The Case Against Space Colonization - Chime in

Bill White · 2003-07-02 14:25:37

Those who benefit should pay. Those who will not benefit should not pay. I am okay with that.

"Humanity" as an undivided whole has no bank accounts or tax revenues or heavy lift launch systems the last I checked. Some nations, and corporations and other sub-groups of the human whole do have access to those these things and the other things needed to do space.

The concern that ALL somehow benefit is irrelevant.

Whichever group has the ability to pay and chooses to pay to enter space will reap the benfits of entering space and their descendants will live like kings, as you say.

clark · 2003-07-02 14:35:46

Ah, the *honest* argument. Thanks Bill. Now that we've pointed to the elephant in the room, how do we all feel about it?

Those who benefit should pay. Those who will not benefit should not pay. I am okay with that.

Yet let us look at the agreements made by the world. It holds that the heavens above is the birthright of all humanity, not just the portion that can get there. Are we better served by admiting that such an agreement is a mistake, or that the ideals are something that we should strive for?

If space is only for those who can get there, then the vast majority of humanity, and the people whose governments represent them, will see no need to help in this endeavour for 'all humanity', since it only includes those who have the meas. I think Tito will be lonely in the future, don't you?

Also, if we declare that space is not for all humanity, then it becomes yet another *thing* to engender hatred and animosity for the people of the world as the 'have's' of space confront the 'have not's' of those unable to access space.

Couple this with nation states preventing other nations even the opportunity to get into space and we create a very unequal world for all. How does this benefit the greatest good?

The concern that ALL somehow benefit is irrelevant.

Ah, the Hu-man in us all speaks. Becuase some benefit and other don't is the reason for most of our problems to begin with. Or am I just being naieve?

Whichever group has the ability to pay and chooses to pay to enter space will reap the benfits of entering space and their descendants will live like kings, as you say.

Whichever group has the ability to enter space, and is allowed to enter space will reap the benefits. However, those denied the opportunity will sow the seeds of discontent in our future. It is ultimetly self defeating and shows no progress in our mind set.

Bill White · 2003-07-02 18:26:22

Ah, the Hu-man in us all speaks. Becuase some benefit and other don't is the reason for most of our problems to begin with. Or am I just being naieve?

When has it been otherwise? Ever? I acknowlegde the malady you speak of, only I assert that every remedy ever proposed to solve this malady proves worse than the disease. Marx is a good example, IMHO.

I also dispute your assertion that some people entering space will cause harm to those remaining behind. Its not a zero sum game.

clark · 2003-07-03 05:49:24

When has it been otherwise? Ever? I acknowlegde the malady you speak of, only I assert that every remedy ever proposed to solve this malady proves worse than the disease. Marx is a good example, IMHO.

Let me apologize, I don't mean to point you out, or offend. We largely see eye to eye Bill, and your point gets right to the practical side of the issue.

After all, idealism is nice and all, but it doesn?t build rockets, right? I recognize that, but how many space advocates do?

Now, my problem here is that every cure to the malady, as you put it, failed. So my question then is, are we left with no other alternatives? Should we settle for the inequities of today?

If we say that whoever can get to space, gets space, we create a dilemma here on Earth. You doubt it's a zero sum game, fair enough. But my historical precede dent is based on the exploitation of the new world by European powers. How did Africa fare during, and after this time? How did all the other European nations interact with the advent of new 'territory'?

If we make space a place, why would it be any different on Earth between the 'have's' of space and the 'have not's' of space?

Doesn?t this all seem a recipe for greater conflict on earth, as opposed to a means for peaceful coexistence?

Bill White · 2003-07-03 07:18:30

Hey, no apologies needed. I often share similiar frustrations.

Too many space advocates worship at the icon of St Carl (Sagan) and long for the day when all humanity joins hands and rockets to the stars singing "Kumbaya!" With western secular humanist scientist types being in charge, of course.

Anyway, as for benefits for all. Does the average Brazilian benefit when they win the World Cup? When the Bulls won 6 championships, did I benefit as a Chicagoan? Objectively, the repeat three-peat gave me very very little personal benefit yet that is not how I felt about it at the time. I also watched many many games on NBC, growing their ratings and thus contributing a teeny tiny fraction of the dollars needed to pay Micahel Jordan and company.

The cost to me? Negligible since I otherwise might have watched Wheel of Fortune anyways.

My proposal is that we drop the Carl Sagan idealism and sell space settlement like 3Com Park (thats the one that replaced Candlestick, right?) or Miller Field in Milwaukee.

Those who benefit (or believe they benefit) pay. And, if payment means 01 cents every time they watch a TV show about Mars, so be it. The benefit is small, the payment is small yet given the global population it adds up.

Besides, better to sell space IMHO than the NBA or (gasp!) The Wheel of Fortune or PaganToris's favorite -> The Man Show. He! He!

