The Case Against Space Colonization - Chime in

clark · 2003-06-30 09:35:20

I am giving the Devil his due,

How can the Mars Society, the Atremis Society, or any other advocacy group rationally support a program that will siphon resources to a privileged minority who will be treated to a standard of living far beyond that of the ordinary human, a great majority of whom are subject to the ravages of natural and man made disasters?

The creation of the first space colony, wherever and whenever that will be, will be a milestone in human achievement. It will also be a point of introspection for the entire human race as we try to understand our possible future, and come to grips with our responsibilities to one another.

How do we justify to one another the creation of Kings in space, while so many millions suffer in squalor? For Kings in space they will be, those few who are allowed to reach beyond the pull of this planet. The standard of living, the quality of life- these will rival even the richest lifestyles in the richest western nations.

Health care, education, job security... the list goes on. These things will be a matter of course for space colonists because they are all necessary to maintain the social stability necessary to make a space colony work in the first place.

The 100 billion dollars used to create a space colony- or even a permanent presence on Mars, could be used for any number of projects that help untold thousands or millions. Mars Direct, at 10 billion, sends a handful of humans to the red planet. That same 10 billion could fund a thousand different research programs looking for cures to Cancer, AIDS, or alternative energy. It could help educate another generation.

Or we could send a handful of people to another planet to look under rocks for something that may or may not be there.

The answer, either way, doesn't feed the hungry. It doesn't house the neglected. And it doesn't train the future for that day when they must make the choices for the next generation.

Perhaps it engenders dreams, and the dreamer. Yet for every one that dreams of Mars, there is another that dreams of an education, of opportunity, of another day of life without hunger.

Are those dreams somehow less when compared to the dream of Space colonization?

How do people in space create a better world for all of us?

Free Spirit · 2003-06-30 10:21:22

Space colonization has the possibility of advancing just the type of technology that would enable sustainable living that more impoverished countries could benefit from. Such colonization also has the potential of improving the lot of our resources. Someone has to pioneer the way. If private companies and organizations are willing to spend the R&D dollars to develop the needed technologies for living in space I say more power to 'em. Someone has to lead the way and I have a suspicion that if we leave it up to government we'll still never have left LEO by the year 2100. Anyhow, governments could tax the corporations that engage in commercial space activities and divert those tax funds to helping the poor and what not. In any case, I can think of a lot of other endeavours that suck up way more resources than private space organizations like the Artemis and Mars Societies do. Try cutting the military budget for instance and funneling that money into more productive uses, or do something to solve the political problems in many nations that are the true cause of their misery.

clark · 2003-06-30 10:38:40

Space colonization has the possibility of advancing just the type of technology that would enable sustainable living that more impoverished countries could benefit from.

I cetainly have no doubt of that. But is colonizing space neccessary to achieve the technology? Couldn't the same technology be developed on Earth, for a fraction of the cost? If so, then why should we spend even more resources to put a few people in space?

Such colonization also has the potential of improving the lot of our resources.

Wouldn't the advent of sophisticated robotics and tele-working replace the neccessity of cities in space? Isn't robotic mining more practical? If so, why build cities in space?

If private companies and organizations are willing to spend the R&D dollars to develop the needed technologies for living in space I say more power to 'em.

True, yet many organization and groups rely, or call upon their governments to fund space exploration and/ or colonization. Is it trult in our best interest as a society to spend our resources to create a utopia of a small section of our population while others starve?

Try cutting the military budget for instance and funneling that money into more productive uses, or do something to solve the political problems in many nations that are the true cause of their misery.

The military is a neccessity becuase of the political, social, and environmental problems in other countries. How does space colonization help to solve, or mitigate any of these problems? Justify that.

Bill White · 2003-06-30 11:19:11

The greatest good for the greatest number.

If a millenia from now, there are a trillion humans living thoughout the solar system (rather than 10 billion living on Earth, perhaps in a Utopia, perhaps not) which choice maximizes collective utility?

Our sacrifice today will allow trillions of future humans to be born - people who could never fit on a single planet.

clark · 2003-06-30 11:27:04

The greatest good for the greatest number.

A noble sentiment, yet why should we forsake the greatest number now, for one in the future, that may or may not be?

If a millenia from now, there are a trillion humans living thoughout the solar system (rather than 10 billion living on Earth, perhaps in a Utopia, perhaps not) which choice maximizes collective utility?

A simple answer here. Yet once again, we would have to forsake the here an now. Is that wise? Is that fair?

Our sacrifice today will allow trillions of future humans to be born - people who could never fit on a single planet.

Our sacrifice today will allow the possibility of others being born somewhere else...

I am reminded of the argument between Pro-choice, and Pro-Life advocates. Arguing over the rights of those who are, and those who might be.

While in my mind, the issue can never be wholly resolved, I think most will agree that those who are must take precedence over those who may be.

If so, then how do we justify space colonization?

Bill White · 2003-06-30 11:43:38

If there were any realistic hope that the resources needed to settle space could be re-directed for the successful building a Terran utopia then perhaps your question has merit. If we could even agree on what such a utopia would look like.

