Why Colonize Space?

On Jul 20, 5:47*pm, Immortalista wrote:
Today I was reading some opinions of people who believe that there is
no reason for humans to leave earth. Are all arguments for moving into
space and onto other bodies in space really that weak and irrelevant?

Well, here are the most common arguments, roughly from in decreasing
order of silliness:

Relieve population pressure by shipping people off Earth: Beyond
silly. First, no amount of emigration could ever keep up with
geometric increase in population, and second, it is unnecessary. As
people get richer, birth rates drop, always, regardless of religion.
All developed countries have barely replacement or below replacement
birth rates. Solution to overpopulation is PROSPERITY.

"Eggs in one basket argument": See my other post on this thread. If
all of Earth's nuclear arsenals are blown up at once, or if a 10-km
"dinosaur killer" asteroid strikes the Earth, Earth will STILL be far
more hospitable and more suited for re-colonization than Mars or
asteroids or any location in space. So if your goal really is to
create a "backup storage" for human race*, then the logical and far
more cost-effective solution is to build underground bunkers on Earth
with everything you can think of to jump-start civilization. Or mine
shafts, as Michael Stemper already pointed out.

Making use of space resources: Something to this, but only something.
First, there are not many resources in space which are worth taking to
Earth -- energy is first, then platinum group metals and perhaps some
other elements rare on Earth but not so rare on asteroids. If you have
technology to haul iron from asteroids and hydrocarbons from Outer
Solar System (as Turtoni suggested), then you do not NEED bulk iron
and hydrocarbons -- the higher is technology level, the less raw
materials are needed, not more. But more importantly, space mining
does not require COLONIZATION. Nobody raises children on off-shore oil
rigs -- people come for a few months, get loads of money for hard
dangerous work, then go home to spend it in more benign climates.

Moving polluting industry off Earth's surface: Certainly desirable,
but again, subject to "offshore oil rig" conundrum. Vast majority of
people do not want to live permanently and raise children where you
need an airlock for a foyer.

Military uses of space: Has been going on from the very start --
Pentagon spends more on space than NASA does, -- but it requires very
few people in space. US never had a dedicated military manned mission,
USSR had one or two. Aerial combat is moving away from manned planes
and to robotic ones, and space is more suitable environment for robots
than air is. If there is ever a shooting confrontation in space, with
China or otherwise, the side silly enough to rely on fragile sacks of
protoplasm, with their ridiculously slow reaction time and absurdly
high environmental requirements, will be the side which loses. Again,
no colonization.

"Frontier" argument, establishing colonies away from stifling control
of Earth governments: Might or might not work (I am dubious -- we seem
to take our social problems wherever we go), but more importantly, who
is going to pay for it? Earth governments are not likely to spend
money on colonies whose express purpose is to break away from said
governments. And if you wait until the world is wealthy enough that
space colonies are within reach of private organization, then they are
also within reach of armed governments. You may establish your utopia
on Tuesday only to find an IRS spaceship pointing a gun at you on
Wednesday. Besides, without something to sell your colony will wither
and die. Don't even think about colonies (as in, live permanently and
raise children) until there is some economic activity done more
efficiently in space than on Earth AND requiring human presence.

"Gaia" argument, spreading life to lifeless universe: The most
philosophical argument, and hardest to refute. All I can say about it
is -- if people really want to do it, they will, and if they do not,
they won't. Although it seems to me that "spreading life" is better
accomplished with genetically tailored algae than with oxygen-
demanding, radiation-vulnerable, hibernation-incapable primates.

In sci.physics G. L. Bradford wrote:

wrote in message
...
In sci.physics "Giga" "Giga" just(removetheseandaddmatthe
wrote:

"Immortalista" wrote in message
...
Today I was reading some opinions of people who believe that there is
no reason for humans to leave earth. Are all arguments for moving into
space and onto other bodies in space really that weak and irrelevant?

To say on the one hand that there is no reason and on the other 'it is
too
expensive' is a kind of a contradiction. This means that if it was a lot
cheaper then it would be justified, and that means there must be some
reason
for doing it, and the persons putting forward such an argument obviously
recognise that. So if it just a question of allocation of resources,
rather
than fundamental value of the enterprise, then fine, it should recognised
as
a financial discussion, not really a philosophical one.

