Okay, another question for everybody.

I've been working my way through all of the messages in the archive
and in terms of economic activity, SPS seems to be the big industry
we're all predicting.

There are also references to pharmaceuticals, and crystal growth. We
seem to be referencing research and predictions that have already
been made.

Now my thinking on research and economic activity, is best described
by "If you build it, they will come." Right now, all of earth's
economy and most of its research is dependent on a uniform gravity
paradigm.

Looking back on how the introduction of vacuum on earth expanded
research avenues and spawned whole industries that can't be
substitued with atmospheric physics. The Vacuum tube on your TV will
not work if it doesn't have a vacuum. Yes, I know that LCD screens
are here now, but I don't know what process is used for the
manufacture.

So, if cheap access to vacuum and variable gravity is made
available, not to just a select few researchers, but to a society,
what will the forces of imagination unleash? The way we think about
our immediate surroundings will be change in a very fundamental way,
so that it pervades everyday life.

I could see a habitat society leaving most unifrom gravity research
to the flatlanders and embarking in a completely new direction. I
mean why live off of a planetary surface, and still be constrained
by the thnking that goes along with it?

So, I wonder if I'm being too optimistic in this viewpoint. Do you
think that lack of gravity and easy access to vacuum will open the
floodgates of innovation as earlier discoveries of "media changes"
did, or is this not in the same category?

As for economics, here on earth we're really faced with three
constraints. The rationing of energy, materials, and intelligence.
What happens when the marginal cost of energy and material starts to
approach zero for our habitat society? With increased automation,
mined asteroids and solar energy, what happens? What happens to the
nature of work and the nature of wealth?

And if an economy and our socity starts to react to these new
influences and costs, how does it affect the flatlander economy?
After all, they'll still be faced with traditional economic
restraints. Would our economy, and those of all of the other
habitats, slowly diverge from earth, or integrate? If there is
integration, how much of our affluence will transfer to the earth's
economy? Of course, we all realize that I'm not talking about the
first habitat we build, but a time much later, when we're more
firmly established in our new environment. I can foresee a future,
where if we have a large enough population base, we'll be able to be
completely self-sufficent, because in our variable gravity
environment, we'll be able to replicate the gravity environment that
most of earth based industrial technologies require, but absent the
inventation of anti-gravity, earth will never be able to replicate
our variable gravity industries.

I see a process of economic development begining with primary
construction industries, then when a habitat is actally in place,
slowly putting in place industries to replace the high mass, low
value, but still essential, industries, then continuing to develop
along the scale of mass and value chain industries to service our
ever growing population. At some point we're manufacturing our own
clothes, breakfast cereals, sunglasses, etc. What we'll be importing
will be digital information (benefiting from the creative talent
that rises to the top of a huge population base) and from high value
electronics (how large a population will we require to build a chip
fabrication plant to just duplicate what Intel is doing on earth? -
of course I see it as quite possible that when we do build a chip
fabrication plant, it will be to exploit newly developed chip
technologies which are completely dependent on zero gravity and
we'll be the ones exporting to earth.)

Phew, . . . so what do you think? Will we be able to generate
sufficient wealth to grow our population into the millions, and do
this primarily with new technologies, or will we perpetually be a
lonely outpost of humanity. A curiousity, easily forgotten by the
masses, and economically irrelevent to humanity.

--- In spacesettlers@y..., "victoriatangoman"
> Okay, another question for everybody.
>
> I've been working my way through all of the messages in the
archive
> and in terms of economic activity, SPS seems to be the big
industry
> we're all predicting.
>

> As for economics, here on earth we're really faced with three
> constraints. The rationing of energy, materials, and intelligence.
> What happens when the marginal cost of energy and material starts
to
> approach zero for our habitat society? With increased automation,
> mined asteroids and solar energy, what happens? What happens to
the
> nature of work and the nature of wealth?
>

I think that some of the main industries of orbital settlements will
not be due to the obvious advantages of zero gee/ cheap energy/
cheap materials, although those factors are important. Instead, I
think that the lack of terrestrial-government authority in outer
space will create a market niche for orbiting banks (operating much
like banks in certain Carribean islands), casinos (New Las Vegas),
and as a secure data-storage site (much like Sealand).

