Firemind:


Well, of course you were right and I should have read the link. Having done so, I have to say that Mr. Steiner was not proposing making the moon a protected area like Antarctica for environmental reasons but for some other ones -- I'm not altogether sure why. Maybe to make sure it isn't fought over.


I'd have to think about whether or not to agree with him. At first glance I think he's too extreme. But his viewpoint should be aired and considered and perhaps partially implemented.


As I said, I have no problem with development of space resources. What I do have a problem with, though, is using that as an excuse not to solve our environmental problems here on earth, on the spurious theory that development of space resources will make that unnecessary. We face a crisis, and a necessary change in the patterns of civilization comparable to the invention of agriculture, and there is absolutely no way that space can provide an escape hatch so that we won't have to do that after all.


I may be putting thoughts in your head that don't reside there, and if so I apologize; certainly I've bitched enough when you've done that to me. But I have encountered people who see space migration as the solution to human overpopulation, or the transfer of industry into space as the solution to industrial pollution. That is nonsense.


Not only can we not "replace" the biosphere, we can't even extend its limits by exploitation of space resources, because the limits aren't functions of replaceable resources. They are absolutes, unless and until we manage to terraform another planet. As for industrial transfer into space, how can that be made profitable when you're adding monstrous levels of production and transportation cost to everything produced? There is no environment in space that can accommodate workers without expensive -- and zero-fault-tolerance -- life support. The cost to boost supplies to the employees would be astronomical (no pun intended). They'd also need vacation times earthside, and so on. On the other hand, you could try to do everything robotically, but then what if something malfunctions? No factory has ever been run completely by robots without any human supervision, and I don't think the AI technology exists to do that yet.


Then there's transportation. Getting the stuff down to earth would be cheaper than escaping earth's gravity well to get there, but still you have to protect it en route from air friction, and guide it to a soft landing in a convenient place where it can be further shipped.


All of this is technically feasible, but the cost would be enormous on an ongoing basis. It would be much cheaper to implement stringent efficiency improvements, and switch to nonpolluting processes.


This is what I mean when I say that, for environmental purposes, space is hopeless. It is not a solution. The only possible solution is to change the way we do things, and recognize that we are a part of the biosphere and restricted by its inherent limits, both in our population size and in our resource throughputs. Once we do, then the sky's the limit. But nothing will save us from the necessity of making that change.

On 2002-05-27 16:06, firemind wrote:

On 2002-05-27 13:51, Brian Rush wrote:
We cannot expand the limits of the terrestrial biosphere in space, no matter what, no way nohow...

This is the kind of quote that a century hence will look silly, like "The whole world has need of only four or five computers."

It's not that hard, Brian! You only feel this way because successful space development would challenge your worldview too much.

As one of the last people to have SOME part of a childhood where a dream of being an astronaut was fairly reasonable I just have no idea why they pretty much stopped the program in the first place! We may no longer be racing the USSR but why not try to explore to alleviate overpopulation?

I agree that no one should think that we don't need to worry about Earth's environmental problems because space development will solve them.

At this point, space development cannot be counted on for that.

It is important to distinguish between LONG TERM and NEAR TERM in these discussions.

LONG TERM: Yes, space development could help the Earth's biosphere expand. However, many of our environental problems are NEAR TERM.

NEAR TERM: Space development is likely to spur technological developments that could help alleviate near term environental problems, but this does not mean that environmental problems should be ignored.

Somehow I missed this one:

On 2002-05-27 13:51, Brian Rush wrote:
We cannot expand the limits of the terrestrial biosphere in space, no matter what, no way nohow...

This is the kind of quote that a century hence will look silly, like "The whole world has need of only four or five computers."

It's not that hard, Brian! You only feel this way because successful space development would challenge your worldview too much.

No, I feel that way -- or rather, I think that way -- because I've made a serious study of ecology. It is that hard. In fact, it is utterly beyond our ability at this time. And when it is no longer beyond our ability, it will still take a lot of time and a lot of money to do the job.


