NationStates Jolt Archive

Please support this proposal. I am serious about this, so it would be a great if you delegates out there, could help me gain enough approvals to get this propsal to the floor of the UN to be voted on. Here it is word for word:

As the population of the Earth increases, the amount of living space decreases. Farmland everyday is being turned into apartment complexes or subdivision. Therefore, since the amount of farmland is decreasing, the UN needs to keep this farmland from being developed. If the World loses too much farmland, it will not be able to fed everybody and thus people will die of starvation. So the UN needs to open up more land. What other option than going to the moon. The UN would set up a landing zone and rally point for UN nations to send workers up to the moon to build a base and claim land in the name of their nation. Every nation will be given one hundred acres of land for every 100 people sent up to the moon to live. Once a nation has establishes a foot hold on the moon, the UN will back off of that nation, and will only supply aid if requested from the nation. Please support this, as time is running out.

With all due respect, "Doctor", if the entire world's population lived at the population density of New York City, we could all fit into the former Yugoslavia and Albania and the rest of the world be used for farmland.

If the entire world's population lived at the population density of Hong Kong, we could all fit into South Korea.

If you don't want to be that crowded, the world's population density is about 110/sq. mile. My home state, Pennsylvania, has a population density of over twice that.

In other words, if population were evenly distributed around the world, the population density would be less than half that of Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania has millions of acres of almost pristine forests, most of it is farmland, and it exports over $50 billion in agricultural products a year.

There's plenty of farmland.

But since you're a medical and not a demographics expert, how's this: we would have to terraform the moon and its atmosphere. It would take decades to develop the technology and another few dozens of years to actually perform the process. Unless you want everyone to live in a spaceesuit 24/7. But then you have the problem of childbirth.

You have to start somewhere.

Nice Idea, but I do think that making better use of our curent resources is a better idea.

With all due respect, you aren't really taking into account the vast amounts of natural and manufactured wasteland in the earth. Or the oceans, for that matter. Population density is low in certain areas beacuse, well, no one really wants to live in Spitsburgen or the Sahara desert. Though I don't really think the moon is the place to go. Lets just stay here, 'k?

The nations which do not want to go into space do not have to, but those who wish to do so, are more than welcome. And the UN will help any nation which wants to go to the moon. Plus this is not the real world, this game world has over 520,000 nations. Now I do not know what the world population is, but we need to settle the moon. One advantage would be getting additional reasourses.

Who gets the rights to, say, Mars if I can colonize it first?

I say whoever gets there first and colonizes it should have the rights.

Next Uranus.

The only real benifit to going to the moon at this point in our technology is to get helium 3 (which is not available on earth) and to have a nice low gravity spot to launch rockets from. Not to mention seing as the moon really only has the landmass of north america it would fill up pritty quickly given 100 acres for every 100 citizens of every country... Though heres a more realistic solution why not begin colonization underwater? 3/4ths of our planet is coverd by water, so the whole running out of room thing isn't really an issue when you consider the options for inner space colonization. Also you don't need trillion dollar rockets to launch supplies (food, oxygen, drinkable water) etc. if you do an underwater colony because all those things (not to mention precious metals and other resources) can be extracted from sea water with the right equipment. This is an undertaking that would both be achievable by some of the less economically developed countries and offer more colonization room than the moon.

BTW this is my first post, yay.

The moon is a better piece of real estate. It's shiny and stuff.

didn't you ever see seaquest? lol the ocean is plenty shiny

The moon is still better. It's as if it's always looking down at us and it's shiny.

The moon will be the being of coloniztion, I figure that people would move to mars or venus after the moon is filled up.

Packilvania already has moon bases. Our countries capital city exists on mars. It is near olypus mons.

As the population of the Earth increases, the amount of living space decreases. Farmland everyday is being turned into apartment complexes or subdivision.

I suppose this is getting nitpicky, but isn't it funny that the "living space" decreases as we build apartments and homes?

Is the UN regulating farmland development, now? I'm not sure I follow whether or not farmland is actually being regulated in this proposal.