As for perfection, ask Abraham. Why did he say "Tell Pharoah you are my sister" There is a lesson there.

Lovers of law, and sausage, and space settlements probably shoudn't watch while the object of their affection is being made. That my philosophy.

prometheusunbound · 2003-07-03 07:58:30

space colonization won't just make the astronauts rich (if at all) Mankind will benefit as a whole by space colonization, and i'll admit that there will absolutly be some of those who will benefit more than others. So what? that is the way life is. If we can make it more equal opputurnity it will definatly be as fair as possible economically. . .and who ever said that the space colonists would be getting favors and privillages. . .think about jamestown where people starved, died and suffered for their wages. .the people there were nobilty but they suffered like peasants for their so called riches. most of them never found the money they were looking for. I believe it will be nearly idenical for any colonist.

clark · 2003-07-03 10:07:01

Bill,

My proposal is that we drop the Carl Sagan idealism and sell space settlement like 3Com Park (thats the one that replaced Candlestick, right?) or Miller Field in Milwaukee.

But won't this lead to strife and conflict for those who are denied, or are unable to access space? Considering how easily anyone can deny any other access to space, those with little investment in space could litterlay hold any sponsoring nation hostage, not to mention the people in space. Cut the means to transfer to and from space, and it is a very dark scenario we will be considering here.

Here is another way to think about it: A nation lays claims to space territory, such as a mega-rich asteroid. Let's say the nation even figures a way to bring the metals at a competitive level to the Earth market. What happens to the competing nation states that do not have access to space, yet rely on their natural resources for trade? Dosen' t their value decrease? Doesn't our reliance on them decrease? Wouldn't that cause unemployment at the lowest level, causing labor displacement and the usual social decay that often accompanies mass unemployment? Suddenly people with little to lose have a lot less to lose. Isn't this a very real possibility if we start carving up the heavens among those few groups that have access to space?

To be honest with ourselves, the idea to carve up the heavens as you suggest is ideally suited for those best positioned to access space, since those who cannot wouldn't willingly let go of what right now is considered all of humanities domain, no?

Lovers of law, and sausage, and space settlements probably shouldn't watch while the object of their affection is being made. That my philosophy.

A good philosophy with wisdom, but not something I am willing to do.

prometheusunbound,

If we can make it more equal opputurnity it will definatly be as fair as possible economically. . .and who ever said that the space colonists would be getting favors and privillages. . .think about jamestown where people starved, died and suffered for their wages. .the people there were nobilty but they suffered like peasants for their so called riches.

How do we make it more 'equal opportunity' then? As for any would be colonists, they will be living in an environmentally controlled, medically advanced, highly automated world. It will NOT be Jamestown. People will not starve, because if they do, we have some serious problems unrelated to our science and technology. It will also be populated with highly educated, highly motivated people- not some criminal or dead beat debtor. This would be an entirely different situation over our previous historical colonizing efforts.

Bill White · 2003-07-03 10:41:06

Here is another way to think about it: A nation lays claims to space territory, such as a mega-rich asteroid. Let's say the nation even figures a way to bring the metals at a competitive level to the Earth market. What happens to the competing nation states that do not have access to space, yet rely on their natural resources for trade? Dosen' t their value decrease? Doesn't our reliance on them decrease? Wouldn't that cause unemployment at the lowest level, causing labor displacement and the usual social decay that often accompanies mass unemployment? Suddenly people with little to lose have a lot less to lose. Isn't this a very real possibility if we start carving up the heavens among those few groups that have access to space?

First, it appears I have not been clear. What gets "sold" are media rights and sponsorship rights, not locations in space, like asteroids. Miller Beer slaps its name on Miller Field, thats all.

Next, I pretty much support the Outer Space Treaty ban on nations claiming soverignty over space locations (real estate). Private property rights apart from national soveriegnty issues are a thorny issue indeed yet if anyone goes out there, ever, humanity will someday face those issues. (A future book of mine is tenatively titled "The Salt Lake Treaty of 2029")

Very complex and thorny issues we cannot avoid nor solve easily. Identical issues arise with questions of who "owns" broadcast spectrum or the "right" to domain names on the Web. Radio frequencies and the like.

Hernando de Soto and Amartya Sen (to name two) offer starting points to address such issues while keeping the common good firmly in view.

Yet! A decline in the cost of raw materials or energy will harm no one, except maybe Saudi princes or monopolistic mine owners. Resource poor Japan and Jordan (and England!) are far better off that resource rich Saudi Arabia. To end any nation's dependence on the exploitation of natural resources as the sole foundation for its society and economy is a very good thing, IMHO.

Kuwait, for example, MUST start planning for the day the oil fields run dry, otherwise they are screwed. How will space settlement lower the value of labor? It won't, it can't.