We cannot be separated from the biosphere that supports us, and our population size is limited by the size of that biosphere, in that we and our symbionts (crops and domesticated animals) can only occupy, on a sustainable basis, a limited percentage of the total mass of that biosphere. We can of course send humans into space temporarily, but the cost in terrestrial resources to support them in space is -- and always will be -- greater than the cost to support them on earth.


We cannot establish self-sustaining colonies on other planets that do not have fully established biospheres of their own. As there is no way to create such a biosphere on the moon, we cannot establish self-sustaining colonies on the moon. Period. Given more knowledge of genetic engineering and of ecology, we might possibly be able to create one on Mars. But it would require a lot of time and expense.


Human life on this planet rests on a foundation of plant and animal life, which in turn rests on a foundation of bacterial life. In order to expand the limits of human numbers, we must expand that bacterial foundation, and then the plant and animal topstructure. If we can create such an ecosystem on Mars, then we can create a true human colony. This does not strike me as inherently impossible. But how long would it take?


Agent 24601984

We may no longer be racing the USSR but why not try to explore to alleviate overpopulation?

Because it cannot be done. See above. The solutions must be found here. When we have a sustainable civilization on earth, with stable (and considerably smaller) population size, and highly efficient resource usage, THEN we will have the luxury of expanding into space by terraforming other worlds, with all the time and expense that will require. But space migration is not, and cannot, be a solution to the population problem, because there is nowhere in space that we can go that can support life on its own.

Brian is right that we cannot use space to alleviate overpopulation or environmental problems here on Earth. That said, I think he overestimates the rapidity with which environmental problems will grow. Take population growth. It is declining. Population is now expected to peak at a level perhaps on 3-4 billion higher than it is today and then decline. Since I was a kid we have seen this amount of absolute growth and things worldwide have gotten somewhat better rather than gotten a lot worse as was predicted then.

To take an example, consider the Hubbert peak for world oil production early in the next decade. This analysis says that oil world oil production will peak around 2010-2012 and then begin an inexorable decline. It is probably right. Is this a problem?

The US is the world's most profligate consumer of oil. Yet even the US has shown very slow growth in oil use since the late 1970's. Oil use in 2000 was an all-time high, yet only 4.5% above 1978 levels. Relative to GDP, oil use in 2000 was 46% lower. The fall in the ratio of oil use to GDP is a measure of greater efficiency and alternate energy use over this period. If we extrapolate the poor 1990's average decline (2%) in this ratio to 2004 we would predict a 5% increase in oil use. This large increase reflects the lack of oil policy of 1990's administrations. But say Bush loses in 2004, as the cycle predicts, and an energy policy is invoked by a new administration (say a tariff on Mideast oil, some tax incentives for energy effiency etc.). There is no reason to believe we can't duplicate the actual improvement in performance we achieved in oil use/GDP ratio over 1979-1986 (4.5%). If we extrapolate this improvement onto the post-2004 period (which should be easy to achieve with the vastly superior technology of today) we would find that overall US oil consumption should be slightly lower in 2010 than it was in 2000. And by 2040 it would fall 30% from 2000 levels.

And this analysis doesn't assume any breakthrough technologies which are likely to come.

With just a little guidance from government (that I admit will not occur under a Bush administration), market forces can go a long way towards solving many of our environmental problems. But there must be leadership. Markets generally do not provide leadership, they like to follow.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Mike Alexander '59 on 2002-05-27 19:18 ]</font>

As for the practicallity of proposed projects careful ananalysis is needed. There has been a diversity of papers written on the subject of space industrialization. As for replicating the Earth's biosphere beyond Earth-that was not my point. I didn't discuss it. Apparently I upset Mr. Rush's worldview, because he argued in absolutes-can't, can't, can't-which generally shows an emotional reaction rather than a carefully reasoned argument.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Tim Walker on 2002-05-27 20:20 ]</font>

I reacted emotionally too. It is frustrating when somebody's thinking is literally two-dimensional when your own is three-dimensional.

On 2002-05-26 19:57, JayN wrote:
http://www.msnbc.com/news/756847.asp

Moon development and the next High?

