Summary

The moon has been added to the World Monuments Fund’s (WMF) list of threatened heritage sites for the first time due to risks from commercial and governmental lunar activities.

The WMF highlights concerns about looting and damage to artefacts from Apollo missions, such as Neil Armstrong’s footprints and objects left on the moon.

WMF calls for international protocols to protect lunar heritage as private space tourism and missions increase.

The 2024 list also includes sites in conflict zones and areas endangered by climate change or unsustainable tourism.

  • Zombie@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 hours ago

    What’s the point in mining the Moon if we’re just gonna leave what’s been mined there? Of course it would be removed.

    Where did you get that 10% is what would be required to affect the tides? Why don’t we just say it’s 90% to back your point up even more?

    The point is, if allowed, we’ll fuck it up like we fuck up every environment. Why must we insist on destroying everything just so some rich people can get richer? Climate change is upon us and instead of acting to prevent it we’re looking to do similar destruction elsewhere.

    When you look up at the vastness and marvel of space and planetary bodies, are you desperate to see dump trucks, bucket excavators, and orange flashing lights looking back at you?

    • nogooduser@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 hours ago

      What’s the point in mining the Moon if we’re just gonna leave what’s been mined there? Of course it would be removed.

      We might use the mined materials to build stuff on the moon. Even if we were mining to bring resources back there’ll be a lot of stuff dug up that we don’t want so we’d obviously want to leave that there. We’d need to process the ore on the moon to extract the small amount of material that we’re after.

      Where did you get that 10% is what would be required to affect the tides? Why don’t we just say it’s 90% to back your point up even more?

      90% would be an obviously ridiculous number to use so would undermine their argument. Assuming their numbers are correct then it would take 10,000,000 years to remove 1% of the moon. And we wouldn’t remove all of the material that we mine so we’d take even longer than that to actually remove 1%.

      Having said that, I really don’t agree with the sentiment of letting people do what they want on the moon because it won’t affect us. We should be more considerate of every environment just as a matter of principle.