Point 1: How expensive is space travel? We have to look to canon history for
clues. That will give us a basis point. I will be looking at canon myself this
weekend to see what we can or cannot infer from it.
Point 2: Space travel has to be very cheap to be viable for population
relocation in all but the very civilized countries. Why? Because a 0.0002 cent
shot from a blaster is just as effective at dealing with one overpopulee as is
shipping him to West BF. It's awful, but as human life overruns this planet, I
rather suspect we'll see the decline in the value of a single life, and some
places it is already worth less than squat. Now, the NAC may end up shipping
off its overpopulation (conscience and all that... its okay to dump them on
Boiling Hades III where they might survive...for a while anyway... than it is
to just zap them) but there are places where one can easily imagine the state
saying "Hmmm.... one quick zap with a laser, and we've got some fertilizer for
the biomass fields...".
Point 3: Historical colonization ventures have had to overcome transportation
issues and supply issues BUT never on the scale of space. Why? They were
always in an atmosphere they could breathe and there was always at least some
local
food and game they could eat - big steps really. And the gravity was
bearable. If the Tuffleyverse has class M planets galore, then this isn't an
issue. If most colonies have hostile grav or atmosphere and maybe food we
can't eat... hooo boy is that a bigger challenge. A good justification (in
reverse) for the fact most of our minis seem to fight on such class M worlds.
They are prizes to capture and they are the most economically viable places to
locate colonies.
Point 4: Chris said a mile of land and no gov't regulations and he'd relocate.
I won't criticise, but if people then pointed out he might have a hard time
getting some essential (not optional) supplies, he might be prey to new virii
and bacterii and predators on this yet to be explored world, his kids might
get a poor education, good medical treatment was a long way away, etc.... then
he might think twice. Or most people would. Pioneers are a special breed.
Sometimes (as someone else illustrated) they go because no matter how crappy
life is on East BF, it'll be better than life where they are now. But if that
is not true, then it takes a special breed of person who want to 'hack a life
out of the wilds' to be a Pioneer. I don't think we have as much of that
spirit in our world as we once did.
Point 5:
Aussies (and especially the Tasmanian sub-breed) are all a wee bit
insane (who is it in the Tuffleyverse that claims all otherwise unclaimed dust
balls?). A goodly number of them would make excellent colonists (the right mix
of insanity, drive, and gumption). But even then, the colonization efforts
would have to be underwritten by organizations, institutions, governments, the
rich, the military, or some such well resourced source. Even a future colony
(assuming a decent economic viability) is a non trivial effort. Pioneers will
go if they have a good offer at the other end (the Pull) and a decent amount
of supply (the Push). Forced Migrants will go because they are sent (often I'd
expect at gunpoint or the equivalent (the Push) and because their life just
has the smallest chance of sucking less out away from earth, since they're
probably mostly from poor lower classes or criminal castes (the Pull).
Point 6: This whole discussion probably rightly belongs on the pedia list. And
there are the occaisional posts going to it that anyone interested in this
discussion doesn't want to miss. Maybe we should move it there (since that is
more the mandate of the pedia list) and leave the main list for discussion of
MT missiles, DS2 new rules, and such. Just a thought.
> Point 2:
I have heard that street kids are already being "liquidated" in some cities.
Hearsay only, but I'm afraid it wouldn't really surprise me.
I'll snip the rest of this post to try to steer back on topic. Yeah, okay, I
might think twice about it (although not for any
of the reasons you mentioned--in fact the education issue--no,
I'd better not get started on that), but historically some people have always
been willing to head for the frontier. What I was primarily trying to point
out is that there is an assumption, often stated, that "space travel is
expensive." I'm trying to point out that that assumption is unfounded. Sure,
at first space travel is in the realm of big governments and huge
corporations, but as long as it's possible, it will become more efficient; as
it becomes more efficient and thus cheaper, more people will be able to go
(unless artificially restricted by legal issues). Yes, it will probably take a
pull as well as a push, but the pull doesn't have to be a
dollars-and-cents motive.
Besides, if we stick to the "travel is horribly expensive and it takes an $11
billion bottle of wine to justify it" theory, it's going to severly limit our
ability to play with little metal spaceships.
> Roger writes:
What's wrong with joule?
> 1E11/3.6E6 = 2.8Kw-Hours. Even assuming 10% efficiency
Sorry Roger, the last time I checked one hour was 3600 seconds,
or 3.6E3. So you're under by a factor of 1000. 28MW-hours sounds
somewhat high to me... but I could ask the wife. She designs power stations
for a living.
> Roger writes:
Didn't keep the original post but perhaps the other E3 was converting from
watts to Kw?