Depends on who you are talking about doing it and what you are talking
about doing.

Governments do lots of things for no other reason than enough people
think it is a "good idea" both directly and indirectly through grants.

Commercial enterprise doesn't do anything that doesn't have a ROI.

The only government colonies have all been penal colonies.


--
Jim Pennino

===========================

Not true. The Virginia Company was a state chartered business cartel.

That they were given what amounts to franchised territories is irrelevant.

How were they funded?

Here's the Colonial Charters, Grants and Related Documents online.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/statech.asp

The First Charter of Virginia; April 10, 1606 doesn't provide for the
expenditure of government funds.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

In sci.physics "Giga" "Giga" just(removetheseandaddmatthe wrote:

wrote in message
...
In sci.physics "Giga" "Giga" just(removetheseandaddmatthe
wrote:

"Immortalista" wrote in message
...
Today I was reading some opinions of people who believe that there is
no reason for humans to leave earth. Are all arguments for moving into
space and onto other bodies in space really that weak and irrelevant?

To say on the one hand that there is no reason and on the other 'it is
too
expensive' is a kind of a contradiction. This means that if it was a lot
cheaper then it would be justified, and that means there must be some
reason
for doing it, and the persons putting forward such an argument obviously
recognise that. So if it just a question of allocation of resources,
rather
than fundamental value of the enterprise, then fine, it should recognised
as
a financial discussion, not really a philosophical one.

Depends on who you are talking about doing it and what you are talking
about doing.

Governments do lots of things for no other reason than enough people
think it is a "good idea" both directly and indirectly through grants.


i.e, the voters and tax payers who are going to pay for it?

Yeah, through the elected representatives funding things like NASA.

Commercial enterprise doesn't do anything that doesn't have a ROI.

Potential and hoped for ROI at least.

What's your point?

There is little in life that is a sure thing, but if your business plan
doesn't show a good ROI, the bean counters won't fund you.

The only government colonies have all been penal colonies.


America wasn't a penal colony.

I didn't say it was.

The colonies in North America were not government colonies either. They
were funded by private enterprise.

It is estimated that 50,000 convicts were sent to North America by Britain
to serve as slaves or endentured labor.

Australia had many government colonies, all penal colonies.

While there were some "free settlements" in Australia, the population
was predomanitly convicts and their decendants until the gold rushes
of the 1850's.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 14:47:30 -0700, Immortalista wrote:

Today I was reading some opinions of people who believe that there is no
reason for humans to leave earth. Are all arguments for moving into
space and onto other bodies in space really that weak and irrelevant?

All reason points to the new place. If there were only five very happy
people on this planet who had a way to 'go and see', some would, if not
so happy, maybe all would.

'Some' is the argument.

On Jul 20, 5:47*pm, Immortalista wrote:
Today I was reading some opinions of people who believe that there is
no reason for humans to leave earth. Are all arguments for moving into
space and onto other bodies in space really that weak and irrelevant?

Well, if you listen to no-space idiots, everything other than oil
is irrelevent,
so it makes no difference really.

Since the people with post train Science and Technology brains
are still going to keep working on GPS, Digital Terrain Mapping,
Weather Satellites,
UAVs, AAVs, Drones, Holograms, Atomic Clock Wris****ches, Light
Sticks,
Microcomputers, Optical Computers, Electronic Books, Compact
Flourescence, Fiber Optics,
Self-Replicating Machines, Self-Assembling Robots, Cyber Batteries,
Gas Turbine Engines,
Electric Cars, Home Broadband, Microwave Cooling, Thermo-Electric
Cooling,
DSP, HDTV, Blue Ray, USB, PGP, On-Line Banking, On-Line Shopping,
and On-Line Publishing, no matter what the GM-GE-Washingtoon Post
NIIMBY Bozos have to say about it.

"G. L. Bradford" wrote:
Weak and irrelevant only to those who don't mind at all being pinned to
this Earth, held down, controlled, tyrannized and enslaved.

