Documenting Diverse Belief
I just finished debugging a really stupid program that generates and ephemeris from a series of orbital elements. It took me about 6 solid hours to realize that I has written "tan(..." instead of "atan(..." Talk about a waste of time.
The reason for my blogging is not to complain about this silly, mindless, and trivial program, but rather to begin to refute a number of--in my mind--highly irrational beliefs. The first of these came out when I was talking to someone after an interesting lecture on NASAs Messenger mission to Mercury. It turns out that he is a firm believer in the future of space colonization, on the grounds that we will need additional resources and that the human race is exhausting the ability of the earth to provide these resources. These are certainly true statements, but I strongly disagree that they are a justification for space colonization. The simplest refutation of these assertations is to ask the question "how?". How exactly is colonizing space going to provide these resources that are essential for our survival? There is a lot of iron in space. There is also a fair amount of water and a few other metals and minerals. The patterns of resource depletion here on earth, however, involve far different resources than we would easily find in space. The depletion of fossil fuels is the most immenant danger, and I can guarantee that space is not going to provide a solution to this dillema. To my knowledge, the most predominant hydrocarbon in the solar system is methane, which is mostly concentrated in the outer solar system. There is virtually no possibility of near-earth extraterrestrial oil or coal reserves. The other resources that are in danger of depletion in our world are things like forests, clean air and water, arable land, and biodiversity, none of which exist appreciably in the rest of the solar system. It therefore makes far more sense to attempt to develop a sustainable existance on the Earth before espousing "space colonization" as a solution to resource depletion, because it's not a solution at all.
This brings be to a loosely connected topic of interest. The problem of resource depletion is driven primarily by the problem of overpopulation. While this is a definite concern, most models of the human population predict a global plateau of population around 9 or 10 billion people. Rather than resorting to human spaceflight and colonization as a solution to resource depletion, it makes more sense to spend billions of dollars on education and family planning services. The inverse relationship between female education and fertility is well-documented, and family planning services makes it possible to overcome age-old cultural paradigms encouraging high reproductive rates. So there it is. This business of space colonization is very wasteful and pointless. Exploration is good, but there's no good reason to colonize.
Have you read Collapse by Jared Diamond? It is fascinating and has some Malthusian leanings.
I was talking to someone at dinner about that very book yesterday. I haven't read it, but I really want to. I also haven't read Guns, Germs, and Steel unfortunately. I think I need to go on a Jared Diamond binge.
Guns, Germs, and Steel is a better read in my opinion. It recieved a pulitzer prize.
I do not know this person of whom you speak but I completely agree. You are so full of it Adam. First of all, America has a NEGATIVE population growth rate on its own, and the number of people is only being increased by immigrants. Therefore your point about the necessity of MORE money in education and family planning is void. In addition, a significant move to space could very well open huge new markets and industries, fueling people to get more educated. And to address global population growth, overpopulation isn't nearly as big a problem as mere wastefulness. Wastefulness that will have a much reduced effect when we are no longer on Earth.
Instead of hoping theorists are right about a "population plateau" that will magically save us from impending ecological disaster, we must have backup options. Furthermore, your ideas about no-fossil-fuels-in-space is somewhat true (many of Jupiter and Saturn's moons are something like 90% hydrocarbons, methane being only one of many such compounds) but think about all the OTHER types of energy that will be much more available and convenient. For instance, on surfaces such as the Moon, solar energy will be much more feasible (no one lives there) and much more efficient (less atmospheric blocking). Even consider peppering the surface of an asteroid with nuclear power plants, no longer hindered by civilian fears or the dangers of toxic waste transportation.
There are a plethora of other major benefits. Do I even NEED to mention the scientific benefits of such a venture? There won't be a field of science that won't be completely revitalized and revolutionized by space colonization. Waste management will obviously be much easier, in another way helping to avert catastrophe. Water, a major new ecological problem, will be almost commonplace (many asteroids have a lot of ice, not to mention comets). Not to mention that non-ecological doomsday disasters such as the superbug or nuclear war will have a much less chance of wiping out humanity.
So let's talk about “how?” First of all, we need to get our asses in space and stop bitching about cost. In a country where 1 in 4 dollars drains straight into Iraq and Afghanistan, we have much to spare. You must remember that your “costs” are completely based on flawed ideas. Think about the first flights...were they cheap? Maybe we should have never started flying and instead pushed money into the masses right? WRONG. As space exploration and colonization becomes commercialized, the price will get driven WAY WAY down, its just a fact of history. And when that happens, all of the above-mentioned benefits will come almost naturally. I've debunked all of your ideas. Whoever your friend is who supported space colonization, he's a fucking genius.
Are you kidding me???
Firstly, Earth has a POSITIVE population growth rate, and none it comes from immigration (I hope).
Secondly, it is and always will be cheaper to install and run photovoltaic cells with mirrors on Earth than on the moon if only because of the prohibitive transportation costs.
Thirdly, I understand you were not serious. I was not either: space colonization is the REAL future!
Haha!