> From: "Laserlight" <laserlight@quixnet.net>
Actually, it's founded on historical precedent. Maybe I should have been a bit
clearer. I'm talking about space travel during the period of initial
exploration and colonization, NOT space travel forever....
> Sure, at first space travel is in the realm of big governments
I totally agree with you on this point. But it seems you're missing mine.
There's a vast difference between commercial space travel between established
worlds, and colonization.
On 12-May-00 at 19:16, Mikko Kurki-Suonio (maxxon@dram.swob.dna.fi)
wrote:
> Roger writes:
I wrote some wonderful, scintillating replies to Brian's comments on
colonization, but I deleted them before
sending--I've been crabby this week, but no need for the list to
bear the brunt of that. Let me recap, then I'll shut up. For a few minutes, at
least.
a) Per canon, space travel will happen. b) Given that it does happen, it will
start out as expensive but will get cheaper with experience. c) It will become
cheap enough that a person who commits his life savings will be able to join
in a founding colony. d) Later on, it will become cheap enough for people to
travel on business when required; then, somewhat later, to travel for their
own amusement.
Insofar as I can tell, Brian, you're saying that step c) won't happen, because
space travel is expensive. And I'm saying that just because it's expensive
now, doesn't mean it will always be too expensive for individuals to pay for.
--Chris DeBoe
On Fri, 12 May 2000 22:11:34 -0400, "Laserlight"
<laserlight@quixnet.net> wrote:
> Insofar as I can tell, Brian, you're saying that step c) won't
Out of curiosity, has anyone given a reason for step c) (that being someone
joining a founding colony if they have the money)? That is, has anyone come up
with a good reason for colonization in the first place?
From: Allan Goodall <agoodall@interlog.com>
> On Fri, 12 May 2000 22:11:34 -0400, "Laserlight"
<laserlight@quixnet.net>
> wrote:
No. I don't even know why people live in Canada. Particularly when they call
me to tell that they just had over a meter of snow, and I point out that
people are in shorts and tee
shirts around here. (Relatives in Montreal--this was late
March, early April).
How about give us some suggestions? Since manifestly colonies exist.
> At 12:09 AM 5/14/00 -0400, Allan wrote:
Um... because people want to?
In my current situation (no girlfriend, much less dependants) and, of course,
depending on what the situation was where I'd end up, I'd be willing to go.
(And if I had a GF willing to go, that'd be cool, too.
^_-
) By "situation" I mean living conditions, flora/fauna, etc., much like
what Alan poked fun at out in his (rather humorous) message a couple days
back. I wouldn't call myself an intrepid explorer (though I guess I do
okay in caves), but I'd be willing to go with a follow-up trip.
And if there's a national movement like this, it's called "Manifest
Destiny"....
> Out of curiosity, has anyone given a reason for step c) (that being
Different people have different preferences. Some people like lots of space.
Case in point, where I grew-up in rural central Florida, over half of
the childeren in who grew in that neck swamp have left Florida for rural
Georgia and rural Caroloina's. Why? They didn't do it for money, the did it
for "elbow room." The don't like living in crowded areas and everything that
goes with it. Not everybody likes to be pampered and spoon fed by suburbia...
If you want more info, I suggest you read the Laura Ingles Wilder serries.
They'ed pack up and move farther west every time the heard a gun shot in the
woods and it wasn't theirs...
On Sun, 14 May 2000 00:41:33 -0400, "Laserlight"
<laserlight@quixnet.net> wrote:
> No. I don't even know why people live in Canada.
*L* THAT could be a very long thread. I won't go into it, but if you look at
the reasons the UN listed us as the #1 country, you'd have a good idea.
> Particularly when they call me to tell that they just had over a
I drove back from Mardi Gras this year, starting on the Thursday at 80 F in
Mississippi, stopping to visit friends in Tennessee at 70 F, leaving TN at 60
F, and hit a snow storm from southern Ohio all the way home. Believe me, I
wondered the same thing. However, I went down south twice this year and got
the flu both times. Believe it or not, there are fewer incidents of disease in
the deep cold of winter. Bacteria don't like the cold either. It's actually
healthier up here. Also, you adapt to the cold. I read an article in the
newspaper about tourism in the high Arctic. The Inuit woman (note: it's Inuit,
not eskimo) took off her parka because it was so warm at -25 C. She
didn't like running the sled dogs at that temperature, because they overheat
easily!
They much prefer it at -40 C.