Doing this:

The creation of the first space colony, wherever and whenever that will be, will be a milestone in human achievement. It will also be a point of introspection for the entire human race as we try to understand our possible future, and come to grips with our responsibilities to one another.

will make it easier, IMHO, to focus the attention of humanity on the very question you ask. Otherwise the money will be spent building temples or pyramids by rich people seeking power or meaning.

More bluntly, not doing space doesn't feed people either.

clark · 2003-06-30 11:53:32

If there were any realistic hope that the resources needed to settle space could be re-directed for the successful building a Terran utopia then perhaps your question has merit.

I can agree that we will never build a utopia on Earth. and I doubt anywhere in space will be a utopia either. It's all just grass of one variation or another. What I am asking though is whether or not it is right to spend so many resources on so few.

How do we justify building palaces in space, while so many grovel in the dust of this planet?

10 billion to send 6 people to Mars, or 10 billion to find a cure to AIDS. What serves the greatest number for the greatest good?

Otherwise the money will be spent building temples or pyramids by rich people seeking power or meaning.

Perhaps, yet then you suggest that Space colonization is little more than mankind building yet another Pyramid. Shall we build new temples while the slaves die in her shadows?

More bluntly, not doing space doesn't feed people either.

I agree, yet putting Kings in space does more to destabilize humanity than not.

Bill White · 2003-06-30 12:23:18

If there were any realistic hope that the resources needed to settle space could be re-directed for the successful building a Terran utopia then perhaps your question has merit.

I can agree that we will never build a utopia on Earth. and I doubt anywhere in space will be a utopia either. It's all just grass of one variation or another. What I am asking though is whether or not it is right to spend so many resources on so few.
How do we justify building palaces in space, while so many grovel in the dust of this planet?
10 billion to send 6 people to Mars, or 10 billion to find a cure to AIDS. What serves the greatest number for the greatest good?
Otherwise the money will be spent building temples or pyramids by rich people seeking power or meaning.
Perhaps, yet then you suggest that Space colonization is little more than mankind building yet another Pyramid. Shall we build new temples while the slaves die in her shadows?
More bluntly, not doing space doesn't feed people either.
I agree, yet putting Kings in space does more to destabilize humanity than not.

Where is the either/or? Space or nutrition?

People do not starve because the world lacks food or wealth. People starve because of mal-distribution. People starve because warlords (and their ilk) can obtain and retain power through inflicting starvation. This may include Western food conglomerates as well.

There is enough to do both. Not doing space won't feed anyone. Doing space may well help educate people on why allowing others to starve is a bad idea.

Also, settling space allows humanity to play on a larger table. The table stakes needed to play include developing a technological society with educated people. Starving your citizens precludes developing the economic base to be a player in the spacefaring game.

Societies that do not adapt will be assimiliated into those that do adapt. Third Worlders seeking to become "Kings in Space" can only do that by developing their economies which means empowering their people.

Bill White · 2003-06-30 12:24:48

I agree, yet putting Kings in space does more to destabilize humanity than not.

Our current "stability" is both a blessing and a curse yet cannot be sustained in any event. A global Rome is not necessarily a good thing.

clark · 2003-06-30 12:37:40

Doing space may well help educate people on why allowing others to starve is a bad idea.

Yet couldn't such lessons be learned without the neccessity of space colonization? Enlightenment happened during a period where mankind merely gazed at the sky, not contemplating actually entering it.

Also, settling space allows humanity to play on a larger table.

Perhaps, but how, or why, is that important?

The table stakes needed to play include developing a technological society with educated people. Starving your citizens precludes developing the economic base to be a player in the spacefaring game.

A worthwhile argument. Yet let us move from this idea of starvation and such. Is it right, or justified, to spend so many resources that will directly benefit so few?

In order to enter space, a huge base of ordinary 'yous' and 'mes' must exsist to support the endeavour. Most of these people will not see a benefit in their life, or their childrens life for the sacrifices they will make. The same resources used to place people in space could be used to make life at least slightly better here and now.

Third Worlders seeking to become "Kings in Space" can only do that by developing their economies which means empowering their people.

Ah, and now enters the 21st century American Dream. Will a third worlder, or even an ordinary Joe-six pack really have the opportunity to become a 'king in space'?

Isn't it a bit more realistic to expect that only a small fraction of humanity will escape this pale blue dot, and that such people will indeed be the elite among us? If so, how is the greatest good being served directly through space colonization?

Free Spirit · 2003-06-30 13:30:02

cetainly have no doubt of that. But is colonizing space neccessary to achieve the technology? Couldn't the same technology be developed on Earth, for a fraction of the cost? If so, then why should we spend even more resources to put a few people in space?

Because to utilize the energy and material resources of space will require us to take baby steps in that direction. Those little colonies today could be the building blocks for the infrastructure that will allow us to utilize said resources for the benefits of all. I really don't believe a human presence in space is necessary for this BTW, more than likely robotics will be advanced enough at some point in the future that technologies like solar power satellites and mining could be done virtually free of human hands. I'm not a big proponent of manned spaceflight, at least government-funded manned spaceflight. That money could be spent in better ways imho, but I have no problem if some NGO or private group wants to spend their own money building up manned infrastructure in space.