Very likely. China is planning to send a human to orbit by 2005, and is planning to land man on the Moon by 2010. China has some long term plans in mind, which includes using the Moon to solve energy problems back on Earth.

Can we see another space race? Definitely. How will the US respond? The way things are going now, private industry will likely take over most launches to orbit, while NASA moves onto the frontier. There is a bill in Congress to send Man to Mars by 2020, and to build a space travel infrastructure this decade and next. Of course, asteroids will be very popular too. Most Near Earth Asteroids have orbits that take them to the main belt, meaning that colonization of the belt can start before the building of a small Martian economy.

Will the Moon be developed? At this point, yes. One can build massive solar panels on the Moon to power Earth, or use Lunar material to build solar satellites in Earth orbit.

I suspect that Mars will be developed simultaneously as the Moon, and as the Near Earth Asteroids. There are cyclers being designed which orbits around the sun in a way that it comes close to both Earth and Mars. The asteroids will supply a lot of metal, and in the age of nanotechnology, a lot of carbon.

On 2002-05-27 08:11, Brian Rush wrote:
Firemind:


Once again, I REALLY have to ask where you're getting this stuff. Who the heck opposes lunar development for environmental reasons, apart from the diversion of resources? Obviously the moon has no ecosystem to despoil.

Many people do oppose Lunar development because it is seen as humanity toying with nature. However, if we build a space elevator made from nanotubes, then we can then build a self-sustaining Lunar Mining Base (which could eventually grow into a colony), a mass driver, and a manufacturing and processing station in orbit. Then the construction of satellites can begin. Such a system would return FAR more than we put into it.

No it's not. Space simply cannot provide the type of resources needed to replace the life-support services of the earth's biosphere which we are currently undermining. It can perhaps provide mineral resources and energy, but not cheaply.

That by itself is very debatable. There are enough resources in our solar system to permanently house populations millions of times of that of Earth today. One of the best books to read on this subject is Mining The Sky.

We have become so accustomed to civilization and to thinking in terms of human efforts and creativity that we easily forget they are built on a foundation of non-human life. The planet provides life-support services that are irreplaceable. We cannot survive except as part of a biosphere. Any human colonies planted on other planets will require extensive support from earth, more support (due to distances involved and necessary transmission inefficiencies) than they would require if they remained on earth.


There is only one way to expand the biosphere-imposed limits on human numbers through space development, and it is neither cheap, nor quick, nor technically feasible at present (though it is theoretically possible). That is to terraform other planets, create full, self-sustaining biospheres on those planets, and build human civilization as part of those extraterrestrial biospheres just as it is part of the terrestrial biosphere.


Full development of space is not a solution to our environmental problems. Rather, it is our reward for successfully finding other solutionsl. Once we learn to live within our limits as part of the earth, then we can begin to expand those limits by expanding the life of the earth itself.

Many people believe that planetary surfaces are not the best place for an expanding human population. This argument can be found in reading The High Frontier.

Most space colonies will be enclosed biospheres. The International Space Station can be turned into one by adding a hydroponics module to it, and also a system that recycles waste. Perhaps, colonizing space is the best way to learn how to live here on Earth, as it will teach us about creating enough food to feed everyone. It will give us knowledge about recycling and resource control since this is a need in space colonies. By moving heavy industry into orbit, using orbital solar panels for power, and using hydroponics instead of "agriculture" we can solve the environmental problems of Earth.

On 2002-05-27 09:00, Brian Rush wrote:
...
The shortages we face are organic, not mineral. Organic resources come from only one source: earth. We cannot, therefore, make up the shortfall by developing space. We have no choice but to develop a sustainable society on earth. After that, space becomes our prize.


But not before.

