Why Colonize Space? Because We Are Dealing In Absolutes

Why colonize space? Because we are dealing in absolutes. We are dealing in
returns, increasing returns (the frontiers and resources of the solar system
and beyond that a possibly unlimited Universe) over diminishing returns (the
ever growing, ever increasing weight of, totalitarian tyrannies of
unworkable imposed resource "conservation" and "efficiency" (and the even
more -- proven -- unworkable totalitarian tyrannies of "POPULATION
CONTROLS!" a.k.a., "POPULATION MANAGEMENT!")). State controls over all human
activity, even 'thought'. Human activity management. Power corrupts, and
absolute power corrupts absolutely (tyranny corrupts, and absolute tyranny
corrupts absolutely).

What is "conserved" today, there will still be less of tomorrow, and even
less the day after, needing ever more "conservation." That is TYRANNY
absolute. Efficiencies imposed today will still require more and greater
efficiencies being imposed tomorrow, and even more and even greater
efficiencies being imposed the day after. That is TYRANNY absolute. And
there will be selective waivers regarding conservation and efficiency.
Waivers for the "more equal" than the "equal." Waivers for the so-called
"needy" at the [increased] expense of all the rest. Waivers for any and all
"chosen" of the 'powers that be' of the state at the [increased] expense of
all the rest. The ever [increasing] expense over an ever increasing time of
imposed conservation and -- so-called -- efficiencies. Power corrupts.
Tyranny corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Absolute tyranny
corrupts absolutely.

Crimes and wars are going to increase orders of magnitude in numbers and
intensities. Every household on Earth is going to be at war eventually,
within and without. Every community. Every nation. Every bureaucracy as
well. A naked singularity of one world shrunken in all times between all its
parts, especially a naked singularity of "One World" and "One World [ism],"
is an absolute tyranny -- an absolute power of tyranny -- in being just to
start with, never mind that world being enclosed within an total
authoritarian Iron Curtain to keep in all so-called weapons of mass
destruction whatsoever "for the good of all mankind."

The pen-ultimate "weapon of mass destruction" is life. The ultimate weapon
of mass destruction is intelligent life. Intelligence correlates to the vast
total variation of all of the rest of life put together...all variation
merged into just one single species of it equal to the entire pyramid -- the
spawning from this merger of all into one, intelligence. There is no more an
implosively / explosively volatile combustible in existence anywhere even
when simply tyrannized for too long, much less total authoritarianly
tyrannized for way too long. "For the good of all mankind" is not nearly
enough excuse to keep any peace whatsoever upon one world and one world
only, much less an artificial "One World" (tied to an artificial "One
Worldism") growing by leaps and bounds in restrictions and constrictions
imprisoned, thus enslaved, within a state made artificial Iron Curtain.
Tyranny spawns tyrannies within it like a supervirus. Iron Curtain spawns
innumerable iron curtains within itself like an impossibly impenetrable
labyrinthian maze of barriers being in being to doing anything whatsoever
positive. It spawns inertial Hell.

GLB

G. L. Bradford wrote:

Why colonize space? Because we are dealing in absolutes. We
are dealing in returns, increasing returns (the frontiers and
resources of the solar system and beyond that a possibly
unlimited Universe) over diminishing returns (the ever
growing, ever increasing weight of, totalitarian tyrannies of
unworkable imposed resource "conservation" and "efficiency"
(and the even more -- proven -- unworkable totalitarian
tyrannies of "POPULATION CONTROLS!" a.k.a., "POPULATION
MANAGEMENT!")). State controls over all human activity, even
'thought'. Human activity management. Power corrupts, and
absolute power corrupts absolutely (tyranny corrupts, and
absolute tyranny corrupts absolutely).

Brad, apparently all this handwringing hasn't persuaded *you* to
colonize space. Apparently living in a world with "diminishing
returns" and 'unworkable imposed resource "conservation" and
"efficiency"' and "human activity management" is more to your
liking than living in space.

Why the hypocrisy in this matter, Brad?

Jim Davis

Jim Davis wrote:
G. L. Bradford wrote:

Why colonize space? Because we are dealing in absolutes. We
are dealing in returns, increasing returns (the frontiers and
resources of the solar system and beyond that a possibly
unlimited Universe) over diminishing returns (the ever
growing, ever increasing weight of, totalitarian tyrannies of
unworkable imposed resource "conservation" and "efficiency"
(and the even more -- proven -- unworkable totalitarian
tyrannies of "POPULATION CONTROLS!" a.k.a., "POPULATION
MANAGEMENT!")). State controls over all human activity, even
'thought'. Human activity management. Power corrupts, and
absolute power corrupts absolutely (tyranny corrupts, and
absolute tyranny corrupts absolutely).

Brad, apparently all this handwringing hasn't persuaded *you* to
colonize space. Apparently living in a world with "diminishing
returns" and 'unworkable imposed resource "conservation" and
"efficiency"' and "human activity management" is more to your
liking than living in space.

Why the hypocrisy in this matter, Brad?

He *advocates* space colonization, Jim.

That's more than most and a step in the right direction.

There are a lot of *silent* space colonization advocates out there.

http://cosmic.lifeform.org

Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:

He *advocates* space colonization, Jim.

Indeed. With all the passion - and all the consistency - of a
televangelist with a Rolex watch, Armani suit, and BMW urging the
faithful to send in those checks.

That's more than most and a step in the right direction.

Sure. Nothing will convince people to pull up stakes and head to L5
more than hysteria and hypocrisy.

There are a lot of *silent* space colonization advocates out
there.

By "out there" you of course refer to earth, right?