Wouldn't the advent of sophisticated robotics and tele-working replace the neccessity of cities in space? Isn't robotic mining more practical? If so, why build cities in space?

Yes I've already covered that, but like I said I have no problem with private groups spending their own resources getting into space. These groups would not be as big of a drain on resources as you assume they'd be. If you want to conserve resources or insure that money is spent on social projects you feel is important why not attack more lucrative industries that use up resources building hundreds of millions of video game consoles, TV sets and the like and make killer profits to boot? The groups that want space colonies are likely to make themselves as self-sufficient as possible by utilizing resources in-situ, and as a bonus, would actually give us a shot at increasing Earth's wealth by developing the necessary technologies (including robotic).

True, yet many organization and groups rely, or call upon their governments to fund space exploration and/ or colonization. Is it trult in our best interest as a society to spend our resources to create a utopia of a small section of our population while others starve?

Then the government should get out of the manned space business as much as possible and divert its funds toward more urgent issues, as I've already said. And again, not all of the Earth's problems are purely economical. How many people starved in Iraq as Saddam siphoned off UN aid for his personal use and that of his cadres and built luxurious palaces? How many warlords in Somalia steal aid for their own good at the expense of others? Throwing money at problems is not always the solution even though we think it is.

The 100 billion dollars used to create a space colony- or even a permanent presence on Mars, could be used for any number of projects that help untold thousands or millions. Mars Direct, at 10 billion, sends a handful of humans to the red planet. That same 10 billion could fund a thousand different research programs looking for cures to Cancer, AIDS, or alternative energy. It could help educate another generation.

Let the private sector make wealth in space and let government tax that wealth to use toward social projects here on Earth. That sums up my philosophy. And yes, I know you'll probably want to argue that only governments can or should have access to space but that's a debate for another thread.

Bill White · 2003-06-30 13:37:16

In order to enter space, a huge base of ordinary 'yous' and 'mes' must exsist to support the endeavour. Most of these people will not see a benefit in their life, or their childrens life for the sacrifices they will make. The same resources used to place people in space could be used to make life at least slightly better here and now.

Everyone will need to decide this for themselves.

If enough people vote for people who say yes to space, we will go and settle space. If not, we will not go to space.

Maybe the "yous" and "mes" will benefit from funding space the same way we benefit if we pay more for Coca-Cola rather than Safeway Select.

clark · 2003-06-30 13:44:50

Because to utilize the energy and material resources of space will require us to take baby steps in that direction.

Yet you point out that robots are a better, and ultimate, solution for extracting resources from space. If so, what's the point of investing anything towards space colonization? Isn't is unneccessary?

That money could be spent in better ways imho, but I have no problem if some NGO or private group wants to spend their own money building up manned infrastructure in space.

Your stance is duly noted, however, your personal creed is not shared by the Mars Society, or a majority of space advocates, many of whom, myself included, want governments to invest further in space.

These groups would not be as big of a drain on resources as you assume they'd be. If you want to conserve resources or insure that money is spent on social projects you feel is important why not attack more lucrative industries that use up resources building hundreds of millions of video game consoles, TV sets and the like and make killer profits to boot?

I have not mentioned private ventures as they are beyond the scope of this thread. And I bring this topic up to space advocates since this is one of the major arguments against added funding for the development of space. Sure, there are other areas where we would benefit by cutting back, but I want to discuss 'space'.

The groups that want space colonies are likely to make themselves as self-sufficient as possible by utilizing resources in-situ, and as a bonus, would actually give us a shot at increasing Earth's wealth by developing the necessary technologies (including robotic).

Okay, but what if these groups can't do it without government funding? Then we should shrug and say, "space is too exspensive."?

. And yes, I know you'll probably want to argue that only governments can or should have access to space but that's a debate for another thread.

Actually, you're wrong. If we assume that the government should not be involved with space, yet also assume that government should be the only one to access it, we create a Catch-22. I like to believe I'm a bit smarter than that.

Really, the question is, should the government be in the business of creating space colonies?

clark · 2003-06-30 13:49:01

If enough people vote for people who say yes to space, we will go and settle space. If not, we will not go to space.

But why should people vote for people who say 'yes' to space?

Maybe the "yous" and "mes" will benefit from funding space the same way we benefit if we pay more for Coca-Cola rather than Safeway Select.

Ah, the 'choice' card. Do you really have a 'choice' if you can never afford, or ever hope to afford Coca-Cola over Safeway Select? On the surface, you do have the choice, yet it isn't realisitic.

You and I have the choice to go to Space, today. However, we need 20 million in the bank to pay for that choice. Is that really a 'choice'?

dickbill · 2003-06-30 15:11:46

Maybe going to space is like a religious or mystical quest. There are big philosophical questions up there with some value. The biggest is life. I can believe that the average iraqi is not interested right now by the issue on life on Mars, however, finding non-biblical life there, in the long term, would seriously question their religious belief and ours as well.
And the reverse: finding hot water pockets in the martian underground, with all the good minerals and sources of energy, in short all the good conditions for life, but no life, would also seriously question our beliefs.
Now why human explorers rather than robots ? maybe a robot cannot see life, maybe it takes a living thing to see a living thing.