Actually, organic materials can be readily found in asteroids. Titan is thought to have large amounts of organic materials. For life to survive, you need volatiles, which consists of oxygen, hydrogen, carbon, and nitrogen. All four of these can be found in very large amounts in the solar system. Turning this into life-supporting organic material is a matter of chemistry (or maybe even nanotechnology). There is ice at the Lunar poles, and scientists have grown plants in Lunar soil brought back from Apollo. It is life that creates organic matter. With the colonization of the solar system, a large portion of matter will be turned organic. Asteroids contain a vast amount of the basic four elements needed for life. Mars contains everything it needs to sustain life on its planet. The Moon doesn't have large amounts of carbon or nitrogen, so this poses some problems for the large-scale colonization of the Moon. Other than this, I really don't see how space colonization cannot be done.

On 2002-05-27 13:51, Brian Rush wrote:
That's NOT what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that space cannot be the solution to our problems on earth ITSELF -- especially not BY itself.

I agree here. Space cannot do this alone, but it can greatly aid the process.

Regarding Mike's post; insightful as usual; however, it only mentioned one of our possible problems, the decline of oil supplies. The main problems in the near future will be due to climate change. Global warming is likely to keep on increasing for another half century, as the effects of what has already been done by humans to the biosphere. I don't know the extent of the damage that we can expect from this, but already 1998 was the worst year for weather disasters on record, and such years are likely to recur and get worse.

Obviously, we can't count on Bush not being re-elected either. The Republican Right is ruthless and feels they are the only legitimate rulers of our country since 1980; they will either cheat as they did in 2000, or spend the entire time of a Democratic administration lauching investigations and scandals; which means the Democratic president will have to be very cagey and spend a lot of time fending off the attacks, diverting him from dealing with our problems and creating solutions.

I think we can gain a lot of advantages by going into space. Much can be done to help our environmental problems on Earth. With careful analysis, as Tim said, many advantages can come from our going into space. We can learn a lot from living in space, as Robert said.

However, I have a problem. There is something inherently wrong with a civilization that feels the answer to every problem is to conquer a new territory and exploit resources.

I think if we are ever to have a sane and sustainable Civilization, we have to change our values, our consciousness and approach to life. Otherwise, where does it end? Greed, and exploitation of the natural world for human needs alone, is in the long run not a viable basis for human life. If we carry our screwed-up worldview and disrespect for other beings than ourselves into space with us, we'll screw up space too.

We will use up the resources of our solar system eventually too-- and maybe faster than we think! We will continue to make imprudent and wrong decisions and elect stupid leaders, as we do now. We won't apply the lessons in space to our life on earth, because back on Earth the same old priorities of market economics, political struggle, elitist inequality, competition for wealth, and survival mentality will still rule. I doubt they could be applied to space either for that matter. All the extra energy and resources we gain from space industry will be misused in the same ways we misuse it now.

It's kind of like this. Our freeways get crowded and the people clamour for relief. The politicians answer by widening the freeways. The result? People buy more cars and houses and the freeways are jammed again in a few years.

The answer to our environmental problems cannot be, more and more is better and better. That is the cause of the problems in the first place. The solution to a problem is not to be found within the same kind of thinking that created the problem (to paraphrase Einstein). We have to think outside the box of unsustainable living practices.

While we can't ignore and neglect the technical abilities and knowledge we have gained, or fail to apply them, we also cannot ignore the knowledge and awareness of what needs to change in the way we treat ourselves and our fellow beings.

_________________
Keep the Spirit Alive,
Eric Meece

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Eric A Meece on 2002-05-28 11:37 ]</font>

The last several postings have been most interesting: the Chinese space program was discussed a few weeks ago on the "Invasions from China/Latin America" topic under the "Future" heading.

What a revitalized space program is most necessary for - why it is most important - is its psychological optimism.

A truly global effort with countries co-operating on a real vision-quest, rather than competing for trinkets and lucre and land! In a sense, the space station already is a great example of what we can do - and should have done 20 years ago!

Such a project - a space station around the moon, a base on the moon, to prepare for Mars and the moons of Jupiter - would catalyze the imaginations of young and old, but especially the young, and (This is a stretch, but...)might sunder present religious conflicts into irrelevancy or ridiculousness, i.e. when the imaginations of young people are stirred by the project - when it is seen as a global project that they could somehow contribute to - fighting about patches of desert and who did what to whom in 700 A.D. could begin to seem worthless.