In my view, Terran investment in space should come solely from disposable income, money that would otherwise be spent on sports or Hollywood or on the price difference between Coca-Cola and Safeway Select. And we can find more than enough money, there, to do the job.

Next, most of that investment will be spent on wages for Terran employees supporting the space settlers. So the money never really leaves Earth anyways.

B: Lovers of law, and sausage, and space settlements probably shouldn't watch while the object of their affection is being made. That my philosophy.
C: A good philosophy with wisdom, but not something I am willing to do.

Was Machiavelli a cynic or a man seeking to do good knowing he is surrounded by evil men? I believe the latter. Some nice quotes to follow after I find the text.

When in the company of thieves, strive to do good whenever and wherever you can but if one is too prissy about "being good" all the time the consequence will be even greater harm rather than good.

clark · 2003-07-03 10:55:35

Next, I pretty much support the Outer Space Treaty ban on nations claiming sovereignty over space locations (real estate).

Then how can any real development ever occur? If no nation can lay claim, then wouldn't 'private' ownership from members of the nation state be in essence the same thing? If a nation state subsidizes the effort to colonize space, isn't that just in itself a defacto claim by a nation state? It looks like words games to me.

Very complex and thorny issues we cannot avoid nor solve easily. Identical issues arise with questions of who "owns" broadcast spectrum or the "right" to domain names on the Web. Radio frequencies and the like.

In my mind though, these are a bit different, and don't necessarily relate to space. Radio frequencies and web address are new resources that have no pre-existing corollary. Mining the asteroids will affect Terran markets because people are already producing the commodity now. Any new introduction, especially on a massive scale, which space mining promises, will lead to economic chaos via displaced workers.

The number one cost to business is human capital. Robots solve that dilemma. The space environment requires less human capital by necessity, to reduce overall infrastructure cost. So we end up creating automated factories to replace cheap labor. What does the cheap labor do (remember that most of the human population falls into this category)?

Yet! A decline in the cost of raw materials or energy will harm no one, except maybe Saudi princes or monopolistic mine owners.

You think so? Would imagine it would hurt the people who work the most as they get laid off. Usually the people at the top don't get hurt by stuff like this because they have options, the man who works in the mine, and that's all he knows, has very few options.

Kuwait, for example, MUST start planning for the day the oil fields run dry, otherwise they are screwed. How will space settlement lower the value of labor? It won't, it can't.

It affects labor by introducing higher automation in production, which reduces reliance on human capital. This increases the unemployment rate, which necessarily drives down the value human capital can demand for work.

Next, most of that investment will be spent on wages for Terran employees supporting the space settlers. So the money never really leaves Earth anyway.

Maybe you could expand on this idea...

prometheusunbound · 2003-07-03 11:34:57

Clark, what I am saying is that people have an fundumental equality at oppoturnity. I myself am a case in this point. I was born hearing, but I lost most (90%) of my hearing at age 4-5. I had to be taught to speak. if I had not been taught to speak, I would had limited chance to suceed at all. Now that I have a chance to succeed, I believe it would be better to sieze that chance and go for the greatest glory. Anything less would make my contribuation to society as a whole worthless (I was taught to speak in public school, mind you) and would undetermine the efforts of these educators. Even though many children in other nations do not recieve the education I get, it is a waste to lay down my arms and forfeit it in the name of fair play. I believe pushing these inequalitys will spark others if they see that they, too, can work hard and achive. It is a sin not to use what was given to you, to die with potential unrealized.
Will going for the glory hurt someone? It might. But so what? No things in life are done without risk. and if we never took risks we might still not be in america. . .we still might not have the internet. . .we might still be in caves, huddling in the dark because no one is brave enough to find fire. . .fire burns but it also lights the way. I might get burnt, even badly, but I would rather see with risk than stumble blindly. The only way to see if knowing is better than blind ignorance is to find out.
I believe any kings in space will have to suffer for their crowns. . .it not an inheirance but is granted by the sweat of their brow. If they do not, it is. No kings will ever be at rest, for they must be on top of the game, never stoping lest another take his place, in the great game of competition we call life. It is equal oppoturnity, but not everyone will seize that oppoturnity. No, only those who work for it will seize it. It will not be handed to them, and if it is, it will not be theirs for very long.
I want my chance to go and be a king, I want it myself. . .but so do many. I will work my butt off to achive something, and I want to stand in the light of it.

clark · 2003-07-03 11:51:05

prometheusunbound,

A very rousing speech. A standing ovation for the feelings you express.

Now, to the meat of it,

Clark, what I am saying is that people have an fundumental equality at oppoturnity.

Nations, and the people within them, do not have a fundamental equality of opportunity to access space. As such, any nation, or group that lays claim to space do so at the exspense of those, through no fault of their own, are unable to take advantage of the same opportunity.

Either the heavens is for all of us, or it is only for some of us. If indeed it is only for some, then the argument that space colonization is for all humanity seems to a be abit of a lie.