Where the heck is all the money for this coming from? In a project of this scope, the EXISTENCE OF FUNDING should probably at least be vaguely hinted at. Looking closely, this proposal just says that colonization of the moon is legal, that the UN will build a landing zone, and that countries will be granted an acre per person (just these things would already cost probably several hundred billion dollars, at the least).

In the "real world," there's only three nations that have ever put a human into space -- how can we expect all of them to do it in this situation? If each nation will be expected to fund its own launches and lunar bases, how is this really an international effort? If we intend to fund the launches and construction internationally, my nation will not be willing to cripple its treasury for this effort, and I doubt that the larger nations will be willing to pay higher taxes for an equal share.

There's also the problem that shipping people to the moon won't necessarily reduce the stress on farming planetside.

And, of course, not everyone on NationStates has situated their nation on Earth, or even in the Solar System. I don't much care for that, but it's another complication.

a number of interesting points have been made. from what we have observed made more or less correctly. and yet housing continues to be constructed upon some of the most agriculturaly rich and useful land, and as pointed out, totaly unneccessarily. clearly this does indicate a problem, if not exactly the one addressed.

it exemplifies how monitary economics so distorts priorities as to resault in totaly insane resource utilization patterns.

no city nor its suburban outlands ever NEEDS to be built on agricultural land, nor for that matter, on environmentaly sensative habitats. and yet where do we find the vast majority of urban concentrations being located?

mostly along major rivers and near oceans. and why? because these are for the most part places of historical settlement that have 'just growed'.

and kept on growing. because 'development' is looked on as some sort of infallabel god that can do no wrong. like bussiness, industry and the automobile.

as pointed out we don't HAVE to build on earth's moon to avoid this, but we do need to get our heads out of a whole range of absurd and backward assumptions that somehow over the years people and whole societs have gotten emotionaly attatched to.

there IS another interesting paradox to all this as well and that is that while if it were possible and feasable to spread us out over the land surface more or less evenly we might hardly even know each other were there, at the same time, there is not one square inch of that same land surface, even in the middle of where no human foot may have trod for years and for hundreds of miles in all directions, that has not in fundimental ways been effected by human activity. (do to chainges in all sorts of things, carbon load in the atmosphere for one thing but a lot of other even more subtle and less obvios factors as well)

so even though numericly we are far from 'sro' (and for what its worth would render existence unsustainable long before ever reaching anything remotely approaching such levels) we still have an excessive human population over all. this we in carlemnaria define as the degree to which environment can be claimed to be a tradeoff with economics equals the degree to which of overpopulation.

=^^=
.../\...

=^^=
.../\...

uh, Nucular, you've never been to Texas, have you? you can literally drive at 80 mph and not see a house or another car for hours. I realized thatr when we drove my brother to Lubbock from Austin. In a 7 hour road trip, we passed 4 towns.

If dad had driven the speed limit, it would have taken 8 hours.


and don't you dare say "that's the real world, I'm talking about this one." You're using real world arguments and statistics.

The idea is fun though. Oh hell, just build something. People will go.

Still the Moon would offer us other reasoures such as helium 3 which would give us a lot power to run our nations.

There are parts of Australia (ie almost the entire Northern Territory and Western Australia) where you can drive for DAYS without ever seeing another soul, and the closest thing you'll find to an inhabited town are 3 pre-fab shacks, a Petrol Station, and a Pub (the largest building in town).

Population density is low in certain areas beacuse, well, no one really wants to live in Spitsburgen or the Sahara desert. Though I don't really think the moon is the place to go. Lets just stay here, 'k?

To further this point, the moon is a MUCH more inhospitable place than almost anywhere you could find on Earth. If no one wants to live in areas on Earth that have weird climates, why would anyone want to live on the moon? That's like picking the greater of two evils, and it doesn't make sense.

At least there is air in the Sahara Desert.

Still the Moon would offer us other reasoures such as helium 3 which would give us a lot power to run our nations.

Helium power ? I've never heard of it. Care to explain ?