....pampered by the nanny ecosystem insidiously providing life support
services at no cost to anyone, forced to grovel in dirt at the feet of Gaia
by the tyranny of gravity, shielded by the evil atmosphere from the
blessings Vacuum and Ionizing Radiation...

On 7/21/09 10:46 AM, in article ,
"Piwne Oczy Ma" wrote:

"turtoni" wrote:
Spread life and beauty throughout the Universe.
Ensure the survival of our species.

There are millions of sick and hungry people on Earth. If you want to spread
life and beauty (and ensure the survival of the species) in the Universe
there is no need to waste money on space exploration, you can start with
Earth.


Begin by neutering the undisciplined multipliers. Yes! I mean the
accountants!

"Piwne Oczy Ma" wrote in message
...
"G. L. Bradford" wrote:
Weak and irrelevant only to those who don't mind at all being pinned to
this Earth, held down, controlled, tyrannized and enslaved.

...pampered by the nanny ecosystem insidiously providing life support
services at no cost to anyone, forced to grovel in dirt at the feet of
Gaia
by the tyranny of gravity, shielded by the evil atmosphere from the
blessings Vacuum and Ionizing Radiation...



====================

An infant has the same blessings in a womb. But after a time then comes
the time the developing infant reaches space age complexity and more or less
is space age structured and equipped, the womb becoming, in every sense, too
little for the growing infant's growing needs and wants. The universe
outside is vastly alien, harsh, raw and threatening to the infant's [infant]
life. It is a huge and deadly ocean compared to the infant's [once and for a
time] safe little pond. The infant is not a creature of the pond for all
time, it is now a creature of the ocean momentarily trapped in a pond, and
utterly bewildered as to why its once-upon-a-time positive is now
increasingly a negative.

GL

====================

In article , Dimensional Traveler writes:
Rod Speed wrote:
wrote
Immortalista wrote

Today I was reading some opinions of people who believe that there
is no reason for humans to leave earth. Are all arguments for moving
into space and onto other bodies in space really that weak and irrelevant?

There's lots of theoretical, e.g. asteroid devastates the Earth,
military, e.g. weapons platforms, emotional, e.g. we climbed the
mountain, political, e.g. our flag is there, reasons for humans in
space, there is just no economic reason for humans in space.

And much better things to spend that sort of money on.

Strange then, isn't it, that a lot of self-made wealthy people are
spending lots of money on starting private manned space flight?

Everybody should have a hobby.

If this isn't a hobby for some of them, but something that they see
as R&D that should lead towards a profitable venture, then I wish
them luck.

Fortunately, since they're not governments, they can't **** away
any of my money on it.

The Chinese already _are_. If the choice is live under Chinese rule
later when they control the high ground or spend money now on something
that from past experience we know will have all kinds of spin-off
benefits, I'll get my checkbook out.

Going to write out the check with a Bic pen while drinking Tang?

--
Michael F. Stemper
#include Standard_Disclaimer
Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend.
Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read.

In article , "Giga" "Giga" just(removetheseandaddmatthe writes:
"Rod Speed" wrote in message ...
Giga" "Giga wrote

To say on the one hand that there is no reason and on the other 'it is
too expensive' is a kind of a contradiction.

Nope, the original is just a loose form of saying that there
is CURRENTLY no reason for humans to colonise space.

I presume by emphasising 'currently' you mean there might be in the future,
or perhaps there will be. I suppose if you are already living the good life
then why bother, but billions of people are not.

If we wanted to give billions of people the "good life", I'd like to
suggest that their lives could be improved immensely right here on
earth. Give them simple things like access to clean water, adequate
food supplies, sewage treatment, and antibiotics, and you've improved
their lives by orders of magnitude.

This would be much less expensive than sealing them into tin cans and
firing them off into space.

This means that if it was a lot cheaper then it would be justified,

Not necessarily, most obviously if no one is interested in being colonists
etc.

I think many people would be interested, me for one, but I doubt that I
would be chosen.

If you want to live someplace where survival is difficult, you could go
to someplace like Nunavut or the Sahel today. No selection to pass. They
have the additional advantage that you don't need special equipment in
order to breathe.

--
Michael F. Stemper
#include Standard_Disclaimer
Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend.
Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read.