Even though many children in other nations do not recieve the education I get, it is a waste to lay down my arms and forfeit it in the name of fair play.

I do not deny this, and I applaude your view. Yet we must also relaize that the manner in which we exploit space will lay the foundation for tommorrow's disenfranchisement if something isn't done to equalize the opportunity that space promises to be. What happens on the day those other children receive the same education you have had, and begin to dream as you, only to find that space as an opportunity is gone?

I might get burnt, even badly, but I would rather see with risk than stumble blindly. The only way to see if knowing is better than blind ignorance is to find out.

There are usually two ends to this spectrum, the one end is based on caution and planning, trying to prepare for possible futures- the other end is to rush in, taking risks, and hoping to find solutions along the way. Which is a more wise approach for space development? Which will last longer?

The truth is, both can succeed, given the right circumstance. Too slow, and you miss opportunity, too fast, and you crash and burn. I am not quite convinced that we should be rushing headlong into this though with the hope that everything works out in the end. There just seems to be too many opportunities for disaster based on our curent practices. Living in space is too fragile for the social strife we are used to.

I want my chance to go and be a king, I want it myself. . .but so do many. I will work my butt off to achive something, and I want to stand in the light of it.

Yet you see the chance of space colonization as a somewhat realisitic opportunity for yourself- this is dictated by where you live than by who you are. All the desire in the world really won't get the poor child in africa to the moon.

But I think we may be drifting here. :laugh:

Bill White · 2003-07-03 12:53:13

It affects labor by introducing higher automation in production, which reduces reliance on human capital. This increases the unemployment rate, which necessarily drives down the value human capital can demand for work.

Jobs shift around. For example, I saw an article that hair stylists are being paid at a record high rate. Something made possible by higher wages and more wealth for a particular class of people.

Suppose fewer workers can now make more automobiles. You say this means unemployment.

But a new niche of custom auto upholstery has arisen. Detroit executives making more money at Ford or Chevy now pay skilled after market contractors who can easily earn $100,000 per year or more adding custom leather seats or doing fancy mini-van conversions.

Lets get to the nub. $225 Nike shoes. Its that spread between $225 Nike shoes and $15 Wal-Mart shoes that I am really aiming at for paying for Mars. Arbitrarge.

I once saw Jimmy Buffet in concert and he complained that his daughter's shoes just cost more than his first pick up truck.

Are these shoes made by exploiting Vietnamese workers? Of course and its profoundly immoral. But suppose we all bought $15 Wal-Mart shoes instead. Same shoe (more or less) just no logo.

How will those workers ever be paid higher wages in that case? To solve the problem we westerners still need to pay $225 for tennis shoes, we just need to insist that a rather more go to Vietnam and rather less go to Phil Knight. And if some went to fund a Mars colony? Whats the problem with that?

Now suppose higher wages in Hanoi means they automate the factory and employ fewer people? Those fewer people hire those let go to cut hair, or babysit, or wash cars or write poetry.

For the record, I have strong feelings in favor of an internatonal mnimum wage. Like Henry Ford's $5 dollar day for employees, I believe this would create buying power (more consumers) that in turn fuels economic growth.

Henry Ford's mass prodcution of the Model T and the good jobs in created is a great historical example to disprove your thesis, IMHO.

Do we need government to curb potential abuse? Yes, yes and yes again. But lower material costs and higher productivity need not cause unemployment if political structures exist to compel the smooth transition of displaced workers into other fields.

B: Next, most of that investment will be spent on wages for Terran employees supporting the space settlers. So the money never really leaves Earth anyway.
c: Maybe you could expand on this idea...

Use Mars Direct as an example. Suppose it costs $50 billion. I know Zubrin says less, others say more, I choose to pull $50 billion out of thin air.

Where does that money go?

Somebody builds boosters. If we use Zubrin's Ares shuttle variant, Morton Thiokol gets paid. NASA workes get paid. Engineers at JPL, Boeing, Lockmart get paid.

Janitors in Houston get paid. Security guards in Florida get paid. Computer programmers get paid a lot.

The raw value of the metal or kerosene or microchips that are blasted into space is really a very small part of the $50 billion price tag. Most of the money stays right here on Earth and never really leaves home.

Then how can any real development ever occur? If no nation can lay claim, then wouldn't 'private' ownership from members of the nation state be in essence the same thing? If a nation state subsidizes the effort to colonize space, isn't that just in itself a defacto claim by a nation state? It looks like words games to me.

Its the difference between nations and cultures or civilizations. The "West" includes several nations the US, Canada, EU Australia etc. . .