> electronics (how large a population will we require to build a
chip
> fabrication plant to just duplicate what Intel is doing on earth? -

> of course I see it as quite possible that when we do build a chip
> fabrication plant, it will be to exploit newly developed chip
> technologies which are completely dependent on zero gravity and
> we'll be the ones exporting to earth.)
>

Well, if nanotech ever gets off the drawing board, a zero-gee
facility would be quite useful for manufacturing the nano designs,
particularly nanocomputers; the isolation of the site would
contribute to overall safety (so much for Bill Joy's worries about
gray goo).

> Phew, . . . so what do you think? Will we be able to generate
> sufficient wealth to grow our population into the millions, and do
> this primarily with new technologies, or will we perpetually be a
> lonely outpost of humanity. A curiousity, easily forgotten by the
> masses, and economically irrelevent to humanity.

IMHO, that first outpost would be the foothold that gets mankind off
the surface of the earth permanently; if it can be accomplished
before we collectively destroy ourselves, that is.

:) ed

--- In spacesettlers@y..., "spider_boris" wrote:
> --- In spacesettlers@y..., "victoriatangoman"
> wrote:
> > Okay, another question for everybody.
> >
> > I've been working my way through all of the messages in the
> archive
> > and in terms of economic activity, SPS seems to be the big
> industry
> > we're all predicting.
> >
> > As for economics, here on earth we're really faced with three
> > constraints. The rationing of energy, materials, and
intelligence.
> > What happens when the marginal cost of energy and material
starts
> to
> > approach zero for our habitat society? With increased
automation,
> > mined asteroids and solar energy, what happens? What happens to
> the
> > nature of work and the nature of wealth?
> >
> I think that some of the main industries of orbital settlements
will
> not be due to the obvious advantages of zero gee/ cheap energy/
> cheap materials, although those factors are important. Instead, I
> think that the lack of terrestrial-government authority in outer
> space will create a market niche for orbiting banks (operating
much
> like banks in certain Carribean islands), casinos (New Las Vegas),
> and as a secure data-storage site (much like Sealand).

I agree to a point, but your scenarios prompt me to ask the
following questions. Banks do not seek out environments where there
is lack of government authority and lack of law-enforcement and
legal systems to resolve disputes. Conversely, they seek out stable
legal and governmental systems. Now the Caribean nations are
primarily based on the English legal system, and their banking
systems were set up to be very regulation-lite in order to attract
capital to the nations because the nations had nothing that they
could export to the rest of the world economy. So they turned their
vice into a virtue, so to speak. Their tax-haven status poses
problems for their efforts at economic development. I think the
habitats will have economies more sophisticated than those of the
tax-havens, so the trade-off may not be worth it. But OTOH, as safe
havens for the digital storage of banking information, and acting as
legal nexus, may have a role. Same with secure data storage - but
again, that's usually a trade-off. Data that needs to be protected
from legal examination by foreign governments, has to have a high
enough financial rent that we can charge so as to offset those
foreign government's actions and economic embargoes against us and
the products we try to export or import. If you're talking about
digital gambling, such as internet casinos, yeah I could see a role.
If you're talking about shipping people up to L4 or whatever orbit
we're inhabiting, most likely not LEO, then that's a huge travel
expense when Vegas is much closer. If you mean gambling as an
adjunct to the tourism experience, then I think that it becomes
secondary to people wanting to come and experience a taste of
habitat life and all of the unique features we have that they can't
have on earth, not to mention the trip out to us.

I can't see why this huge multi-billion dollar habitat endeavour
would want to embark on romantic, rebellious ventures that would
antagonize governments on Earth. It wouldn't be playing to our
strengths, rather it would in the long run be weakening us. All it
would take is for the banking networks, coerced by terrestrial
governments, to cut us off from the banking network. Then where are
we?