To be sure, there will no doubt be Jesse Jackson types around complaining that mothers are still on welfare in Chicago, and no money should be spent on another space station or moon project until everybody is happy, but such an argument is idiotic. (Would you have preferred Edison's investors giving their money away to the poor instead of financing his inventions?)

But if space is privatized with the white man looking at space solely as an economic idol to be possessed a la the New World, forget it! The purity of the spirit of adventure, the positive psychological drama that Modern Man has been yearning for in the past century, will be lost.

I wrote an essay based upon this too a while back: http://www.geocities.com/mad_scienti...emusings1.html

But if space is privatized with the white man looking at space solely as an economic idol to be possessed a la the New World, forget it! The purity of the spirit of adventure, the positive psychological drama that Modern Man has been yearning for in the past century, will be lost.

Indeed, which is why we cannot rely solely on the material/technical project of space conquest to rally the people to the new vision; we must also elevate our values. Otherwise there is NO reason to assume that the same approaches we take to problems now will not be taken in space.

My contention is, that we need to have spiritual, experiential and artistic projects to inspire us; merely technical ones will not inspire us. However, a proper blend of the two would be wonderful.

On 2002-05-28 11:37, madscientist wrote:
I wrote an essay based upon this too a while back: http://www.geocities.com/mad_scienti...emusings1.html

Very nice essay: it is always a matter of the balance! The middle path always seems to be the best most of the time.

The problem still remains: where is the leadership for this extraterrestrial vision-quest going to come from? I see problems with it coming from a Bill-Gates type, but I suppose others would see problems with a George W., who however would never propose such a thing anyway, or any other American.

The various societies for exploring space mentioned in your essay are very nice, but they need to be brought together to have more influence.

Could a U.N. secretary-general one day be so respected that she/he could generate the excitement?

Stephen Hawking? Any other candidates?

On 2002-05-28 11:46, Eric A Meece wrote:
My contention is, that we need to have spiritual, experiential and artistic projects to inspire us; merely technical ones will not inspire us. However, a proper blend of the two would be wonderful.

Incidentally, Eric, Joseph Campbell believed that any movement of humanity into outer space was both intrinsically a spiritual undertaking to begin with, and would also result inevitably in spiritual growth on Earth.

Basically, I doubt that there will be just one group or ideology that decides to colonize space. Likely, many people will try different social systems and modes of thought in space. Many colonies will fail, but many others will survive. Colonies will give the opportunity for social experimentation not seen since the frontier days of America.

Many colonies will be government-owned, such as a Chinese Lunar Mining Base. Of course, a revolution could erupt once the colony is populated and wealthy though. Mars will likely be the domain of the individualists, while many asteroids and orbital colonies and stations could come under the control of corporatists. It is likely that we will see a large range of societies in space, ranging from militaristic societies, to colonies based upon direct democracy, to some based on socialism, some based on capitalism, others on postmodern spirituality. The very successful ones will be repeated. Basically, space will become another realm for human activity. If Mars colonization proceeds at a brisk pace in the next 1T, with cyclers and advanced propulsion methods, it is likely that Mars will erupt in a firestorm in the 2T, with the debate centered around terraformation, and the population divided between a red and blue/green Mars.

2Ts in space colonies should prove interesting. It is likely that space colonization will skyrocket during that time, with large projects built by elders, a booming economy, and faith in the future. The 3T will see much larger scale colonization, with maybe tens of millions in space by the 2070s. The 17ers (New Nomads) will likely colonize space in the same way that the west was colonized in the 19th century.

Whatever new forms of social organization that emerge should be very interesting.

And as for who will make it happen, the task will likely fall towards many, many people. One of the GCs will very likely be pro-space.

Right now, that person could be many people. Robert Zubrin easily comes to mind, as does Marshall T. Savage. At this moment, there are too many players.

Since we are on this topic, one of the ideas on the other thread (Invasions from China: Future) was a Chinese/U.S.-European space race.

Would we need the equivalent of a Chinese Sputnik (e.g. a Chinese moon-landing c. 2010) to energize space exploration?