If westerners settle Mars, a new political entity will form not part of the US or EU or whatever yet tied by culture and language to where they came from. The US and the UK are certainly not the same nation but are joined by heritage and culture. Despite a rather nasty fight in 1776 and again in 1812. London also came darn close to taking the wrong side in 1864. :-)

I believe it would be a mistake for any Terran nation to seek political sovereignty over any space settlement. But to fund settlers who will create a new polity having no formal links to any Terran government would be a wise investment indeed for governments to make.

Set your settlers free from the start and avoid all those nasty wars for independence sci-fi writers love so much. Foster ties based on language, culture, commerce and yes, religion. But no overt political control.

By the way, I believe China and India recognize this aspect of space settlement very well indeed, better than we do in the West, and that China is looking at entering space not to benefit the political regime in Beijing but rather to benefit the Sinic civilization, which has persisted for 2500 years.

Chinese space efforts may well come to reprise the tortoise and the hare.

clark · 2003-07-03 13:24:39

Jobs shift around. For example, I saw an article that hair stylists are being paid at a record high rate. Something made possible by higher wages and more wealth for a particular class of people.

Trickle down economics via the rise of a new middle class based on exploiting the skills of specialized workforce for space colonization?

Why couldn't the same thing be done without going to space?
What makes space ideal?

How will those workers ever be paid higher wages in that case? To solve the problem we westerners still need to pay $225 for tennis shoes, we just need to insist that a rather more go to Vietnam and rather less go to Phil Knight. And if some went to fund a Mars colony? Whats the problem with that?

Nothing in and of itself, yet how do you make sure the funds are going to the people who deserve it most?

For the record, I have strong feelings in favor of an internatonal mnimum wage.

Now who is starting to sound like marx?

Do we need government to curb potential abuse? Yes, yes and yes again. But lower material costs and higher productivity need not cause unemployment if political structures exist to compel the smooth transition of displaced workers into other fields.

Well, let's see here: First world indusrilized nations create a new middle class of workers for space colonization, which in turns creates an opportunity to remove reliance on trade of natural resources with third world countries. This has the effect of rendering their national worth to almost nil. Whose hair will the Nigerians cut if the middle class is in America?

The primary problem I see is that those who will be displaced the most, will see very little in the way of new opportunities in which to employ themselves once their primary economy is destroyed.

How many times have you pointed out the agricultural situation of dumping food in the third world market. How would space colonization, and what it promises, be any different?

The raw value of the metal or kerosene or microchips that are blasted into space is really a very small part of the $50 billion price tag. Most of the money stays right here on Earth and never really leaves home.

We lose out by not applying our effort on other opportunities closer to home, that might benefit more of humanity.

I believe it would be a mistake for any Terran nation to seek political sovereignty over any space settlement. But to fund settlers who will create a new polity having no formal links to any Terran government would be a wise investment indeed for governments to make.

Perhaps, but then again, maybe not. American space settlers will more than likely want most of the protection offered by the Federal Constutuion, no? Couldn't we simply expect 'protectorates' or some derivation? But this might be a bit off topic...

Bill White · 2003-07-03 13:33:14

Why will anyone, anywhere, be displaced from their jobs because of space settlement? I just don't see that happening.

Recycling aluminum costs miners their jobs but new jobs are created in recycling facilities. A platinum asteroid dragged to LEO would mean less employment for platinum miners but more employment processing the material as it lands on Earth.

A diamond asteroid brought to LEO would annoy DeBeers to no end but cost jobs? Why?

Microwave solar power sats might put coal miners out of work but more jobs would be created making solar panels or microwave receiving stations.

What would/could a space settlement possibly dump on the Earth to cost jobs?

clark · 2003-07-03 13:50:41

Microwave solar power sats might put coal miners out of work but more jobs would be created making solar panels or microwave receiving stations.

I can accept this, but the problem is the jump between. If it is not handled appropriately, it opens op the chance of civil unrest and general chaos. Coal miners don't develop the skills to put up a microwave receiving station overnight. Generally, the lower down on the economic strata you are, the less likely you will be able to find a job in the new economy.

It also becomes a matter of effeciency and size. 10,000 coal miners to produce the neccessary amount of coal. Great, those 10,000 are set. Now comes in the big coal asteroid, thus reducing the need for those same 10,000 coal miners. Perhaps they can move up the line in the processing system for the coal, but all 10,000? Usually, the higher up the process system, the fewer people required.

10,000 to mine the coal. 5,000 to process it. 1,000 to transport it, etc. There is a diminishing return.

What would/could a space settlement possibly dump on the Earth to cost jobs?