>
> > electronics (how large a population will we require to build a
> chip
> > fabrication plant to just duplicate what Intel is doing on
earth? -
>
> > of course I see it as quite possible that when we do build a
chip
> > fabrication plant, it will be to exploit newly developed chip
> > technologies which are completely dependent on zero gravity and
> > we'll be the ones exporting to earth.)
> >
> Well, if nanotech ever gets off the drawing board, a zero-gee
> facility would be quite useful for manufacturing the nano designs,
> particularly nanocomputers; the isolation of the site would
> contribute to overall safety (so much for Bill Joy's worries about
> gray goo).
>
> > Phew, . . . so what do you think? Will we be able to generate
> > sufficient wealth to grow our population into the millions, and
do
> > this primarily with new technologies, or will we perpetually be
a
> > lonely outpost of humanity. A curiousity, easily forgotten by
the
> > masses, and economically irrelevent to humanity.
>
> IMHO, that first outpost would be the foothold that gets mankind
off

Personally, I think this topic is making moutains out of molehills. However,
as I see it, the banks are too conservative for such a high-risk venture
(which is not really that risky at all). What's needed is to create our own
banks. One of the ideas I have suggested at National Space Society last year
is a need for Near Earth Deveoplement Bank made up of people with assests who
are willing to study business plans and to make loans or grants to worthwhile
plans. I do believe that colonies can be independant of earth for a simple
reason that it's cheaper to draw on reasources from space than from earth.
Also, the really expensive part of colonization come at the very beginning
with sharp learning curve. But once the structure is up and running, then
the costs will fall fast. But the politics and conservative nature of banks
are the reason why I'm learning to start business and creating assets in the
markets we have now. If you want to go into space, you need to create a
postive cashflow today and to set up network of alike minded businessmen so
that when the window for exploitation of space open you'll be ready to seize
the chanch.

Now as for the future, the way I see it is that once you have 10 million to
one billion people living and working in space, you wll have an economy that
is so robust because everything will be new and different in a radical
eniveroment and the resource will be almost entirely space-based that it will
cause a major depression on earth with real estate, earth-based engery
stocks, and major industrial stocks to collapse because their resources are
no longer in heavy demand. The socialitic nature of states with welfare, too
many laws and regulation, and heavy pork projects will make it far worse. It
will not be the end of the world but it will certainly mean the end of big
government as the depression will force the people to vote with their feet
into space, provide that the space economy is far freer with governments
basically next to zero. After15 to 50 years of shake out, the earth economy
will be rebuild on a far different foundation that give people more freedom
and almost nonexisted government much like the 19th century America but
without Lincoln's government.

Carl Mullin

--- In spacesettlers@y..., Ravenart@a... wrote:
> Personally, I think this topic is making moutains out of
molehills. However,
> as I see it, the banks are too conservative for such a high-risk
venture
> (which is not really that risky at all).

Having spent years in the banking, finance and VC industry I can
tell you that banks are working exactly as they should. They're
looking after their depositor's money. They're not in the business
of taking on risk. The reward of fixed interest payments is
sufficient for banks considering the level of risk they are taking
on most loans. The proper place to get capital for risk ventures is
the capital market. Go to a VC, but be aware that they have a
plethora of competing proposals and right now space ventures don't
offer the reward that most terrestrial ventures can offer.

Now if you put together a capital pool funded by like minded
individuals who are completely willing to risk the entirety of their
investment, and if that capial pool is sufficient to actually get
something commerical working in orbit, then your group may be the
one to ignite the space industrialization trend. All it takes is a
capital pool of sufficient size to fund a project that is too risky
for most investors. So, of course you're not applying standard
financial risk analysis to the project. Your criteria is different.
If you're willing to lose the whole few billion, or more precisely
the $100,000 that each of you has put up, then you'll might win the
crap shoot.

What's needed is to create our own
> banks. One of the ideas I have suggested at National Space
Society last year
> is a need for Near Earth Deveoplement Bank made up of people with
assests who
> are willing to study business plans and to make loans or grants to
worthwhile
> plans.

I don't think there are too many private financial institutions that
make grants to business's. That's usually the purvue of Big
Government that most Libertarians are against.

You probably won't find loans for these ventures either. It'll be a
situation of "put your money where your mouth is" where believers
will put up the money to fund the plan and be willing to lose it as
well as expecting to profit handsomely when it hits the motherlode.

I do believe that colonies can be independant of earth for a simple
> reason that it's cheaper to draw on reasources from space than
from earth.

Yes, if those resources are needed in space and, and this is a big
AND, if you have the infrastructure in space to transport and
process those resources. For instance, there's lots of silicon on
the moon and on asteroids, but that doesn't make it any easier to
get a Pentium Chip.

> Also, the really expensive part of colonization come at the very
beginning
> with sharp learning curve. But once the structure is up and
running, then
> the costs will fall fast.