> How about give us some suggestions? Since manifestly colonies
Well, historically there has been one reason for colonization: resource
pressure. In early human societies, we spread out for the same reason animals
spread out, and that's due to the competition for food. Later, it became other
resources, usually translating into wealth. Settlements were often due to the
need for land. You get in early in a colony and you can get a lot of land that
later makes you a powerful land owner. Meanwhile the folks back home get to a
ready source of goods or resources from their colonies.
One of the main reasons for the British colonies in North America (and, I
think, the French colonies) was actually a wood crisis. European forests were
succumbing at a fast rate, but wood was a desperately needed resource. The
British colonies in India were mostly due to tea and sugar, and the
infrastructure needed to buy and ship the goods to Britain. The Spaniards,
however, discovered gold in Mexico and were out to plunder it. They were also
out for the sugar found in the Carribean, a commodity that had a huge profit
margin.
Note that governments didn't push people to settle colonies to be nice. They
wanted people in those colonies for a reason. They wanted the goods or
resources that the colonies produced or could acquire. You want more trees,
you need people to cut them down. You want more people to cut trees down,
you'll probably want more farmers to feed those people. If those people are
getting wealthy cutting down trees in a harsh, uncivilized environment, there
will be plenty of others willing to service those people for a profit.
So, why would you colonize another planet? If there's something on that planet
that's needed, it will be mined/harvested. That usually requires
miners/farmers/whatever. As the operation increases, the colony
increases. The more people you have, the greater the need for service
industries. This is essentially how the Klondike was "colonized". I'm not sure
this would happen in the future, when robots could do a lot of this
themselves. But if there isn't any kind of heavy AI (which Jon's universe
seems to suggest; it's not AI intensive) then someone will have to be on site
to make value judgements. So, humans will probably go into space, just not
very quickly or in great numbers. These would be like mining platforms in the
ocean, or mining stations in the Arctic. They wouldn't be colonies, just small
corporate concerns.
You won't get interstellar colonies if Earth is a paradise. If there's a need
for raw resources, then you will get some sort of colonization effort. It's
hard to think of something you'd find in another star system, though, that you
can't find in our own star system. In Jon's time frame, are we REALLY going to
have exhausted all the asteroids, moons, and hard planets in our own solar
system? Why go to Betelguese when you can just mine Mars, or Io, or Titan?
This probably isn't realistic.
If there is an inability to maintain life comfortably on Earth, then you WILL
get colonies. People will want to escape the hell hole that is Earth and go to
some other planet where there is room and they can set up their own
government/religion/social structure. Once those colonies are
established, they may be able to ship stuff to Earth for a profit, but it
would have to be worth the cost of shipping the goods back and forth.
Historically, trade has resulted due to huge profits. In the time of Sir
Francis Drake, spice ships were making 100% profit on their trips. THAT is why
people risked the treacherously long journeys. It's hard to imagine a colony
planet being able to supply anything that we could possibly want. A sweet
chocolate tasting substance with no fat, no cholesterol, and no calories that
also cured the common cold might be just such a thing, though. Don't forget
tourism. The modern tourism industry is huge, and a planet with lovely ruins
of a lost civilization and breathtaking scenery would make tourism feasible.
So, assuming that star travel is possible, Earth like planets will be at a
premium. Governments will encourage colonization if the Earth is too full and
life is mostly horrible. Rich folk will build huge mansions on the more
beautiful planets capable of sustaining humans. Poor folk will willingly leave
the planet for land (but it would have to be worth the government's time and
effort to pay for their trip out). The governments would open up colonization
only if it was in their best interest to kick people off the Earth, or to get
people farming/mining/producing whatever was on that planet.
Trade, though, will only occur if there's sufficient profit in trading for
whatever is found. And that profit had better be sufficient in the short term.
One last thing: you need a colony of about 15,000 people to sustain itself
with a sufficiently varied gene pool.
> From: "Laserlight" <laserlight@quixnet.net>
> a) Per canon, space travel will happen.
If this is what you think I meant, Chris, you misread me. My entire post was
about steps A) and B). I agree eith everything you said. Unfortunately, the
rebuttals to my post have all assumed that either I ignored C) or that C) can
happen without first getting through B).
> If this is what you think I meant, Chris, you misread me. My
Yeah, I realized what you were trying to say when I read that post of yours
which came in right after I sent off mine.
As a Canadian, I object ot your statement that Canada is the land "God gave to
Kain." I live in the only livable portion of the country, unless of course,
you like snow. That is Victoria in British Columbia of course.
The resource isssue is very valid, as British Columbia was colonized because
all those lovely tall douglas fir trees make really good masts for sailing
ships, this is of course after all the forests in the UK had been turned into
aforementioned vessels.