Nothing at first, but then the problem becomes one where a space settlement will eventually be able to out compete the exsisting terrestrial markets that sprang up to support the intial sapce colonization. Newton's apple falls to hard for Earth to compete with free fall.

prometheusunbound · 2003-07-03 13:50:56

I believe jobs will be created in a space colonization/exploitation scheme. When (I know, it should be if) the asteroids are mined, it will produce a major load of cheap metals. Right now the major source (50%) of all nickel comes from a site in canada where a meotrite landed. A single 1km asteroid could provide enough metal to supply earth for 5yrs. All that metal could be processed in space and most of the actual space manufactored items will be used to expand the space infrastructure. The vast majority would be dropped into the ocean for retrival (miners could shape them and supply inflatable balloons on them) by oceangoing ships. This metal would be ready for fabrication (assuming it was purified in space, where there is a load of solar/nuke energy) by earth based firms. These metals would undercut any competiors prices and probably devastate the mining, raw materials industry on earth. BUT those who actually make stuff with these metals have a extremely cheap, reliable source and they can only expand rapidly, enough to easily overcome the loss of the raw materials industry. Prices of finished goods would go down in this case, and there would be more work then ever for those working with metals. . .Those who are the poor, tired working masses would benefit as the demand for their skills would soar and the wages they would recieve would propel them into the realm of the middle class.

Ranger_2833 · 2003-07-03 14:21:51

Just a quick one, as I must return to class soon.

Okay Clark, let us for a moment (and only a moment, for that is all I feel such an opinion merits ) assume that we were to take the money elsewhere, where it is needed to support the masses.

I suggest to you that a similar case has already transpired and failed over the last 30 years. The only difference is the money has been taken from manned space flight instead of the hypothetical colonization budget. But I feel that these are close enough in definition that the difference can be neglected.

NASA's budget peaked in 1965, since then nay-sayers (like Clark is pretending to be) have had their way and for almost 40+ years the budget has fallen. So for almost 40 years their dreams have been coming to fruitition at a steadily rising quantitity. For nearly forty years all of this money "better spent elsewher" has been put back into the availiable government budget.

Yet what good has come out of this money spent elsewhere? Other than a $50,000/year pension for congressmen (no that is not a made up number), to what common good has this extra money been spent?

Now Clark will probably respond something akin to "The future society will not piss this extra money away, they will you it only for the betterment of mankind". Thinking such as this has rarely (I can't think of any time) been true. It is, for lack of a better phrase at the current time, bullshit (pardon my freedom-ese ).

What has happened is the loss of our space infrastructure, thereby raising the costs of launches, let alone manned missions, for even those missions that directly benefit all of humanity. We have lost uncountable amounts of resources, raw and capital, for 40 years of retreating from space instead of progressing (even slowly). We where at the very threshold for serving all of mankind (for example orbiting powerstations to provide cheap power to the masses, thus helping to improve their status of life. Another example, utilizing the mineral rich regolith of the Moon to grow crops to subsidize starving nations. The list goes on and on.), but we have been scared by the possibility of change, for better or worse, and have come home to our mommy crying afraid to again leave her safety net.

There is only one way to prove the point without a doubt, we must colonize or we will never know. Even if humanity decided to stay in the cradle and somehow things were to improve, we would never know if mankind would have prospered (as a whole) even more on its own in the galaxy. To say otherwise would be a classic example of Post hoc, ergo propter hoc.

What have we got to lose? If humanity finds the "space kings" so untolerable, we can stop the further expansion. But if we don't go we may lose a bright future for all mankind.

I realize that there isn't much "hard data" in what I have said, but I seen none in Clarks as well. The best anyone can do on this topic, save an empirical evaluation (please, do try that), is to look at what the past has to say on similar subjects and draw what educated conclusions you can from it. I for one see a long history that supports expansion (read colonization for our purposes) over the stagnation of a society. I hope you may also see the error in Clark's view :laugh: .

Well off to class, I hope to see your responses soon (and from more people than Bill, Clark, and myself).

Bill White · 2003-07-03 14:39:39

Nothing at first, but then the problem becomes one where a space settlement will eventually be able to out compete the exsisting terrestrial markets that sprang up to support the intial sapce colonization. Newton's apple falls to hard for Earth to compete with free fall.

Bah!

Okay suppose 1 trillion happy space settlers are mining the asteroids and the gas gaint moons and the Oort cloud and busily outproduce poor old Terra.

The remaining Terrans can open tourist traps and charge visitors to come see where it all started. With 1 trillion potential visitors a Terran hotel room will be very, very expensive. Lots of money to pay those few billion folk still living here.

Josh Cryer · 2003-07-03 14:49:06

Too late to answer your questions to me, clark, but I just wanted to note that I wasn't saying that space colonization was the ?only way? to achieve certain kinds of progress. The Americas weren't the ?only way? to achieve heavy industrialism.

I honestly don't think we'll see anything in the way of space colonization until travel itself becomes cheaper (see: space elevator or several fleets of launchers). Who knows what'll happen up until that time, but let's hope whoever decides to go into space (and has the money and resources), does it with long-term survivablity in mind rather than simple-minded highly-dependent extremely costly suicide missions (ie. a moon landing style mission).