Jim Davis

Jim Davis wrote:
Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:

He *advocates* space colonization, Jim.

Indeed. With all the passion - and all the consistency - of a
televangelist with a Rolex watch, Armani suit, and BMW urging the
faithful to send in those checks.

I don't ever recall the General asking for money, Jim.

That's more than most and a step in the right direction.

Sure. Nothing will convince people to pull up stakes and head to L5
more than hysteria and hypocrisy.

I think he was referring to the need to colonize space.

There are a lot of *silent* space colonization advocates out
there.

By "out there" you of course refer to earth, right?

Last time I checked, Earth was in space, Jim. The reasons the general
elucidates are still valid even if we were only to apply them to the
spaceship Earth. However, both you and I and the General know that will
never happen by itself, without actual experience in colonizing space.

Human beings are just not that smart.

http://cosmic.lifeform.org

Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:

Human beings are just not that smart.

Does Jim have to pay you to provide these luscious examples of how
space fans shoot themselves in the foot as advoicates, or do you do it
for free?

Monte Davis wrote:

Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:

Human beings are just not that smart.

Does Jim have to pay you to provide these luscious examples of how
space fans shoot themselves in the foot as advoicates, or do you do it
for free?

I utterly fail to see how advocating space colonization on the usenet
can grievously injure any space advocate's feet.

Do you always provide useless and absurd euphemisms for free?

Or are you just trying extra hard to demonstrate my premise.

http://cosmic.lifeform.org

G. L. Bradford; Stanford Torus near Earth in orbit of an L-point
is all up front in two to three decades
Why not focus upon utilizing the best and nearest do-everything of a
station-keeping sweet-spot in town; that location being the extremely
nearby LL-1 which seems like a perfectly good and relatively safe spot
for your "Stanford Torus", whereas volume, shape and mass are of
anything you'd care to make them, and in addition to clean solar energy
you'd also have unlimited terajoules worth of tether dipole energy to
burn.

We're talking of residing this sucker at 58,000 and some odd km away
from the moon (possibly 60,000 km), and all the rest of the package
becomes a done deal. Upon average, that's parked roughly 318,000 km
from the surface of Earth.

As little as one joule of energy could launch your personal pod or
unlimited tonnage towards the moon or towards Earth. Isn't that the
best ever Isp efficiency or what?

How about establishing a 256 megatonne Torus unit that'll provide 1e9
m3 of safe abode for starters?

There's no question that life upon or even the prospects of getting
such life safely to/from Mars in the first place is going to be
extremely spendy and downright risky business, as well as decades down
the road that'll take us past if not directly through WW-III, that's of
a nasty terrestrial road that's rather quickly running itself out of
viable fossil fuels, as well as getting itself submerged and/or washed
away due to global warming that's somewhat like having poked at mother
nature with a sharp and badly polluted stick long enough that she's
going postal on us.

I'll argue that the mutual gravity-well that's so nearby and so nicely
remaining as interactively situated between us and our moon is by far
the most efficient location for us to transfer whatever tonnage into,
and it's also going to remain by far the most energy efficient location
for having to station-keep whatever until the lunar side of the tether
element is anchored into that dark and nasty deck of our moon, at which
time the station-keeping energy demand becomes almost nonexistent if
not representing an energy gain. I don't think it gets any better than
that.

My question is;
Are you and of those you've associated with interested in the R&D
that's LL-1, for the benefit of your Stanford Torus or not?

If so, I have a few thousand questions to ask, plus a few good ideas to
share.
-
Brad Guth

Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:

Indeed. With all the passion - and all the consistency - of a
televangelist with a Rolex watch, Armani suit, and BMW urging
the faithful to send in those checks.

I don't ever recall the General asking for money, Jim.

I didn't claim he did. I merely note that he exhorts others to do
what he is unwilling to do and excoriates those that are unwilling
to do what he is unwilling to do.

He can't have it both ways. He claims that earth is a tyranny and
people should leave while at the same time claiming *he* can't
leave *because* earth is a tyranny. He can't make up his mind
whether conditions on earth are the reason to leave or the excuse
to stay.

That's more than most and a step in the right direction.

Sure. Nothing will convince people to pull up stakes and head
to L5 more than hysteria and hypocrisy.

I think he was referring to the need to colonize space.

Mr. Bradford doesn't seem to feel any need to colonize space. He
seems happy right where he is.

Last time I checked, Earth was in space, Jim.

Most find the earth/space distinction a useful one, Thomas. Perhaps
if you think on it for awhile you might be able to grasp how useful
it is like everyone else.

The reasons the
general elucidates are still valid even if we were only to apply
them to the spaceship Earth.

Perhaps you can persuade the general to explain why the reasons he
elucidates are not valid enough for him?

However, both you and I and the
general know that will never happen by itself, without actual
experience in colonizing space.

The general doesn't seem to be interested in actual experience.
He's made up his mind that colonization is the answer to all
earth's ills. He can barely contain his contempt for those that
made tha same choice he did - remain on earth.

Human beings are just not that smart.

Some aren't particularly consistent with their premises, either.

Jim Davis

On 31 Mar 2006 02:31:16 +0200, in a place far, far away, Jim Davis
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
a way as to indicate that:

Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:

Indeed. With all the passion - and all the consistency - of a
televangelist with a Rolex watch, Armani suit, and BMW urging
the faithful to send in those checks.

I don't ever recall the General asking for money, Jim.

I didn't claim he did. I merely note that he exhorts others to do
what he is unwilling to do and excoriates those that are unwilling
to do what he is unwilling to do.

Not to appear on the side of the lunatic Elifritz, but how would you
expect him to colonize space by himself?