Talk-Polywell.org

I think that Rand is putting things a bit too harshly, but I do tend to agree with his general sentiment:
http://www.openmarket.org/2012/06/15/lo ... with-lost/

If I ever get to sea, where no one can monitor, I'll do whatever i please. No one can tell me I don't "own" the water I filter for minerals, or whatever.
If i ever get to space, where no one can police, I'll do whatever I darn well please. No one will be able to tell me I don't "own" an asteroid I put a mining operation on.

As the need to continue to feed the increasing billions of people on the planet grows, there will develop a need to regulate how the seas are fished, or they will obviously be overfished and entire populations destroyed. This has happened before, in the North Atlantic, in the Irish Sea, in the Pacific off the coast of Peru, etc.

Modern fishing methods are more productive than most people realize, and despite the size of the planet, it's general populations can be threatened by fishfinders, ships towing tens of miles of net, modern flash freezing methods to get catches to market and separate transport ships that leave trawlers at work for many days at a time. There needs to be some sort of regulation, or people with the attitude "I will do what I want" will take control over the available resources and deplete them.

Space is not like that. It's not going to suddenly be depleted. When we look at the oceans, we can see there are specific limits that we are approaching. In space, the limits just in our own planetary system are so enormous that the idea of worrying about regulation, which always hinders growth, is futile.

Even in the instance of water, that we suspect is a rarity in our planetary system; we are better off allowing unregulated exploitation until we can identify a specific limit whereby we need to protect it, as we do oceanic fisheries.

GIThruster wrote:Even in the instance of water, that we suspect is a rarity in our planetary system; we are better off allowing unregulated exploitation until we can identify a specific limit whereby we need to protect it, as we do oceanic fisheries.

Water by no means is rare in the solar system. Mars, the Martian moons phoebes & Deimos, the moons of the gas giants the rings of Saturn, and of course asteroids and comets. Copious amounts of water..perhaps you meant liquid water. But even then the oceans believed to exist on Europa estimated I think to be more water than on earth's oceans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europa_(mo ... face_ocean

The best evidence for the thick-ice model is a study of Europa's large craters. The largest impact structures are surrounded by concentric rings and appear to be filled with relatively flat, fresh ice; based on this and on the calculated amount of heat generated by Europan tides, it is predicted that the outer crust of solid ice is approximately 10–30 km (6–19 mi) thick, including a ductile "warm ice" layer, which could mean that the liquid ocean underneath may be about 100 km (60 mi) deep.[30] This leads to a volume of Europa's oceans of 3 × 1018 m3, slightly more than two times the volume of Earth's oceans.

Yes well, compared to rock, water is pretty rare. We don't know how much is on the moon, nor what it will take to extract it. Same with Mars, though there are even fewer reasons to suppose there is water in sufficient quantity there. Europa looks to have plenty, but with only rockets it will not be worth going out that far.

Of course if we can build a Space Drive of any sort, then all the economics in our planetary system change overnight, far surpassing the revolution in travel that came with steam power.

Until we identify a "common sense" gene or some practical equivalent it's likely that we'll have to continue to regulate human behavior much more than would be otherwise necessary or desireable. Even in space. Maybe especially in space.

Today, it would take a significant amount of knowledge, resources and effort to destroy humanity and while the amount of each of those is diminishing it is still non-trivial.

Put somebody with a mental disorder or an axe to grind out mining in the asteroid belt with some ion-thrusters capable of moving an asteroid and it's game over for humanity on earth.

Or have a cargo vessel with large amounts of small size loose ore rupture at geostationary orbital levels and destroy not only the satellites in that orbital band but possibly deny access to space for a significant period of time (years, decades?)

Fail to regulate mining in an asteroid belt and somebody may decide that it's easier to use explosives to do their mining thus blocking access to that portion of the belt due to the resulting debris. Not caring because they've made their score and blocking further access raises the value of their find as it diminishes what can easily be recovered.

Human stupidity and self interest have no bounds. We once thought the oceans were an inexhaustible source of food because they were so large we couldn't possibly deplete them and our initial fishing techniques were so primitive.

Now we know different as we've effectively destroyed once hugely productive fisheries and driven many fish species to the edge of extinction.

Granted we're not talking about destroying fish in space. But we could destroy ourselves and what looks like a limitless resource now may not turn out to be so once we fully develop our extractive industries/techniques.

Consider also the political/power implications that will occur when humanity on earth becomes dependent on those resources from space.

Or possibly if we start growing the bulk of our food in space due to the highly variable climate conditions on earth and the availability of astronomical growing areas and constant sunlight available in space.

And the spacers don't wish to redistribute "their" resources to the dirt pounders. Or even sell them. Because once a certain critical mass of industry and population is reached in space what will earth with its huge gravity well have to offer spacers other than a vacation spot?

Netmaker wrote:Consider also the political/power implications that will occur when humanity on earth becomes dependent on those resources from space.
Or possibly if we start growing the bulk of our food in space due to the highly variable climate conditions on earth and the availability of astronomical growing areas and constant sunlight available in space.

And the spacers don't wish to redistribute "their" resources to the dirt pounders. Or even sell them. Because once a certain critical mass of industry and population is reached in space what will earth with its huge gravity well have to offer spacers other than a vacation spot?

You could construct various scenarios where it played out that way...but would guess the "imperial" navy of earth's space forces would make that unlikely. I mean earth would have access to spacecraft just like "spacers" would, much larger population and money for quite sometime. I am sure earth would make sure its investments in space were well "protected". The bulk of the money is on earth, the resources are only valuble if you have someone to sell them too, and that someone would want to make sure their interest is secured.