Free Spirit · 2003-06-30 18:05:03

Yet you point out that robots are a better, and ultimate, solution for extracting resources from space. If so, what's the point of investing anything towards space colonization? Isn't is unneccessary?

Your assuming that the only thing we will want to do in space is extract resources. People will want to go into space for many reasons for everything from tourism to medical treatment to creating autonomous communities. You seem to be implying there is some zero-sum aspect to space exploration, that economies can't grow and get richer, that we must necessarily choose between space or something else. I just don't see it that way, economies, particularly capitalist ones, aren't zero-sum games, they can expand and increase wealth that could be put to work in other areas of endeavour.

Gennaro · 2003-06-30 19:37:57

"If private companies and organizations are willing to spend the R&D dollars to develop the needed technologies for living in space I say more power to 'em. Someone has to lead the way and I have a suspicion that if we leave it up to government we'll still never have left LEO by the year 2100."

- I'd say it all comes down to what kind of government we're talking about. If we go with the monetarist laissez fa?re type of political system, that we have basically had worldwide since the early seventies, that says: "leave as much power as possible to the big corporations and bankers", I have no doubt we'll remain in LEO for at least a century to come. What's in space besides TV broadcasts and cell phones for these people? Nothing.
If on the other hand, we'd be ruled by a keynesian statist/socialist sort of capitalism that's driven by huge investments in infrastructure and industry to create employment and consumer demand, I can think of nothing to rival a wholesale space program in terms of scale, stimulation of productivity and eventual returns. At least it's much better than just making guns, which in itself is only a massive destruction of capital.
Why, on the other hand will private enterprise capitalism not lead the way into space? Because space is uniquely dependant on huge infrastructure investment to yield any profits. Just the kind of thing short-sighted-staring-oneself-blind-on-the-upcoming-quarterly-balance-sheet-laissez-fa?re capitalism is unable to pull off, but which is a prerequisite for the keynesian resource industrialist approach to work at all.

"Is it right, or justified, to spend so many resources that will directly benefit so few?"

- A justified question, but in the long term, I'd say it's trumped by the mere question of survival. Survival of the human species equates expansion into space, it's really that simple.
At the same time, I believe quality of life will be infinitely improved in just a couple of centuries, not for some but for everyone, if we only stop wasting this world away with outdated technologies and start settling interplanetary space in earnest and then beyond...
To do this however, we need to put political power above market forces.

clark · 2003-07-01 09:09:08

Free Spirit

Your assuming that the only thing we will want to do in space is extract resources.

You've intimated that you believe private ventures are ideal for the development of space. This usually entails some form of business model predicated on profit as the impetus for development, no? What other profit is there in space colonization?

People will want to go into space for many reasons for everything from tourism to medical treatment to creating autonomous communities.

I have no doubt people will want to go into space, yet I question the idea that they will be able to do so privately and for profit. As far as I am aware, there is no medical treatment you can receive in space that cannot be received on Earth. As for 'autonomous communities', such things can exsist on earth for a fraction of the cost. What will these communities do?

Gennaro,

If on the other hand, we'd be ruled by a keynesian statist/socialist sort of capitalism that's driven by huge investments in infrastructure and industry to create employment and consumer demand, I can think of nothing to rival a wholesale space program in terms of scale, stimulation of productivity and eventual returns. At least it's much better than just making guns, which in itself is only a massive destruction of capital.

Well said. However, there are other terrestrial projects that can lead to the same benefits, for far more people. Imagine the benefits of damning the Straights of Gibralter to create hydro electric power.

The issue that is often ignored by space colonization advocates is that the people who will inhabit these space colonies will be some of the best and brightest of the world. It will create a 'brain drain' whereby some of the most productive citizens within a country are sent 'away'. One needs look only to Africa to see the results of this phenomenon. So ultimetly, it is not in the best interest of socialist state to invest in infrastructure that removes some of the most productive members of it's society from the rest. It is self defeating, isn't it?

- A justified question, but in the long term, I'd say it's trumped by the mere question of survival. Survival of the human species equates expansion into space, it's really that simple.

I can understand this reasoning, but how does inhabiting space help our species survive? If we inhabit Mars, Moon and black of sky, wouldn't such colonies still be largwely dependant upon Earth and her resources, at least to a degree? As such, if something happens to Earth, the rest of humanity is still screwed. All we will have done is create a false sense of security, no?

If we inhabit space for this reason, wouldn't it distract us from the very real issues that are pressing us now? Why not focus on the man made dangers that might wipe us out, instead of developing an escape hatch? Why not develop ways to mitigate, or prevent those natural disasters we can- such as asteroids or means to better understand our earth?

At the same time, I believe quality of life will be infinitely improved in just a couple of centuries, not for some but for everyone, if we only stop wasting this world away with outdated technologies and start settling interplanetary space in earnest and then beyond...

