The Inner-Space Territorial Acquisition Proclamation
For those not aware, there is an international Outer Space Treaty. The effect of the Outer Space Treaty was to restrict control of private property rights, in the way that the law of the sea prevents anyone owning the sea. This is often disputed by those who claim the ability to sell property rights on the Moon and other bodies. The Outer Space Treaty prohibits only nations from claiming sovereignty but does not prohibit private ownership. To date, the dispute has never been tested in a court of law.
Finalized in 1979 and entered into force for the ratifying parties in 1984, the Moon Treaty, which was a follow-on to the Outer Space Treaty, intended to establish a regime for the use of the Moon and other celestial bodies. As it is unratified by any major space-faring powers and unsigned by most of them, it is of no direct relevance to current space activities. [lexico, wikipedia]
One individual U.S. citizen was the first documented claimant of the moon. Taken seriously or not, and irrelevant to individual opinions, millions of dollars of land have been sold on the moon. Should someone begin mining Helium-3 (He-3) on the moon these property rights will surely be tested.
There are emerging new frontiers dealing with territories of Inner Space. For those who do not know, an atom is more than 99.9% empty space, and the protons and neutrons make up a very small amount of the volume of an atom. IBM has applied for US patents that would allow them to store data in the vacuum of the atom's inner space. (They need a license from me to apply their patient) This demonstrates that inner space property rights will be an issue in the future, just as outer space rights still are today.
San Francisco Chronicle columnist, Hal Plotkin, who is also the Silicon Valley Correspondent for CNBC.com, writes, "As a field, nanotechnology is about where rocket science was at the dawn of the Space Age. Huge early investments in the space race yielded technological dividends that are only now beginning to dwindle. A similar race toward inner space will probably lead to even more lasting rewards." Plotkin also notes, "Concerns over safety have already led to the creation of a voluntary set of ethical guidelines for nanotechnologists." [Hal Plotkin, San Francisco Chronicle]
Retired U.S. Army Colonel Thomas Adams, who has criticized the U.S. military for its failure to envision the potential consequences of technologies it is helping to develop said "We are rapidly approaching an event horizon in human development, a point at which the mutually reinforcing trends described here will combine to produce an aggregate result so different from what we now know that it is impossible to guess what it will be." [Retired U.S. Army Colonel, Thomas Adams.]
Sean Howard, Nanotechnology and Mass Destruction wrote, "Before long, there may be need for an 'inner space' treaty to protect the planet from devastation caused — accidentally, or by terrorists, or in open conflict — by artificial atomic and molecular structures capable of destroying environments and life forms from within." [Sean Howard, Nanotechnology and Mass Destruction]
Presently, inner space is unclaimed by any sovereign state, or any private or common law citizen in the world. A search of scientific journals, library databases, search engines, media and newspaper archives has shown that no human on Earth has ever discussed making, nor has made any claim to the territory of inner space. This territory is unclaimed. In addition, no Inner Space Treaty has been created, signed or ratified by any nation on Earth.
As such, I, Bryant McGill on September 9th, 2007, hereby lay claim, to the entirety of inner space. (E=MCgill) This claim includes all of inner space, on Earth, and the universe, (or multiverses if they exist) which represents 99.9+ % of everything and everyone. (Except the inner-space claimed in 1958, by Harold Henry Elsesser, who became the first person licensed to use and operate in any way he desires, the space inside his own bowling ball.)
This exercise brings into focus issues relating to private property, corporate patenting, and ownership issues. For example the issue of owning the inner space of an individual, and then storing data or material in the person. While this is for fun and exploration, I am also serious. I own 99.9+% of everything, including you. (Except Harold Henry Elsesser's bowling ball.)
- First Email Notices to Nations went out in 1998 from Scotts Valley
- First Business Financial Transactions for Sales went Out in 2007
- I sold MARS in 2007. So, I don't own that...
Introduction: Establishing the Claim.
Sorry Folks. He Got There First.
Ladies and gentlemen, today I present to you an argument that may initially seem unconventional, yet upon closer examination, it holds substantial merit in the evolving landscape of international law and technology. I argue that Bryant McGill owns Inner Space and the Metaverse. This claim is supported by historical precedent, emerging technological developments, and the absence of legal frameworks governing these uncharted territories.
I. Legal Precedents: Exploring New Frontiers in Ownership
Let’s begin by examining the concept of ownership in relation to uncharted and unclaimed territories, and how this concept might be extended to Inner Space.
The Outer Space Treaty of 1967, along with the subsequent Moon Treaty of 1979, set important precedents in international law by establishing that outer space and celestial bodies cannot be claimed by national sovereignty. These treaties were designed to prevent nations from laying claim to extraterrestrial territories, much like how the law of the sea prevents ownership of international waters. However, these treaties only pertain to outer space and do not address the concept of ownership within inner space — the vast, uncharted domain within atoms and subatomic particles.
