Bury me on the moon, preferably on the far side

Aesthetics, Agency, and Regulation

• One camp objects to a blanket ban on visible lunar development as “authoritarian” if based only on taste/beauty; they prioritize individual and collective agency.
• Others argue some aesthetic/spiritual values justify constraints, especially for unique, shared features like the Moon, analogizing to national parks, monument protection, and HOA rules.
• Debate over how far aesthetic regulation should go; some fear that if beauty never justifies limits, you logically permit destroying natural wonders for strip malls.

Visibility and Technical Feasibility

• Several posters note that no human-made structures on Earth are visible from the Moon with the naked eye, and we are “centuries” from building anything on the Moon that would be.
• Others counter that lunar dust, regolith mining, and lighting on the dark side could make disturbances visible to careful observers, especially in dark rural skies, but evidence is unclear.

Preservation vs. Exploitation of Moon and Mars

• Preservationists see major visible changes to the Moon (e.g., ads, cities) as “spiritual pollution” that would irrevocably alter a universal cultural touchstone.
• Expansionists reply that the Moon and Mars are (as far as we know) lifeless rocks, not sacred, and that spreading life is a positive good.
• Some argue for a middle path: cautious, incremental development, possibly keeping large areas pristine, as with national parks that allow limited, sensitive resource use.

Colonization vs. Fixing Earth

• One side insists colonizing the Moon/Mars and addressing climate/pollution are not mutually exclusive; space budgets and talent are tiny relative to global resources and may produce helpful technologies.
• Critics see psychological and political tradeoffs: space is inspiring and “feel‑good,” while environmental work is grim and underfunded; they fear Mars becomes an excuse to neglect Earth.
• Disagreement over whether this is “zero‑sum” (money/attention diverted) or largely orthogonal.

Environmental and CO₂ Impacts

• Launch emissions are compared to a trans‑Pacific flight; Falcon 9 estimates suggest ~1.5 kg CO₂‑equivalent per gram of payload.
• Some see using such emissions for symbolic acts (like lunar burials) as selfish, especially under tight per‑capita carbon budgets.
• Others argue the total impact of current launch activity is tiny and not a meaningful lever for climate policy.

Ownership, Law, and “Common Heritage”

• Discussion of the Outer Space Treaty’s “province of all mankind” language versus the (unratified) Moon Treaty’s stronger “common heritage” concept.
• Some see “belonging to all” as inviting a tragedy of the commons unless strongly regulated; others see that as a basis for treating the Moon as protected for everyone.

Cultural Value of the Night Sky

• Some want the near side of the Moon left visually untouched forever, likening the night sky to a global commons that no actor has the right to “decorate.”
• Others would “love” to see lunar city lights and reject the idea that such development meaningfully harms life on Earth.

Miscellaneous

• Linked images of the far side of the Moon passing in front of Earth draw interest; they make the Moon look deceptively close.
• Brief side notes on terminology (“far side” vs “dark side”) and light pollution making the Milky Way harder to see for future generations.