On 2002-05-28 11:33, SJ wrote:

What a revitalized space program is most necessary for - why it is most important - is its psychological optimism.

Why do you think the gloom and doom types are so utterly opposed to a revitalized space program?

How about America going it alone to space

Well I think Robert's predictions are an excellent illustration of why it would be best to get it together on earth (as or before) we go into space. I'm not saying we shouldn't go. But we will probably just take our current immaturities with us.

Remember too that, as far as inspiring the people goes, it didn't work before. Kennedy had people interested for a while, but other concerns came along and that was that. Space is not something that will really hold the interests of the masses. A new religious awakening, and artistic expressions, can, do, and always have. And these things are what are remembered and valued from past civilizations. Why do Americans, and T4T readers, seem so blind to this fact? That is the question in my mind.

The answer to the last question may well be that T4T readers are attracted to the vision of the next "High" that the authors present, which is mostly a period of materialistic, technological and institutional success like the 1950s.

Campbell said that space could be inspirational and spiritual, yes; but only if it is "mythologized" in the way exemplified by Star Wars. It can help us perceive the world in larger ways, seeing the connections between "out there" and "in here". ("the laws of space are in our heads," he said). However, remember that he also said that a civilization focused on economics "looks like the end of the story, not the beginning," fully agreeing with the comments I and the authors Tim quoted made on the wheels within wheels thread.
_________________
Keep the Spirit Alive,
Eric Meece

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Eric A Meece on 2002-05-29 00:55 ]</font>

There is a big difference in a civilization "focused on economics" and a civilization that recognizes economic laws and applies them properly.

To ignore economic laws would be like ignoring the law of gravity. Nobody would say our civilization is "focused on gravity" simply because we acknowledge gravity exists.

Similarly, when we get farther from the 20th century, which was dominated by economic theories that were false, economic matters should settle into the background like gravity. Civilization will not be "focused" on economic matters. Economic laws will merely be applied correctly to ensure prosperity.

Campbell wrote fondly of wealthy people who understood the proper place of money in their lives and used their money to fund artistic and cultural activities. He spoke of money as a kind of congealed energy, and appreciated people who understood how to cultivate this energy and use it properly.

Eric, your "Star Wars" reference suggests that your knowledge of Campbell is pretty shallow. He didn't even watch any of the Star Wars movies until years after "Return of the Jedi" came out*, and only used them as a mythological example late in his life.

Campbell believed that Man was primarily a Myth-Maker, and that therefore the "mythologization" of space was an inevitability (provided we remain human).

* He was introduced to George Lucas, who was a big fan of Campbell's, and a bit into the conversation Campbell admitted that he had never seen the movies. His big PBS talks with Moyers were done shortly after seeing them.

At the risk of sounding like a nut (which I guess I am on this subject), even Moyers didn't understand Campbell very well.

On 2002-05-29 00:45, Eric A Meece wrote:
Remember too that, as far as inspiring the people goes, it didn't work before. Kennedy had people interested for a while, but other concerns came along and that was that. Space is not something that will really hold the interests of the masses.

The government during the Kennedy administration made very bad technical decisions for the sole purpose of beating the Russians to the Moon rather than opening a new frontier. That is why the momentum was lost.

Culturally, however, the hold of "space" on the minds of the masses only kept increasing, until science fiction went from a minor fringe phenomenon to the central genre of our entertainment industry. The masses see the loss of momentum in space development as a disappointment.

A real opening of a new frontier would definitily energize the masses in a way that the world hasn't seen since the 1800's, when the world held it's breath at the phenomenal growth of the U.S., the masses rushed into America, and intellectuals everywhere predicted that America was the way of the future.

All of this, of course, does hinge on serious technical problems that cannot be just wished away. To accomplish a space-faring civilization, we may have to move from a civilization focused on economic matters to one, in a sense, focused on the nuts-and-bolts problems of surviving in space (and making it profitable). It might be generations before such a preoccupation could settle into the background.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: firemind on 2002-05-29 09:27 ]</font>