How will the world get better for everyone? We can never launch enough people to make a dent in the population size on Earth. All we will do is create Kings in space for some, while others continue to suffer here on Earth.

How will colonization of space by a few lead to a better world for all?

Bill White · 2003-07-01 09:27:12

- I'd say it all comes down to what kind of government we're talking about. If we go with the monetarist laissez fa?re type of political system, that we have basically had worldwide since the early seventies, that says: "leave as much power as possible to the big corporations and bankers", I have no doubt we'll remain in LEO for at least a century to come. What's in space besides TV broadcasts and cell phones for these people? Nothing.

Government involvement is essential. We cannot go to Mars without (a) heavy lift and (b) nuclear power. And, both of these topics are at the heart of the "War on Terror"

North Korea announces continuing work on ICBM technology (which is light to medium lift and is way easier than heavy lift!) and we in the West panic and wonder whether California will soon be attacked. Iran starts building a nuclear reactor (for electric power they say) and some say this warrants regime change.

No space advocate will gain access to (a) heavy lift or (b) nuclear power without the cooperation of either the USA, EU, Russia or China. Unless big government benefits from doing Mars, it won't happen.

If on the other hand, we'd be ruled by a keynesian statist/socialist sort of capitalism that's driven by huge investments in infrastructure and industry to create employment and consumer demand, I can think of nothing to rival a wholesale space program in terms of scale, stimulation of productivity and eventual returns. At least it's much better than just making guns, which in itself is only a massive destruction of capital.

Making money in space. Settle Mars and claim resources? A suckers game IMHO if your goal is profit.

Selling stuff (and transportation) to other people who have committed to settle Mars for non economic reasons? Perhaps big profits. Perhaps.

Why, on the other hand will private enterprise capitalism not lead the way into space? Because space is uniquely dependant on huge infrastructure investment to yield any profits. Just the kind of thing short-sighted-staring-oneself-blind-on-the-upcoming-quarterly-balance-sheet-laissez-fa?re capitalism is unable to pull off, but which is a prerequisite for the keynesian resource industrialist approach to work at all.

In my opinion, we need to treat the capitalist profit motive rather like gravity - a constant force that must be accomodated in our plans but which can be predicted and harnessed, rather like the gravity assist trajectory.

But, like gravity, we cannot count on the proft motive to do our work for us.

Ranger_2833 · 2003-07-01 15:45:00

How will the world get better for everyone? We can never launch enough people to make a dent in the population size on Earth. All we will do is create Kings in space for some, while others continue to suffer here on Earth.
How will colonization of space by a few lead to a better world for all?

Why should colonization be a means to support Earth? Nothing we can do will be anything more than a short term (in species-time not lifetime) solution. We could kill off half the world's population and impose population limits, but what good would that do? Without severely limiting the rights of the individual (limiting progeny) we would eventually end up in the same situation. If somehow we were able to limit the population, society would merely stagnate the condition. Where do we set the limit to population? Too high and we must limit the amount of resources each person can use also. Eventually we would reach an inescapable plateau of standard of living (it may be better than it is now, but it cannot progress any further).

I agree that colonization cannot dent the population woes of Earth, but I propose that that is not, and should not be, the purpose of humanity's venture into space.

What we need to think about is colonies to support themselves and new colonies. We cannot simply make them resource depots to constantly feed Earth (I think that the last 200 years have shown the error in that type of colonialism). We must do what is good for humanity as a whole, even if it means letting Earth suffer for its mistakes. What you suggest is that if some of humanity must suffer, then all must suffer the same. Should a coal miner deny his child an education so he cannot leave the mines and find a better life, even if it means leaving the family behind? I find your idea to be absolutely abhorrent and against all that humanity should stand for.

I encourage you to provide a way through which humanity continues to improve itself without leaving the cradle. I think you will find it mathematically impossible without severe barriers to human progress and freedom.

I say it is time to ween the child or it will never be able to feed itself.

Josh Cryer · 2003-07-01 18:39:59

I see clark is trolling again. And funnily enough, he's using some of my trademark arguments!

Most current advocacy groups are admittedly pipe dreaming when they discuss a lot of the things they discuss, but this does not mean that their goals are inherently wrong or selfish. Indeed, the basic argument is that this technology and knowledge will in turn benefit all mankind in any case. So even if, and I'm not trying to slam Zubrin here, because I do find him intriguing and agree with many things he says politically speaking- but even if Zubrin declared himself Holy Bishop of Mars, Knight of Ares, King of the Heavens or whatever, and did manage to get to Mars and survive for any extended period of time, there would still be a lot in it for humankind as a whole.

The key here, though, which you seem to get, clark, is that implementing such technology would be about ten times easier on earth, if not a hundred or a thousand times cheaper (this is assuming cheap access to space isn't to be had). So what a space colony (and not necessarliy on Mars, but Luna, too) would potentially bring, is a good, workable, example for the rest of humanity. Not exactly the technology itself, but also the forms of organization along with it.