The helium power nucular was talking about could supply enough power to light up the whole world for 20 years. That only requires one shuttle full of the stuff. People will want to go to moon, because they will want to live their just to expirence the wounders of it.

heh... moon colonization? watch "Time Machine"... lol... :D

The helium power nucular was talking about could supply enough power to light up the whole world for 20 years. That only requires one shuttle full of the stuff. People will want to go to moon, because they will want to live their just to expirence the wounders of it.

I agree with you. Thanks for the support.

heh... moon colonization? watch "Time Machine"... lol... :D

You're building a time machine?

The moon could also be used as a steping stone to allow for people to launch space ship from the moon to mars or other plants. It would cost less to launch a ship from the moon, as the moon's gravity is one sixth of that of the earth's, thus requiring less force to get the shuttle off of the moon.

It would cost less to launch a ship from the moon, as the moon's gravity is one sixth of that of the earth's, thus requiring less force to get the shuttle off of the moon.


But wouldn't it instead be more expensive to keep the moon citizens ON the moon? With artifical atmosphere, gravity, farming etc... no one really is saving any money. Where it's saved with rocket propulsion, it's lost on the costs of terraforming any and all planets and other celestial bodies.

It's VERY expensive to launch a rocket. Nuclear Power is a (realitivly)clean, cheap source of energy. A huge ammount of Africa is uninhabited, why not start there, or the oceans?

If there are indeed 520,000+ nations, and more everyday, plus each nation increases by (I beleive) a million people each RL day, then doesn't that prove that our world here in NationStates is an endless or constantly expanding plane on which to build, farm and live? Why do we need to reach the moon if our planet continues to grow in size. But that brings up a few more problems, such as "If the planet's getting bigger, then won't it's mass increase?", "Where does all the matter come from?", and "Will the planet ever be bigger than our sun?"

A few random thoughts from:
Tribal Presidor Yamato :mrgreen:

After going the moon, our bones would become thinner, and weaker, AND, after a few generations we would mutate because of the radation, lol.

while there are certain difficulties to overcome, we of LoreSinger wholly support scientific exploration and eventual colonization of the Moon. If done as a cooperative effort between nations, the relative cost is far less than potential benefits. If we consider for a moment the advances science and technology experienced thanks to initial space travel efforts, you begin to see the potential scope of what *could* be achieved both here and in the stars.

worried about bones? Build a contained system that's tiered and spins to create artificial gravity.

Worried about radiation - the contained system fixes that too.

And the possibility of jumping off from this platform to further exploration is, quite honestly thrilling to us. We are a small nation, but willing to research ways of making food that's lightweight, travels well, still tastes good, and is healthy for such an undertaking. We are, afterall, a nation of Chefs and mothers.... all of whom love brownies (ah, but I digress).

while there are certain difficulties to overcome, we of LoreSinger wholly support scientific exploration and eventual colonization of the Moon. If done as a cooperative effort between nations, the relative cost is far less than potential benefits. If we consider for a moment the advances science and technology experienced thanks to initial space travel efforts, you begin to see the potential scope of what *could* be achieved both here and in the stars.

worried about bones? Build a contained system that's tiered and spins to create artificial gravity.

Worried about radiation - the contained system fixes that too.



Could not agree more with you.

Considering the fact that in Nation States, the population of EACH of the thousands of nations increases by AT LEAST a million each day, had there been any real threat of over population, it would have been here already.

Instead of going to the Moon, and repeating the mistake we are doing with Earth - misuse of land - how about we take inventory of what we have and use what we have. Live within our means. Where does the U.N. get its funding anyway? I dont want to pay for a trip to space personally because my nation does not have population or resource issues. My economy is not so much in the tank that I need to send an expensive rocket to the moon for a payoff.

So instead of having the U.N. send a rocket to the moon and colonizing it and repeating the same problems with the Earth and assuming its resources are limitless and deal with the expensive problem of making the moon livable, how about we live within our means and 'terraform' less desireable places on Earth. The Sahara may be hot and have lots of sand, but at least there is air.

worried about bones? Build a contained system that's tiered and spins to create artificial gravity.