Skipjack wrote:I think that Rand is putting things a bit too harshly, but I do tend to agree with his general sentiment:
http://www.openmarket.org/2012/06/15/lo ... with-lost/

What is bigger than the cosmos? A cosmos-sized tax code.

Resources which are "depleted" have merely returned to the steady-state equilibrium production. We don't fish the true production of the sea, the algae. Everything above that is stored algae in one form or another.

The debris problem is inconsequential - if you have the technology to be in space in force, the production of debris capture material is trivial. aerogels with enough firmness to hold debris and enough volume to make it worthwhile are easy to manufacture. Furthermore, the mechanics of orbits mean that any debris which is a true long-term trouble will be moving at very small relative velocity - that is, it is mostly harmless.

WizWom wrote:Resources which are "depleted" have merely returned to the steady-state equilibrium production. We don't fish the true production of the sea, the algae. Everything above that is stored algae in one form or another.

The debris problem is inconsequential - if you have the technology to be in space in force, the production of debris capture material is trivial. aerogels with enough firmness to hold debris and enough volume to make it worthwhile are easy to manufacture. Furthermore, the mechanics of orbits mean that any debris which is a true long-term trouble will be moving at very small relative velocity - that is, it is mostly harmless.

I'm sure that everyone will be so much happier eating algae cakes and fish are not merely stored algae. If all you ate was food that ultimately derived its sustenance from algae, would that make YOU stored algae?

As amusing as that thought it is, it's patently false on the face of it, as is the thought that fish are merely stored algae implying their loss would be inconsequential.


With respect to debris be inconsequential.... When somebody at the top of your gravity well has a relatively endless supply of rocks, aerogel is not going to do you much good. Sure they might start by dumping orbital debris in the path of your satellite networks destroying decades of work and many billions of dollars worth of hardware. But that doesn't mean it would end there. A few more sizeable rocks here and there and your launch facilities are gone. Follow that trend and you wind up with literally stoned back into the stone age if you exist at all.

williatw wrote:You could construct various scenarios where it played out that way...but would guess the "imperial" navy of earth's space forces would make that unlikely. I mean earth would have access to spacecraft just like "spacers" would, much larger population and money for quite sometime. I am sure earth would make sure its investments in space were well "protected". The bulk of the money is on earth, the resources are only valuble if you have someone to sell them too, and that someone would want to make sure their interest is secured.

What "Imperial Navy" is this you speak of? Who is going to fund and build it and what weapons will they have? Spacers with multiple self-sustaining habitats, mining and ore processing facilities located in hollowed out asteroids would have an immense advantage over any space navy dependent on earth based resources for support.

In order for any space policing force to be effective it will have to be established before spacers do, otherwise the spacers have the advantage of rocks and a huge gravity well.

Netmaker wrote:What "Imperial Navy" is this you speak of? Who is going to fund and build it and what weapons will they have? Spacers with multiple self-sustaining habitats, mining and ore processing facilities located in hollowed out asteroids would have an immense advantage over any space navy dependent on earth based resources for support.
In order for any space policing force to be effective it will have to be established before spacers do, otherwise the spacers have the advantage of rocks and a huge gravity well.

The armed forces of the richer nations on earth like China, the US, Russia etc would have their analogs in space. If they are investing 100's of billions of dollars in capital to make space development happen it is unrealistic to think it wouldn't occur to them to protect said investments. In the earth moon system they would effectively have control of lunar resources as well, whether their is a lunar colony that is theoretically "independent" or not. They wouldn't have powersats, lunar mass-drivers etc and it not occur to them, hey these things could be used as weapons maybe we better have the assets in place to take control of them if necessary. The assumption of "the moon is a harsh mistress" and other stories is that earth is completely caught with their pants down, possible but not likely.

You can find an excellent analysis of this and adjacent issues in the March 2012 issue of Space Quarterly. In particular, the piece of Implementing the National Security Space Strategy (NSSS) is excellent.

The armed forces of the richer nations on earth like China, the US, Russia etc

I think the Chinese and Russians would be very surprised to hear that they are "rich".

I am sure to tell the Russians that this was said when I pick them up at Logan tomorrow. LOL.

ladajo wrote:

The armed forces of the richer nations on earth like China, the US, Russia etc

I think the Chinese and Russians would be very surprised to hear that they are "rich".
I am sure to tell the Russians that this was said when I pick them up at Logan tomorrow. LOL.

In another few decades China will probably have a GNP equaling or even surpassing ours(though percapita they will still be much poorer). But if you like I will change "rich" to major military space-faring powers.

Netmaker wrote:

WizWom wrote:Resources which are "depleted" have merely returned to the steady-state equilibrium production. We don't fish the true production of the sea, the algae. Everything above that is stored algae in one form or another.

I'm sure that everyone will be so much happier eating algae cakes and fish are not merely stored algae. If all you ate was food that ultimately derived its sustenance from algae, would that make YOU stored algae?

As amusing as that thought it is, it's patently false on the face of it, as is the thought that fish are merely stored algae implying their loss would be inconsequential.

Where else does all the energy in the sea come from? some from animals and debris washed down the rivers - which are just stored sunlight - or algae, which is just storing sunlight.

Yes, fish are much more useful than algae. But algae can be harvested and fed to captive fish to produce fish much faster and more efficiently than letting the fish eat smaller fish who eat plankton eaters or algae.

The energy flux is finite, thus the meat mass flux must be limited in the same manner. Meat represents a use of energy to transform inanimate material into the meat. Each step along the way, the meat on the fin, as it were, wastes part of that energy in living its life, which is all well and good and beautiful.