BTW, there's the perfectly legitimate argument that many have no incentive to create said technology on Earth because interdependency is paramount to belonging to our current society (any sort of non-dependent form of organization is unprofitable, and thus, undesirable). Colonization inherently implies a lack of dependency.

How long until towns around the country, and indeed, cities around the world, start implementing pollution-free, highly efficient and totally self-sustained systems? Instead of paying millions into welfare programs for poorer neighborhoods, simply invite them to use ?space technology,? and let them pay for it out of their own pocket by implementing it themselves (that is, instead of giving them a fish every day like current welfare does, give them a fishing poll and access to their own pond and bait- ie, teach them to fish!).

I don't mean to dumb down your idea, clark, but I honest-to-goodness don't see the issue. But, obviously from our previous discussions, I would probably agree that a temporary Mars-mission (where we stay no longer than a year and develop nothing) couldn't benefit us much, but you were specifically speaking in a colonization context here, and I simply disagree that colonization and the innovations that are created by it, won't help us, or are inherently selfish.

clark · 2003-07-02 08:09:22

Ranger,

Why should colonization be a means to support Earth?

If colonization doesn't benefit Earth, or really, the majority of humanity, then why should humanity, as a whole, get involved? Of course this doesn't preclude private ventures, but as Bill rightly points out, colonization by private ventures will be dependant upon government entities for the heavy lift capability, and the nuclear power for efficient transportation. Don't you see the problem here?

Without severely limiting the rights of the individual (limiting progeny) we would eventually end up in the same situation. If somehow we were able to limit the population, society would merely stagnate the condition. Where do we set the limit to population?

I don't have the answer. However, I don't necessarily accept that individuals have an inherent right to breed like rabbits, which you seem to imply. We have a right to continue our genetic line, but does that right mean we can have a thousand children each? Don't you see an inherent problem with this right between individual and society? A society must take care of all of it's people, so every child born is ultimately the responsibility of society, yet we somehow accept that individuals have no constraints imposed upon this right. It doesn't make sense, and makes space colonization merely an excuse to continue a short-sighted behavior.

I agree that colonization cannot dent the population woes of Earth, but I propose that that is not, and should not be, the purpose of humanity's venture into space.

Then what is the purpose?

We must do what is good for humanity as a whole, even if it means letting Earth suffer for its mistakes.

How is it for the 'good' of humanity if only a small fraction of humanity ever benefit?

Should a coal miner deny his child an education so he cannot leave the mines and find a better life, even if it means leaving the family behind?

By all means no, but ideally the child sent away for a better life returns to bring benefits to the same family, or father, who sacrificed to allow them the opportunities they now enjoy. Are you suggesting that their is no debt to be repaid?

I find your idea to be absolutely abhorrent and against all that humanity should stand for.

I get that a lot.

I encourage you to provide a way through which humanity continues to improve itself without leaving the cradle. I think you will find it mathematically impossible without severe barriers to human progress and freedom.

We've managed to continually improve ourselves for the last ten thousand years, all without space. All of the technology that is promised by space colonization can be developed here, on earth, for a fraction of the cost and risk. So why colonize space?

clark · 2003-07-02 08:23:50

Josh,

I see clark is trolling again. And funnily enough, he's using some of my trademark arguments!

Pay toll to the Troll? LOL

The key here, though, which you seem to get, clark, is that implementing such technology would be about ten times easier on earth, if not a hundred or a thousand times cheaper (this is assuming cheap access to space isn't to be had). So what a space colony (and not necessarliy on Mars, but Luna, too) would potentially bring, is a good, workable, example for the rest of humanity. Not exactly the technology itself, but also the forms of organization along with it.

So we can't learn the same forms of orginazation here on Earth that we would in a space colony? What kind of organization is that?

BTW, there's the perfectly legitimate argument that many have no incentive to create said technology on Earth because interdependency is paramount to belonging to our current society (any sort of non-dependent form of organization is unprofitable, and thus, undesirable). Colonization inherently implies a lack of dependency.

If we are to accept this, then wouldn't the idea of private ventures doing space colonization be a pipe dream too? What would be in it for a proavte company to set up the means for it's own dissolution? If this were true, wouldn't we necessarily need to depend upon government entities to make space colonies a reality? If so, what's the benefit for the majority of the people if the same results can be done more easily, and far cheaper on Earth?

How long until towns around the country, and indeed, cities around the world, start implementing pollution-free, highly efficient and totally self-sustained systems?

How would this happen with space colonization?

I don't mean to dumb down your idea, clark, but I honest-to-goodness don't see the issue. But, obviously from our previous discussions, I would probably agree that a temporary Mars-mission (where we stay no longer than a year and develop nothing) couldn't benefit us much, but you were specifically speaking in a colonization context here, and I simply disagree that colonization and the innovations that are created by it, won't help us, or are inherently selfish.

I don't believe space colonization is inherently selfish, and I have my own thoughts on why it isn't. However, I haven't seen anyone make the case yet (don't get me wrong, you guys are making this difficult for me). How do we justify space colonies, and the resources, sacrifices, and opportunities we sacrifice today, for the promise of tommorrow, when only a few will directly benefit?