Worried about radiation - the contained system fixes that too.

And the possibility of jumping off from this platform to further exploration is, quite honestly thrilling to us. We are a small nation, but willing to research ways of making food that's lightweight, travels well, still tastes good, and is healthy for such an undertaking. We are, afterall, a nation of Chefs and mothers.... all of whom love brownies (ah, but I digress).

If you are planning to create artificial gravity via rotational inertia (spinning), why not just make space stations? You could haul material out of the solar system's asteriod belt and use it for a building platform. Launching from a space station is even easier than launching from the moon, and you could theoretically make an infinite number of them.

You might even be able to put some in orbit around the moon.

There is an added benefit of space stations. There is a supply of infinite electricity, and all you need to do to tap into it is to drag a copper cable about half a mile long behind the space station. The cable picks up electricity from the earth's magnetic field. A half mile cable can fuel New York with a little to spare.

I highly do not think that a cable would pick up electricty or other wise NASA would have tried that already.

Uh... Moon? Why do you think i would bother to go to Moon as i have a colony of around 300 million people so far away that Pluto feels like a good place for an outpost. Yeah, we do have some technology.

Sorry but, I saw the most recent version of "The Time Machine" and well, I have to say no.

The helium power nucular was talking about could supply enough power to light up the whole world for 20 years. That only requires one shuttle full of the stuff. People will want to go to moon, because they will want to live their just to expirence the wounders of it.

I agree with you. Thanks for the support.

Well if you want support you'll hafta explain it to me.

I belive that the mighty nation of Nucular is correct. Not only does the moon offer more space when our population becomes too dense, it provides us with h3 the hydrogen atom bonded thrice. This is an amazing power source that would solve many problems on earth. The moon also provides us with an even better chance of reaching the farther limits of space, in the sprit of exploration I say we take it.

Col. Tar of Solarian Army Camp Alpha

Erm, this can't really be done because there are many nations who have set themselves in a time period where such things would not be conceivable.

Erm, this can't really be done because there are many nations who have set themselves in a time period where such things would not be conceivable.

That was your choice. If you want to go to the moon, than you should invest in scientific research.

Hmmm, then what are the issuses about cars and monorails like for you then?

Although nationstates can be played in a medieval world, which can be fun- it is set in the now to near future. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Col. Tar

Hmmm, then what are the issuses about cars and monorails like for you then?

Although nationstates can be played in a medieval world, which can be fun- it is set in the now to near future. Sorry to burst your bubble.


Col. Tar

After going the moon, our bones would become thinner, and weaker, AND, after a few generations we would mutate because of the radation, lol.

Who says mutations are bad? It could just be a form of evolution.

After going the moon, our bones would become thinner, and weaker, AND, after a few generations we would mutate because of the radation, lol.

Who says mutations are bad? It could just be a form of evolution.

Could not agree more. If we thought every single change was a mutation and that mutations are bad, we might never see ourselves advance.

After going the moon, our bones would become thinner, and weaker, AND, after a few generations we would mutate because of the radation, lol.

Who says mutations are bad? It could just be a form of evolution.

Could not agree more. If we thought every single change was a mutation and that mutations are bad, we might never see ourselves advance.

After going the moon, our bones would become thinner, and weaker, AND, after a few generations we would mutate because of the radation, lol.

Who says mutations are bad? It could just be a form of evolution.

Could not agree more. If we thought every single change was a mutation and that mutations are bad, we might never see ourselves advance.

Careful with the talk of mutation and evolution kids, you might attract some of the anti/pro-abortion folk over from that circus and ruin this thread too. ;)

I say, if you want to go colonize the moon, then go colonize the moon. Last time I checked, there was no law saying you couldnt. I dont see how the U.N. has the money to finance such a project anyways and I sure as hell am not going to pay for it. Period. I am not interested in space travel or any implications it may have for my nation at this time.

Still need 35 more approvals.