Jump to content
Unexplained Mysteries uses cookies. By using the site you consent to our use of cookies as per our Cookie Policy.
Close X
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
internetperson

The US owns the moon and Mars

47 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

internetperson

This is a random thought I've had knocking around my brain for some time. During debates you'll often hear Native Americans say something like whites/blacks/etc (non natives) all need to leave because we don't belong. The Natives own the land because they were there first. They basically called dibs. I don't buy this because it's just not in sync with human nature. The land itself doesn't have a say on who stays or goes, the strongest culture does. Maybe not fair but neither is life.

Either way if that is your logic, then you have to admit that the US literally owns the moon in its entirety. Mars maybe debatable, but we have a robot there so close enough.

I'm joking about the moon stuff but I'm interested on yalls thoughts on the who-owns-what matter when it comes to physical land. I don't mean just the Americas either, I mean is there such a thing as land entitlement?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
seeder

You need to know about "The Outer Space Treaty"

 

Quote

 

Under the terms of the treaty, the parties are prohibited from placing nuclear arms or other weapons of mass destruction in orbit, on the Moon, or on other bodies in space. Nations cannot claim sovereignty over the Moon or other celestial bodies. Nations are responsible for their activities in space, are liable for any damage caused by objects launched into space from their territory, and are bound to assist astronauts in distress. Their space installations and vehicles shall be open, on a reciprocal basis, to representatives of other countries, and all parties agree to conduct outer-space activities openly and in accordance with international law.

https://www.britannica.com/event/Outer-Space-Treaty


 

 

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Noteverythingisaconspiracy

The short answer is that no one owns the Moon or any other part of space.

Think of it like the oceans, nobody owns them either. You can live there, you can work there, but you can't own it. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Likely Guy

I've never heard a Native North American say that everyone else has to leave.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Setton
38 minutes ago, internetperson said:

This is a random thought I've had knocking around my brain for some time. During debates you'll often hear Native Americans say something like whites/blacks/etc (non natives) all need to leave because we don't belong. The Natives own the land because they were there first. They basically called dibs. I don't buy this because it's just not in sync with human nature. The land itself doesn't have a say on who stays or goes, the strongest culture does. Maybe not fair but neither is life.

Either way if that is your logic, then you have to admit that the US literally owns the moon in its entirety. Mars maybe debatable, but we have a robot there so close enough.

I'm joking about the moon stuff but I'm interested on yalls thoughts on the who-owns-what matter when it comes to physical land. I don't mean just the Americas either, I mean is there such a thing as land entitlement?

Then you'll have no problem with people from anywhere else in the world coming into the US regardless if paperwork, I assume? 

Their culture and determination is just stronger than yours after all. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gromdor
54 minutes ago, Likely Guy said:

I've never heard a Native North American say that everyone else has to leave.

Heh, if they said that in the beginning would we even have an America?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Taun

If you are going by the ancient tradition of landing on an "unknown shore" and claiming the land in the name of your nation - and using that as precedent... remember that (International agreements aside) when the US landed, they claimed the moon for all of mankind... Not just the US... So we "legally" surrendered the claim (going by the old tradition)...

 

And no one has landed on Mars yet (machines don't count)...

Edited by Taun
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChaosRose
21 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

Heh, if they said that in the beginning would we even have an America?

I don't think they said that. 

I remember stories of them welcoming us and helping us make it through the winter. 

And then somewhere along the line, we gave them blankets with small pox on them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
internetperson
2 hours ago, seeder said:

You need to know about "The Outer Space Treaty"

I do but for 1 it's (said treaty) not realistic and 2 the title of this thread is clickbait. I said in my original post that I was joking about the whole moon thing, I don't believe that myself. Let me rephrase: People A have lived in a land since the beginning of time. People B come to conquer it. Is this morally wrong of People B and why is this? Do People A have a god given right to the land no matter what?

1 hour ago, Setton said:

Then you'll have no problem with people from anywhere else in the world coming into the US regardless if paperwork, I assume? 

Their culture and determination is just stronger than yours after all. 

Regarding your first sentence... Of course I do. Not sure why you said this? Regarding your second sentence, can you elaborate?

1 hour ago, Taun said:

If you are going by the ancient tradition of landing on an "unknown shore" and claiming the land in the name of your nation - and using that as precedent... remember that (International agreements aside) when the US landed, they claimed the moon for all of mankind... Not just the US... So we "legally" surrendered the claim (going by the old tradition)...