It's a bit like a pyramid, okay. It takes a huge base of people, history, and technology to get that first man on the moon. It will take a huge base of people, time, resources, missed opportunity, etc. for us to get the first space colony going. It is an investment by humanity (or a group of humanity if a small group can somehow do it alone) that looks to return very little for what is required to set this into motion. There are other avenues we might take, with less cost and risk, that could very well lead to the same benefits for far more people, far more quickly. If so, why space?

Ranger_2833 · 2003-07-02 13:36:23

Clark,

You have a very utilitarian point of view. The good of the many over the few or the one. But you seem to only refer to those who presently exist. I however feel that we must include future generations in to the equation. I think we can agree that earth's population will eventually stagnate, by choice (I do agree with you that we must enact limits on population for the good of earth society) or mere physical nessecity, but the resources for our existance in space are, for all intents and purposes, inexhaustable. Humanity in space could expand and grow for an ideterminable amount of time. Thus I believe that this multitude would outweigh the need for a few Terra-centric homebodies.

On the issue of justifying the use of national (or multinational) resources to achieve this goal, space is an investment in the future. While I believe that colonists should not have to support earth, I in no way excluded repayment of this "loan". Also one must consider the benefits of commerce between the earth and the colonies. Helium-3 for fusion reactors, platinum and othe rare metals which can be found in abundance in the asteroids, and the trade of human knowledge/technology. Can you honestly say that the colonization of the Americas did not return the investment, and much more, to the European nations that footed the bill? At first I agree that our colonies should support earth as a payment of their debt, but they should be allowed their eventual freedom and in turn move towards trade rather than repayment.

After the first such colonies had achieved their independence, it is plausible that new ventures could be funded by those living beyond earth (a good examlpe would be the mining of the moon/asteroids for resources which in turn would provide resources neede for further expansion). I do not propose that we abandon our family (as in your reply to my coal miner analogy), but that we can co-exist without one having to support (we no longer produce goods such as cotton for England, yet we still trade with England, to both our benefits).

Other benefits to earth society could also be: supplementation (at fair trade) of earthly resources, the removal of heavy industry from earth to alleviate pollution and energy (in abundance in space) woes, and extra living space for those who eventually will chose to leave earth (not ships full of earths excess population, but those of us who still have the nerve to seek new frontiers as our ancestors before).

You mentioned the search for cures to illnesses that plague mankind. By remain on earth we limit the possible distribution of human effort towards any one area. If there are only 8 billion people in the world and only a few hundred are able to devote their time to say AIDS, we severely limit the potential scientific output of society. More people cannot be added without drawing from other sources (we cannot simply assign all 8 billion to AIDS research, there would be no one to grow the food), but if we are able to enlarge the pool of potential scientists we can greatly increase the scientific output, in AIDS research for this example, without having to diminish the output of other important pursuits. Space offers us such a place to enlarge the pool of humanity.

One must also consider the possibilities of finding natural cures in ecosystems other than our own (i.e. Aspirin is derived from a type of willow tree by the greeks. Imagine if that particular type of willow had existed, say in Brazil, and no one had made the effort to explore and colonize the Americas. No aspirin. A simple example, but who knows what more life-savings cures await our discovery beyond earth). Thus it is logical that it would be impossible to gain all of the possibilities of space from a very limited part. We could never achieve all of the same technologies on earth as we could in the vast arena of space.

Your opinions seem to be based on very shortsighted observations that, at least in my eyes, are endemic of our modern society. You ask "What is the payoff to me now?", I ask "What will be the payoff for generations to come?"

There are many more reasons, but due to time constraints I must leave those for another time.

Please forgive any grievous spelling/grammar errors, I haven't time now to proof-read my work as I must return to the Evil Classes of Engineering.

clark · 2003-07-02 14:04:26

You have a very utilitarian point of view. The good of the many over the few or the one. But you seem to only refer to those who presently exist. I however feel that we must include future generations in to the equation.

Perhaps it is utilitarian, I prefer to think of it as more pragmatic. We both are considering the future generations in our equation, you and others though are under the impression that only space can provide the greatest good to the greatest many... which I, and many others who must be convinced, do not neccessarily agree.

. I think we can agree that earth's population will eventually stagnate, by choice (I do agree with you that we must enact limits on population for the good of earth society) or mere physical nessecity, but the resources for our existance in space are, for all intents and purposes, inexhaustable.

I can agree that space has an inexhaustable supply of resources, at least in terms of our needs. However, I do not see the need to colonize space in order to access or utilize those resources. Putting people in space is a drain on resources that dosen't neccessarilt create any extra resources just becuase they are in space. Computer's and robots can do most of what needs doing, thus reducing the neccessity of having living bodies in space. If we don't neccessarilt need people there, why put them there in the first place?

On the issue of justifying the use of national (or multinational) resources to achieve this goal, space is an investment in the future.

Whose future? First world nations, second world, or third?

Helium-3 for fusion reactors, platinum and othe rare metals which can be found in abundance in the asteroids, and the trade of human knowledge/technology. Can you honestly say that the colonization of the Americas did not return the investment, and much more, to the European nations that footed the bill?

