When I attended A.C. Grayling’s talk about his new book, Who Owns the Moon, I was hoping to hear something astrological, something that might be wondrous and expand my understanding of space and our place in it. Unfortunately for me, Grayling is far too savvy for that. He’s seen what humans are capable of, and he’s forgone any attempt to draw us into the wonder of the moon in hopes of sparking conservationist, and simply gone straight for the realism: Elon Musk or the Chinese are going to want to own the moon, and there’s really no way around that.
‘Ignorance is bliss’ is a cliche for a reason. I didn’t want to hear any of Grayling’s highly researched and thorough exploration of our relationship with the moon, because now I have to trouble myself with it. That is, I think, Grayling’s hope. “We don’t own the moon,” Grayling says, “But we are responsible for it and have an interest in it.” The race for moon real estate is upon us whether we like it or not, so we’d best get our moon-ducks in a row.
Grayling’s model of thought is based heavily on how we have behaved in the conquest of African resources, and how we are beginning to deal with Antarctica, which becomes open for business in 2048. Already, States are buzzing around the frosty tundra, plotting out how to best claim ownership when the time comes. The moon too is chock full of minerals we need to fuel our technology addiction, and we’re getting closer and closer to getting there. In order to prevent conflict, we need to figure something out as a planet. The last treaty about ownership of the moon was in 1967, but of course, a treaty is only as good as the intentions of the people who have signed in. The United States, already outfitted with a space force called Guardians, considers space “a war-fighting zone”. We need paper work, and we need it now.
The moon’s bounty has been known for many years, but it’s only in the last 24 months or so that the media has caught on. This is because the moon’s bottom line is showing. Our States and corporations don’t want to go to the moon for science, says Grayling, but “because there is money involved.” It was in the 1890s, after all, that evidence of climate change was first clocked by scientist but, “we never do anything because the lust for money trumps everything; it trumps science, it trumps human interest.” In the 1960s, during the space race against Russia, Americans were spoon-fed the importance of going to the moon “not because it is easy,” said JFK, “But because it is hard”. “Because doing hard things makes us grow,” Grayling adds, “Though it was essentially ‘my rocket is bigger than your rocket’.” I can’t help but imagine what sort of pithy quote we will get to justify a massive Coca-Cola advertisement whenever we look up at the Verizon supermoon presented by Fly Emirates.
It’s not all bad news, though! If we drill on the moon, says Grayling, we won’t have to seek that sweet sweet lithium from the sea beds, which would lead to unfathomable disruption to marine life. I don’t share Grayling’s optimism. It seems clear to me that corporations will look at the sea and the moon and won’t say ‘instead’, but rather ‘and’. This is another reason treaties are essential, and the possibility of a ban on ocean drilling with an agreement for moon drilling would strangely enough be a step forward for conservation on our planet.
If Grayling’s hope is that his book will pull us out of ourselves and remember the responsibility we have to the planet and, now, space, then he’s done a good job of it. It’s an important piece of work, easily readable, and fascinating to say the least. But I will nevertheless resent not getting to relax with a bunch of neat moon facts. Here’s one more thing you’ve got to care about, but Grayling makes a fine case that it is more than worth it.
