for that particular favor!) That's where the "moon" comes in. Powered by nuclear reactors, the "moon" is nothing more than an enormous balloon, emitting trillions of candlepower of gun-revealing light. Piloted by key members of the liberal community, the "moon" is strategically moved across the country, pointing out those who dare to make use of their God-given rights at night!

    Yes, I know this probably sounds paranoid and preposterous, but consider this. Despite what the revisionist historians tell you, there is no mention of the "moon" anywhere in literature or historical documents -- anywhere -- before 1950. That is when it was initially launched. When President Josef Kennedy, at the State of the Union address, proclaimed "We choose to go to the moon", he may as well have said "We choose to go to the weather balloon." The subsequent faking of a "moon" landing on national TV was the first step in a long history of the erosion of our constitutional rights by leftists in this country. No longer can we hide from our government when the sun goes down.

    --
    General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    1. Re:Of course it doesn't. by elsuperjefe · · Score: 4, Funny

      That seems a very liberal translation & interpretation of the word of God. In the ancient Greek version of the bible the word for moon, , was also commonly used to describe a situation where a person riding in a cart would suddenly stand up, drop his breaches and bend over giving bystanders a clear view of his buttocks thereby insulting them. So while the King James edition might claim God created the moon in Genesis I submit that in fact Adam was sharing his opinion with some of the other folks who somehow magically appeared, but were not directly related to him.

    2. Re:Of course it doesn't. by lxs · · Score: 4, Funny

      It's short for True Christian's Compass and Spyglass Emporium. I prefer them to Doubtful Barry's Binocular Spectacular. Barry may be cheaper, but Christian sells better quality goods.

    3. Re:Of course it doesn't. by 91degrees · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is a repost from back in the day when trolling was a performance artform. Slasdot trolls would come up with ludicrous rants, knowing that some people would ignore them, or find them funny, but a few would take them completely seriously and argue, thus increasing the hilarity.

    4. Re:Of course it doesn't. by Psyborgue · · Score: 3, Insightful

      A troll is plausible and intended to provoke response. This is not. This is satire.

  10. Re:missed it by a mile by perpenso · · Score: 4, Insightful

    No wars of intervention to get at resources "owned" by another nation.

    But there is the old fashioned war for control of a resource. We have nice friendly agreements about scientific study and no territorial claims at the moment, however at the moment we can barely get there and there is nothing we can economically exploit. If we get to the point where there is something very valuable to exploit and one or a small number of nations can control access to it then things may change with respect to no territorial claims and free access.

    ... there is so much surface area, that it is cheaper to mine than to wage war.

    Wars/battles are sometimes fought to deny resources to someone else.

  11. Priorities by gmuslera · · Score: 4, Insightful

    We are burning all oil here, probably getting out of that not renovable resource in this century or next. And that, in just 200 years of a civilization that been around for 10000 years, from a species that exist since 1 millon years ago, and will be out for anyone/anything here in the next billon years. And is it not just an energy source, it have a lot of derivatives that will be hard/expensive/impossible in practice to get from other sources. Compared to that, the limited amount of He3 that we could bring from the moon, and in a not very fast rate, won't count a lot.

    Regarding the energy surplus, getting the same amount of energy from the sun (i.e. collectors in the desert, or satellites that somewhat beam down the energy) would have a similar effect.

    The real problem is the civilization or the current culture, not using the moon as energy source or not. The current agenda is to use everything as if would be no tomorrow (thing that will happen if we keep acting like that). If you don't fix it, the moon won't matter anyway.

  12. Talk about a proactive jumpstart by mitcheli · · Score: 3, Insightful
    I'm not really sure who to criticize here, the guy put out the research project on the reasons why we shouldn't mine the moon (Needless to say, we're probably a long way away from that). Or the guy who decided to write on how stupid it was to criticize the idea. Let's see, first we needs an economically viable method to land and return from the Moon. Next, we need that method to be capable of carrying significant weight. Then we would need the mining apparatuses necessary to work in those environments. And if memory serves, miners don't just mine anywhere, so there would needs to be substantial geological surveying to be done.

    But I have to agree, it would be a waste to use all that energy on advertisements.

    --
    Select from tblFriends where interesting >= 4;
    1. Re:Talk about a proactive jumpstart by Immerman · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Actually the plan isn't that far off. Theory wise we have pretty much everything we'd need to do economical Moon-to-Earth He3 transport today. And academics routinely look at least a few decades out when considering implications of other people's tech

      * Helium 3 is not a geological resource, it's believed to be deposited fairly uniformly on Moon's surface by the solar wind, so mining is a matter of gathering the upper layers of lunar dust and processing it to extract helium. Not without it's challenges since we would be doing it on the moon, but in principle nothing terribly complicated.

      *While getting from the Earth to the moon is challenging, the return trip is much easier. In essence once you're off the moon it's downhill all the way. Escape velocity is roughly 4.7x slower at 2.4km/s instead of 11.2km/s, which translates to about 22x less energy required. That's a *much* smaller, cheaper rocket, or even a rail gun or the like since there's negligible atmosphere to slow it down on the ascent. Aim it so that it leaves the moon on a collision course with the Earth's upper atmosphere and aerobraking allows for cheap and easy deceleration. Combined with reusable

      At present the biggest problem is that nobody yet knows how to practically generate electricity from He3-based fusion, or any fusion really. Even nasty neutron-rich deutrium fusion is still mostly theoretical, and He3 fusion has a 4x higher Coulomb barrier, which radically raises the difficulty. The only current tech I can think of that has a shot at reaching those energies is the Polywell, and that is claimed to be likely able able to do hydrogen-boron fusion relatively easily, which is a reaction much easier to efficiently extract energy from, as well as using abundant Earth-based resources.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  13. It's not Evil it is Stupid. by gargleblast · · Score: 3, Informative

    Mining the moon for helium-3 is merely stupid. (1) there are no fusion power plants, (2) helium-3 is crap fuel, and (3) there is hardly any helium-3 on the moon anyway.

    Oh and Hanlon's Razor comes to mind: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.