BTW, I'm not even going to get into some of the, well, weird stuff with regards to how things could function. Let's just say that I seriously do not see guys running around in space suits mining gold. And that basically I believe 99% of low level work would eventually be eliminated, and that any high level work would be utterly simplified with regards to how much actual involvement is necessary do it.

Bill White · 2003-07-03 14:49:14

Microwave solar power sats might put coal miners out of work but more jobs would be created making solar panels or microwave receiving stations.
I can accept this, but the problem is the jump between. If it is not handled appropriately, it opens op the chance of civil unrest and general chaos. Coal miners don't develop the skills to put up a microwave receiving station overnight. Generally, the lower down on the economic strata you are, the less likely you will be able to find a job in the new economy.
It also becomes a matter of effeciency and size. 10,000 coal miners to produce the neccessary amount of coal. Great, those 10,000 are set. Now comes in the big coal asteroid, thus reducing the need for those same 10,000 coal miners. Perhaps they can move up the line in the processing system for the coal, but all 10,000? Usually, the higher up the process system, the fewer people required.
10,000 to mine the coal. 5,000 to process it. 1,000 to transport it, etc. There is a diminishing return.

clark, when did you become a Luddite?

IMHO the microprocessor has (and will) cause a far greater loss of jobs for these reasons that space settlement ever will.

Be-gone thou Pentium 4 chipset, devil spawn destroyer of hard working folk earning their daily bread adding columns of numbers! A pox on Intel and AMD, bringer of starvation!

clark · 2003-07-03 15:12:03

clark, when did you become a Luddite?

When i figured out how to communicate to all of you without a computer... err, wait a sec.

and might I add, touche! :laugh:

The problem I see is this, the richest nations on earth, the most industrilized- these are the nations, and by and large, the people, who will benefit most from any advances in space.

However, these people only represent a small fraction of humanity. Now I will readily admit that progress and technology can bring effeciency, and such effeciency can, generally, improve the overall economic well being of more people. Yet what I see is a coming divide, a chasm whereby on one side, you have the industrilized nations growing richer as they access space, and the third world nations and her peoples growing poorer from an inability to compete in the spacefaring era.

How far does the trickle, trickle?

Displacement will occur at the lowest level in terms of human capital. Most of that human capital is located in nation states that are heavily relaint on the exploitation of their natural resources- something that open exploitation of space will undo.

Now, I can agree that long term, this might be in our best interest- what with saving the species and the environment and all, but I am also pointing out some very real dangers that exsist by exploiting space, and the coming changes from space colonization. After all, every Rose has her thorns.

The wisdom of the Anarctica treaty was that it prevented wars over terriotory between nations- it was preventing what happened with the new world, and colonialism. The Space Treaty speaks to this as well.

Some will benefit more from space than others, which sows the seeds of future conflict by those who feel they were not given equal opportunity.

The very real result of this is war as those with nothing, due to massive displacement, look to secure the basic neccessities- such as a future, food, etc.

Merely look to the near future for what I am talking about, a new space race between the major industrilized world. Greater restrictions on nuclear technology and rocket technology. Who already has this, who dosen't? Can't you see the growing disparity that only promises to grow ever more dangerous as we develop space for just ourselves?

Yet what good has come out of this money spent elsewhere? Other than a $50,000/year pension for congressmen (no that is not a made up number), to what common good has this extra money been spent?

A social saftey net that has created opportunity for all levels of society and reduced disenfranchisement.

The major ones were the GI Bill, Medicare, social security, and exspansion of higher education to foster social mobility.

Notice how everything is about engendering opportunity for all.
How does space colonization do that?

While some monies are mispent, much of it isn't.

A hundred billion dollars and perhaps we can reassess how much we pay teachers to teach so we can attract good teachers to train a future generation. A hundred billion for after school programs to try and mitigate the urban decay cycle of families and youth. A hudred billion for more police, to make our streets safer, so people can feel secure that society is there to protect them. A hundred billion dollars to help insure those without health care, so they can get the quality help all deserve as a matter of course.

Or we can send a few people to live like kings on an airless rock a half million miles from anyone else so they can develop their own little pet government.

Ah, choices...

Bill White · 2003-07-03 15:21:02

The problem I see is this, the richest nations on earth, the most industrilized- these are the nations, and by and large, the people, who will benefit most from any advances in space.

In general, a legitimate concern, IMHO, but compared with the prospects portrayed in GATTACA or the prospects of other medical breaththroughs not being shared with the 3rd World to worry about such things in the context of space settlement seems rather silly.

IMHO, as always.

GATTACA for the rich? Okay now I might worry.

clark · 2003-07-03 16:05:21

In general, a legitimate concern, IMHO, but compared with the prospects portrayed in GATTACA or the prospects of other medical breaththroughs not being shared with the 3rd World to worry about such things in the context of space settlement seems rather silly.

In a larger context, I agree. But the issue sticks out like a sore thumb for space advocates...