Human trade and technology can occur on earth, without the benefit od space colonies. The other resources can be mined remotely, without the neccessity of a space colony. If so, why put people in space?

After the first such colonies had achieved their independence, it is plausible that new ventures could be funded by those living beyond earth (a good examlpe would be the mining of the moon/asteroids for resources which in turn would provide resources neede for further expansion).

Sure, the first space colonies have a veste4d interest in making more space colonies becuase with each one created, the reliance on Earth as a market is reduced- it creates more opportunity for *them*. Yet what's in it for those Earth bound souls who will never rise above the troposhere?

Other benefits to earth society could also be: supplementation (at fair trade) of earthly resources, the removal of heavy industry from earth to alleviate pollution and energy (in abundance in space) woes, and extra living space for those who eventually will chose to leave earth (not ships full of earths excess population, but those of us who still have the nerve to seek new frontiers as our ancestors before).

Okay, where you see a bright future, I see suffering and death. With the removal of heavy industry from earth comes displacement of labor- what will these people do now? As you have stated, space can never alleviate the population problems on Earth (assuming we have such a thing), so it won't create any new living space for those still on Earth. Space colonization merely acts as a 21st century version of the American suburbs which will allow some of the best and brightest to recreate the 'white flight' we have seen from urban centers, except now it will be into space. The rat deserting the ship, not exactly my idea of a bright future for mankind.

. By remain on earth we limit the possible distribution of human effort towards any one area. If there are only 8 billion people in the world and only a few hundred are able to devote their time to say AIDS, we severely limit the potential scientific output of society.

Yet the people going into space will be primarily focused on developing technology and science to deal with their circumstances and situation, i.e, dealing with the environment of living in space. They won't have issues with disease becuase the environment is much different, so why would they look for cures to diseaases or issues that never even affect them?

If it's merely an issue of creating more space for people to live in, we can certainly do far more on Earth (such as living in the ocean) to create such spaces, at less cost and risk. So once again, why should we send people into space to live permanently?

One must also consider the possibilities of finding natural cures in ecosystems other than our own (i.e. Aspirin is derived from a type of willow tree by the greeks.

Alright, I admit that other ecosystems may provide new possibilities for our future. Now, I challenge you to point to ONE ecosystem beyond Earth orbit that might provide the promise of such possibility.

I think maybe Europa fits the bill... but then again, it's under miles of ice on a small moon of water... maybe.

Your opinions seem to be based on very shortsighted observations that, at least in my eyes, are endemic of our modern society. You ask "What is the payoff to me now?", I ask "What will be the payoff for generations to come?"

Yet it is the vast majority, who you say share my opinion, that must be convinced to make this dream possible! Ah, the rub.

By the way Ranger, well put. :;):

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2003-06-30 09:35:20

Re: The Case Against Space Colonization - Chime in

#2 2003-06-30 10:21:22

Re: The Case Against Space Colonization - Chime in

#3 2003-06-30 10:38:40

Re: The Case Against Space Colonization - Chime in

#4 2003-06-30 11:19:11

Re: The Case Against Space Colonization - Chime in

#5 2003-06-30 11:27:04

Re: The Case Against Space Colonization - Chime in

#6 2003-06-30 11:43:38

Re: The Case Against Space Colonization - Chime in

#7 2003-06-30 11:53:32

Re: The Case Against Space Colonization - Chime in

#8 2003-06-30 12:23:18

Re: The Case Against Space Colonization - Chime in

#9 2003-06-30 12:24:48

Re: The Case Against Space Colonization - Chime in

#10 2003-06-30 12:37:40

Re: The Case Against Space Colonization - Chime in

#11 2003-06-30 13:30:02

Re: The Case Against Space Colonization - Chime in

#12 2003-06-30 13:37:16

Re: The Case Against Space Colonization - Chime in

#13 2003-06-30 13:44:50

Re: The Case Against Space Colonization - Chime in

#14 2003-06-30 13:49:01

Re: The Case Against Space Colonization - Chime in

#15 2003-06-30 15:11:46

Re: The Case Against Space Colonization - Chime in

#16 2003-06-30 18:05:03

Re: The Case Against Space Colonization - Chime in

#17 2003-06-30 19:37:57

Re: The Case Against Space Colonization - Chime in

#18 2003-07-01 09:09:08

Re: The Case Against Space Colonization - Chime in

#19 2003-07-01 09:27:12

Re: The Case Against Space Colonization - Chime in

#20 2003-07-01 15:45:00

Re: The Case Against Space Colonization - Chime in

#21 2003-07-01 18:39:59

Re: The Case Against Space Colonization - Chime in

#22 2003-07-02 08:09:22

Re: The Case Against Space Colonization - Chime in

#23 2003-07-02 08:23:50

Re: The Case Against Space Colonization - Chime in

#24 2003-07-02 13:36:23

Re: The Case Against Space Colonization - Chime in

#25 2003-07-02 14:04:26

Re: The Case Against Space Colonization - Chime in

Board footer