Absolutely agree with you on this observation. 100%

But the politics and conservative nature of banks
> are the reason why I'm learning to start business and creating
assets in the
> markets we have now. If you want to go into space, you need to
create a
> postive cashflow today and to set up network of alike minded
businessmen so
> that when the window for exploitation of space open you'll be
ready to seize
> the chanch.

You're absolutely right, and doing the smartest thing to position
yourself. More power to you. Good thinking.

>
> Now as for the future, the way I see it is that once you have 10
million to
> one billion people living and working in space, you wll have an
economy that
> is so robust because everything will be new and different in a
radical
> eniveroment and the resource will be almost entirely space-based
that it will
> cause a major depression on earth with real estate, earth-based
engery
> stocks, and major industrial stocks to collapse because their
resources are
> no longer in heavy demand.

I agree with the first part of your statement where there will be a
new robust economy for the habitats. But the fact that there will be
an economic collapse on earth I can't agree with. If I want a house
in Hawaii or New York, or Paris, the prices of that real estate
won't be effected by habitat real estate prices. Energy stocks I can
see actually increasing, because if SPS hold true to their promise,
the cost of energy distribution will decrease, and the costs of
generation will approach zero, as well as reducing the requirements
for the whole transportation network for feeding natural gas, coal,
oil, etc into the power generation plants. With the reduced cost of
energy, there'll probably be more demand and the industries will be
leaner therefore the strongest company will fluorish. I don't
understand why the industrial stock prices would collapse with a
robust Habitat economy in place. How will the goods manufactured in
space be transported to terrestrial markets? That'll be such a huge
cost compared to the efficiencies gained from space-based
manufacturing, that space based products that have terrestrial
manufactured counterparts will never be able to compete on price.

The socialitic nature of states with welfare, too
> many laws and regulation, and heavy pork projects will make it far
worse.

Maybe, but which of the laws are redundant? The ones you don't like
or the ones that you see a need for? How about the guy who disagrees
with you on the value of some law or another. Don't get me wrong -
I happen to think that the whole politico-economic system is
corrupt, pretty much the world over, but a technological society is
a complex society, and the price of living with the benefits of our
technical society is putting up the complexities

Welfare states. Big problem. But what are you going to do? Let
people starve. You could, just be aware of the consequences. People
won't willingly starve. They'll do whatever it takes to survive. No
welfare state will lead to the costs of keeping those people alive
being shifted from the tax payers, to the individual who is mugged,
robbed, embezzled, and the companies that are the victims of
shoplifting, robbery, etc, and their insurance companies, and those
costs will get passed on to you, just in the form of higher prices,
which won't be as easy to identify as looking at a state budget and
finding the costs of the welfare department. It's all a matter of
policy choices. We could do away with welfare states. And as an
aside, there aren't any full employment economies anywhere. So it's
not as simple as saying everyone should have a job. And to tell you
the truth, I seriously doubt that everybody on welfare is
employable. Some people, nobody will want to hire. Evenutally, in
order to survive, they turn to crime, end up in prison, and there's
no way that's going to be cheaper than welfare. And do you think
they'll be more employable when they get out of prison.

It
> will not be the end of the world but it will certainly mean the
end of big
> government as the depression will force the people to vote with
their feet
> into space, provide that the space economy is far freer with
governments
> basically next to zero.

If the earth actually falls into a depression, do you think people
will actually have the money to pay for a ticket to the habitats at,
let's be generous, a cost of $500 per pound.

No, the Habitats will flourish because they'll attract the brightest
minds, and most adventurous spirits - the ones who are attracted to
the idea of the frontier, of building a new world, a new society and
they'll have to be of use to us, so they'll have skills and talents
that we require.

It's unlikely that there'll be too many people in need of welfare in
the Habitats. So the whole migration to space will be a mild
Eugenics movement.

My question to you: Do you think that there will be free migration,
so that anyone who wants to go will be able to or do you think that
there will be a selection process, where specific people are hired
or invited or selected from a group that applies to immigrate?