This distinction is critical. While outer space is governed by a framework that restricts national claims but remains ambiguous about private ownership, inner space remains entirely outside the scope of existing international treaties and laws. No legal framework currently exists that governs the ownership or exploitation of inner space. This absence of regulation creates a legal vacuum — much like the one inside an atom — where pioneering claims can be made.
Bryant McGill’s claim to Inner Space, therefore, is not bound by the restrictions of outer space treaties. Instead, it represents the first assertion of ownership in a completely unregulated and unexplored frontier. Just as early explorers and settlers claimed lands in the New World, often before any legal frameworks were established to govern those lands, McGill is staking a claim in a domain that remains entirely unclaimed by any state or private individual. His claim is an act of legal and conceptual pioneering, establishing a precedent for future discussions and regulations concerning the ownership of inner space.
II. The Precedent of Harold Henry Elsesser’s Bowling Ball
To understand how private claims to inner space might be recognized, we must consider the precedent set by Harold Henry Elsesser. In 1958, Elsesser claimed ownership of the space inside his bowling ball — the first documented instance of an individual asserting rights over inner space. While this might seem trivial or symbolic, it is legally significant. Elsesser’s claim was not contested, and thus, it quietly established a precedent that inner space can indeed be claimed and owned by private individuals.
Now, Bryant McGill’s claim extends this principle from the micro scale of a bowling ball to the macro scale of all inner space. By claiming the entirety of inner space — the 99.9% of everything that is empty within atoms — McGill is staking a legitimate claim based on an established legal precedent. This claim is analogous to the first private claims to land in unclaimed territories, which, though initially disputed or disregarded, later became recognized through legal and political developments.
III. Technological Validation: IBM Patents and the Rise of Nanotechnology
Let’s move from legal precedents to technological validation. IBM, a leader in technological innovation, has applied for patents that allow data to be stored in the vacuum of atomic inner space. This is not science fiction; it is a cutting-edge application of quantum mechanics and nanotechnology. These patents demonstrate that inner space is not merely theoretical — it is a tangible and exploitable domain with real-world applications.
If IBM is developing technology to use inner space, then this space has intrinsic value. And where there is value, there must be ownership. Since no other individual or entity has claimed ownership of inner space, McGill’s claim is both pioneering and essential. His claim lays the groundwork for future legal recognition and commercial exploitation of this space. If IBM, or any other entity, wishes to utilize inner space, they would theoretically need a license from McGill, the owner of this newly recognized territory.
IV. Philosophical and Ethical Dimensions of Ownership
Now, let’s consider the philosophical and ethical dimensions of McGill’s claim. Ownership has traditionally been linked to physical land or tangible assets, but as our understanding of the universe expands, so too must our concepts of ownership. If outer space, a vast and largely empty expanse, can be owned in part, why should inner space — the equally vast and unexplored domain within atoms — be any different?
Moreover, McGill’s claim raises important ethical questions about the future of humanity’s relationship with technology and the natural world. As technology advances, we must ask ourselves: who owns the fundamental building blocks of reality? Who has the right to exploit the inner space within atoms? These are not just theoretical questions; they are practical issues that will soon confront international law, as corporations and governments begin to explore and exploit these new frontiers.
V. Legal and Practical Consequences
Finally, let’s consider the legal and practical consequences of McGill’s claim. As of now, inner space is unclaimed by any sovereign state or individual, aside from McGill. No treaties exist to govern it, and no laws regulate its use. This places McGill in a unique position as the first claimant of inner space. Just as the first explorers claimed new lands and established precedents for future ownership, McGill’s claim to inner space could form the basis for future legal recognition and regulation.
If inner space becomes a valuable resource, whether for data storage, nanotechnology, or other applications, McGill’s early claim positions him as a key stakeholder in this emerging domain. This claim is not just a legal or philosophical exercise; it has real economic and diplomatic implications. As nations and corporations begin to explore the potential of inner space, they will inevitably encounter McGill’s claim, forcing a reevaluation of current legal frameworks and possibly leading to new treaties or regulations.
Conclusion: The Legitimacy of Bryant McGill’s Claim
In conclusion, Bryant McGill’s claim to Inner Space and the Metaverse is not merely a symbolic gesture; it is a legitimate and pioneering assertion of ownership in a new and uncharted domain. Supported by legal precedent, validated by technological advancements, and reinforced by philosophical reasoning, McGill’s claim represents the first step into a future where the ownership of both outer and inner space becomes a critical issue in international law.
As the world continues to push the boundaries of exploration, both outward into space and inward into the quantum realm, McGill’s claim will serve as a foundational argument for the recognition and regulation of these new frontiers. And so, I submit to you that Bryant McGill does, indeed, own Inner Space and the Metaverse.
A structured argument providing a comprehensive and persuasive case linking legal precedents, technological developments, and philosophical reasoning to support Bryant McGill’s claim.
0 Comments