 

And no one has landed on Mars yet (machines don't count)...

Your first sentence is wrong because he said 1 giant leap for mankind, meaning we finally made it to the moon. Sticking a flag in the ground is damning. That being said, as I said earlier I was joking. I do not think we own it.

And the latter part.... You're clearly racist against machines! How dare you sir.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
seeder
3 minutes ago, internetperson said:

I do but for 1 it's (said treaty) not realistic and 2 the title of this thread is clickbait. I said in my original post that I was joking about the whole moon thing, I don't believe that myself. Let me rephrase: People A have lived in a land since the beginning of time. People B come to conquer it. Is this morally wrong of People B and why is this?

 

The Germans tried to invade and take over other lands....were they moral in doing that?  Killing millions?    Then think of ISIS.....invaded Syria for example and imposed their ways

was that morally right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Noteverythingisaconspiracy

The first man in space was Soviet, so going by the OP logic space belongs to the Soviet Union. Since the Soviet Union isn't here anymore I guess it now belong to the 15 republics that made up the USSR. So in short Uzbekistan or Moldova have a better claim on the Moon than the US. :P

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Likely Guy
12 minutes ago, internetperson said:

I do but for 1 it's (said treaty) not realistic and 2 the title of this thread is clickbait. I said in my original post that I was joking about the whole moon thing, I don't believe that myself. Let me rephrase: People A have lived in a land since the beginning of time. People B come to conquer it. Is this morally wrong of People B and why is this? Do People A have a god given right to the land no matter what?

 

In that case you should have posted this in the philosophy part of the forum, or is your question directed specifically in regard to America?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spartan max2
1 hour ago, ChaosRose said:

I don't think they said that. 

I remember stories of them welcoming us and helping us make it through the winter. 

And then somewhere along the line, we gave them blankets with small pox on them. 

Both is true.

I think people forget that Native Americans were made up of alot of tribes. Just like any peoples each tribe responded diffrently. Some welcoming, some not so much.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
internetperson
15 minutes ago, seeder said:

The Germans tried to invade and take over other lands....were they moral in doing that?  Killing millions?    Then think of ISIS.....invaded Syria for example and imposed their ways

was that morally right?

Every civilization in the history of the world does this. Not just humans but other mammals as well. A mammal will mark its territory only to be overtaken by another. You're exactly on track though I think your kinda taking this personally.

8 minutes ago, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

The first man in space was Soviet, so going by the OP logic space belongs to the Soviet Union. Since the Soviet Union isn't here anymore I guess it now belong to the 15 republics that made up the USSR. So in short Uzbekistan or Moldova have a better claim on the Moon than the US. :P

Ahhhh damnit. US still has the Moon but I suppose we have to shell out some cash to get there.

6 minutes ago, Likely Guy said:

In that case you should have posted this in the philosophy part of the forum, or is your question directed specifically in regard to America?

You're right. I wasn't sure where to post this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Noteverythingisaconspiracy
27 minutes ago, internetperson said:

I do but for 1 it's (said treaty) not realistic and 2 the title of this thread is clickbait. I said in my original post that I was joking about the whole moon thing, I don't believe that myself. Let me rephrase: People A have lived in a land since the beginning of time. People B come to conquer it. Is this morally wrong of People B and why is this? Do People A have a god given right to the land no matter what?

I must admit that I don't get the premise here. You seems to want to discuss if something belongs to the original inhabitants or not. Since space doesn't have any original inhabitants the discussion is pretty pointless isn't it ?

Edited by Noteverythingisaconspiracy
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quiXilver

Hehehehe.  No one 'owns' land. 

No one even owns their own body, or mind. 

When was the last time you could stop your hair from growing? 

Or cease your mind from perpetual thinking?

 

No one owns anything... :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pallidin

Me thinks the reason the answer to the question is somewhat difficult is because there are actually 2 answers.

In times past, it was considered beneficial and morally acceptable to "conquer" land, areas and peoples.

"The stronger nation has the right to overtake the weak", so it was felt.

Nowadays this sentiment does not hold very well.

But, it still occurs from time-to-time. For example Russia wishing back parts of the Soviet Union. China, claiming ownership of the contested waters, Russia, hinting at laying claim to certain neutral arctic areas (for oil resources), ISIS, acting like a 5th century thuggery group, overtaking land it claims should be theirs.

Just some thoughts...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
internetperson
12 minutes ago, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

space doesn't have any original inhabitants the discussion is pretty pointless isn't it ?