Also, I think I am pretty much alone playing 'red team' here, and my counters are more than holding their own in this discussion. If I have neglected a salient point from someone, please feel free to bring it up again, perhaps in bold or something so I know I should address it.

I am trying not to shrift anybody in this, and I see only a more coherent argument for space as the result of our debate.

Of course, feel free to vilify me, as it seems to be the color that best suits me. :laugh:

prometheusunbound · 2003-07-03 18:20:47

Will doing the space exploitation actually make things worse as you have stated? Won't doing nothing bring the same result? space exploition brings the possiblity that your sceinaro might occur, however not doing it ensures that it will happen. . .doing nothing encourages stabilty. In instabilty it is possible for those who would normally not be able to escape the confines of their class (yes, I truly mean class) to excel in instabilty. Times of instabilty bring out the best (and worst) in people. "In 500 yrs of peace and brotherhood in sweden, they came up with the cuckoo clock. In 30 years of violent warfare on the italian pensuila, they came with Da Vinci, Micheleago, and many of the masters." I cannot remember who said this specifically. I do not advocate war or death but I must remind that anytime a major event like space colonization occurs it is for the benefit of mankind. Who wants a Pax Mundana?(muduane peace, trans.) I do not, for one. I want this, with all of its passions and hardships to bear. If others don't want it, thats fine, they won't recieve the benefit and be left behind with no hope of catching up for milliena to come.

Bill White · 2003-07-04 07:14:32

In general, a legitimate concern, IMHO, but compared with the prospects portrayed in GATTACA or the prospects of other medical breaththroughs not being shared with the 3rd World to worry about such things in the context of space settlement seems rather silly.
In a larger context, I agree. But the issue sticks out like a sore thumb for space advocates...
Also, I think I am pretty much alone playing 'red team' here, and my counters are more than holding their own in this discussion. If I have neglected a salient point from someone, please feel free to bring it up again, perhaps in bold or something so I know I should address it.
I am trying not to shrift anybody in this, and I see only a more coherent argument for space as the result of our debate.
Of course, feel free to vilify me, as it seems to be the color that best suits me. :laugh:

IMHO, your "red team" arguments do strike home concerning how many (most) space advocates propose to justify space settlement. For example, making arguments like: "Let the meek inherit the Earth, we bold folk are going to space" may actually harm the real world political prospects for space advocates.

Yet this only proves that we space advocates explain ourselves poorly. "Forgive them, Lord, for they are only engineers!"

I believe I have taken a valiant shot at playing blue and temporarily rest my case to give others a chance.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2003-07-02 14:25:37

Re: The Case Against Space Colonization - Chime in

#27 2003-07-02 14:35:46

Re: The Case Against Space Colonization - Chime in

#28 2003-07-02 18:26:22

Re: The Case Against Space Colonization - Chime in

#29 2003-07-03 05:49:24

Re: The Case Against Space Colonization - Chime in

#30 2003-07-03 07:18:30

Re: The Case Against Space Colonization - Chime in

#31 2003-07-03 07:58:30

Re: The Case Against Space Colonization - Chime in

#32 2003-07-03 10:07:01

Re: The Case Against Space Colonization - Chime in

#33 2003-07-03 10:41:06

Re: The Case Against Space Colonization - Chime in

#34 2003-07-03 10:55:35

Re: The Case Against Space Colonization - Chime in

#35 2003-07-03 11:34:57

Re: The Case Against Space Colonization - Chime in

#36 2003-07-03 11:51:05

Re: The Case Against Space Colonization - Chime in

#37 2003-07-03 12:53:13

Re: The Case Against Space Colonization - Chime in

#38 2003-07-03 13:24:39

Re: The Case Against Space Colonization - Chime in

#39 2003-07-03 13:33:14

Re: The Case Against Space Colonization - Chime in

#40 2003-07-03 13:50:41

Re: The Case Against Space Colonization - Chime in

#41 2003-07-03 13:50:56

Re: The Case Against Space Colonization - Chime in

#42 2003-07-03 14:21:51

Re: The Case Against Space Colonization - Chime in

#43 2003-07-03 14:39:39

Re: The Case Against Space Colonization - Chime in

#44 2003-07-03 14:49:06

Re: The Case Against Space Colonization - Chime in

#45 2003-07-03 14:49:14

Re: The Case Against Space Colonization - Chime in

#46 2003-07-03 15:12:03

Re: The Case Against Space Colonization - Chime in

#47 2003-07-03 15:21:02

Re: The Case Against Space Colonization - Chime in

#48 2003-07-03 16:05:21

Re: The Case Against Space Colonization - Chime in

#49 2003-07-03 18:20:47

Re: The Case Against Space Colonization - Chime in

#50 2003-07-04 07:14:32

Re: The Case Against Space Colonization - Chime in

Board footer