Correct me if I'm wrong but all mankind originates from Africa right? So Europe, Asia and America was devoid of humans until they trekked there. Once they arrived and settled in their respective lands does this mean it is inherently theirs forever, and anyone who tries to take it from them is morally in the wrong?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quiXilver

The whole notion of ownership is such a comical human projection.  You don't even own the food you eat, you merely repurpose it while it passes through your body, which is a fluid process that is always shifting and changing.

We own nothing.  We come out of the land and we return to it.

If anything, the land owns us, our funny little human pieces of paper based on our ideas of imaginary lines of division are comical to me.  A somewhat childish notion that brings some sense of control and power, to an existence that is one, flowing, fluid process beyond our ken.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Likely Guy
3 minutes ago, quiXilver said:

The whole notion of ownership is such a comical human projection.  You don't even own the food you eat, you merely repurpose it while it passes through your body, which is a fluid process that is always shifting and changing.

We own nothing.  We come out of the land and we return to it.

If anything, the land owns us, our funny little human pieces of paper based on our ideas of imaginary lines of division are comical to me.  A somewhat childish notion that brings some sense of control and power, to an existence that is one, flowing, fluid process beyond our ken.

"It's like two fleas arguing over which one owns the dog's back." - Crocodile Dundee

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
9 minutes ago, quiXilver said:

The whole notion of ownership is such a comical human projection.  You don't even own the food you eat, you merely repurpose it while it passes through your body, which is a fluid process that is always shifting and changing.

We own nothing.  We come out of the land and we return to it.

....

And yet.... most animals fight over territory ? :P:D 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quiXilver
7 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

And yet.... most animals fight over territory ? :P:D 

Yea and fight to the death over it in many cases.  Yet own?  The very concept is just so much projective mind stuff... inherently meaningless, to me anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
14 minutes ago, quiXilver said:

Yea and fight to the death over it in many cases.  Yet own?  The very concept is just so much projective mind stuff... inherently meaningless, to me anyway.

Funnily enough.... no.

Most animals do NOT "fight to the death". Most will even avoid injury. From an evolutionary point of view, it would be.. well... disadvantageous to fight for territory or mates in a fashion that would compromise their subsequent ability to hunt. 

Edited by RoofGardener
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
internetperson
21 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

Most animals do NOT "fight to the death". Most will even avoid injury. From an evolutionary point of view, it would be.. well... disadvantageous to fight for territory or mates in a fashion that would compromise their subsequent ability to hunt. 

You have a point - this is how the cats play it out in my suburbs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tatetopa
32 minutes ago, quiXilver said:

Yea and fight to the death over it in many cases.  Yet own?  The very concept is just so much projective mind stuff... inherently meaningless, to me anyway.

 

19 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

Most animals do NOT "fight to the death". Most will even avoid injury. From an evolutionary point of view, it would be.. well... disadvantageous to fight for territory or mates in a fashion that would compromise their subsequent ability to hunt. 

Most confrontations do not result in immediate death.  Males that do not succeed in mating do not pass on their genes.  Predators  that do not succeed in establishing a hunting territory that will support them will eventually die.  Not limited to hunters, herbivores also need a sustainable range.  Same with humans.  Like any other animal we need a habitat that will sustain us.  We have a home range where we feel secure and comfortable and may even defend.  We might belong to a place, use it or exploit it during our tenure.  To my mind that is it.  Ownership implies some recognized right, or as somebody mentioned god-given right. It is a human construct and meaningless to other species or even to other tribes / groups within our species. 

I am inclined to agree with quiXilver for the most part. 

QuiX, consider "ownership" a human analog to head bobbing, horn shaking, roaring, color changes etc. in other species.  If other members of the species recognize the display, physical conflict is avoided.  If we respect ownership of property by other people, and they respect ours, we can spend less time defending our borders.  Maybe it is part of our evolutionary success.  We as a species can spend less time defending and more time enhancing our territory.

Owning the moon or Mars is a joke, I get it.  It seems the OP's real question was about ownership and the morality of conquest.  Species move in to occupy niches when they can.  Sometimes that means out-competing a previous inhabitant.  Humans have done the same; a biological imperative perhaps.  Morality, like ownership is a human construct.  Neither one necessarily originates from any source outside the human mind.  Somewhere along the line, we have decided that it is not generally acceptable to take everything we can from those we could dominate, as individuals or as a civilization.  It seems that view is slowly evolving over the last few hundred years and still not universally accepted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.