After15 to 50 years of shake out, the earth economy
> will be rebuild on a far different foundation that give people
more freedom
> and almost nonexisted government much like the 19th century
America but
> without Lincoln's government.
>
> Carl Mullin

On the contrary, those living in Habitats are going to have to
depend on each other more so than any society on the face of the
earth. Keeping that Habitat functioning is going to require a very
technical society and a lot of interdependence of skills. That'll
entail government. You'll have laws curtailing your freedom that are
unheard of on someplace on earth. Right now I can go and take a
jackhammer and drill right through my driveway, and no government
will stop me. Now if you were suicidal, and living in a habitat, do
you think your government will allow you to drill through the
pressure hull. I know it's an outlandish example, but I'm sure we
could come up with a plethora of examples if we set out mind to it.

On a more humourous note, after I'm firmly established in my
Habitat, and we're living our nice happy lives, I'd love to watch
from afar as a group of Libertarians got together, bought a Habitat,
and tried to live with no governing body. As long as they didn't
come too close to us, it would be interesting to watch how they'd
try to govern a 21st or 22nd century society with a "living off the
land" "Don't Thread on me" political philosophy of the 18th and 19th
centuries. The simplicity of those days is long gone.

You raised a few good points, Tangoman. However, I don't think I did a good
job of pointing out one of my core beliefs. I believe that productivity
require simplitication. if you want good life and freedom, you need to be
simple. You want to make money, you keep it simple. Complexity slow
everything down and add too much overhead. The way I see it is that
technology is individualizing the society. By end of 21 century, many things
that are done by large insititutes will be done by individuals. That mean
security, medical exams, engery, etc. The speed of adapting those
technonlogy will depend to a great degree on what society is doing the
adapting. I see people in space as far more free because they will adapt
faster. Evolution so to speak. Now, as for some point such as real estate,
I did overblow my projections. In many place where there are good characters
and hightly desireable place such as New York, the demands for place will not
drop as fast as others. But the demand will drop regardlessly because the
best companies and people are going to space for future and freedom. On the
flip side, the wealth and people will keep moving to the north from south
even in worldwise downturn, because of what you said about the fact that some
people won't buy a ticket for $500.

Frankly, the way I see it. If you put your mind onto something and work for
free educating yourself on any means needed to reach a goal and then do it,
even poor people with no money and a lot of will will find a way to get into
space, even if it mean going there as a dishwasher for 3 years.

But while talking about future 50 years from now is a lot of fun, the better
question is still what are we doing now to get to the first base?

Carl

--- In spacesettlers@y..., Ravenart@a... wrote:
> You raised a few good points, Tangoman. However, I don't think I
did a good
> job of pointing out one of my core beliefs. I believe that
productivity
> require simplitication. if you want good life and freedom, you
need to be
> simple. You want to make money, you keep it simple. Complexity
slow
> everything down and add too much overhead. The way I see it is
that
> technology is individualizing the society. By end of 21 century,
many things
> that are done by large insititutes will be done by individuals.
That mean
> security, medical exams, engery, etc. The speed of adapting those
> technonlogy will depend to a great degree on what society is doing
the
> adapting.

OK, I think I see what you're saying about trend to decentralization
being aided by technology. Just so I understand what you're saying,
tell me if this is what you mean: The functions that used to be
performed by institutions will now be performed by individuals who
are equiped with technology to enable them to perform the former
institutional tasks. The collective knowledge and rules of the
institution are now enabled in the technology. Does that mean the
decisionmaking is embodied in the programming of the technology? So
rather than us poor citizens having to answer and obey those
bureacrats, we will have to follow the rules of the programming in
the technology that is employed by the individual?

I see people in space as far more free because they will adapt
> faster. Evolution so to speak.

Yeah, I agree with you.

Now, as for some point such as real estate,
> I did overblow my projections. In many place where there are good
characters
> and hightly desireable place such as New York, the demands for
place will not
> drop as fast as others. But the demand will drop regardlessly
because the
> best companies and people are going to space for future and
freedom.

I hope so. I hope it isn't just us space nuts who will find the idea
appealing. I know that I'd go at the drop of a hat, but even I would
miss travelling to different parts of the world, seeing the variety
of life, etc. but taken as a whole I'd still go even realizing what
I'd be giving up. But would the smartest people be willing to do
the same, to give up what they see as the glories of Earth for the
strangeness of space.

On the
> flip side, the wealth and people will keep moving to the north
from south
> even in worldwise downturn, because of what you said about the
fact that some
> people won't buy a ticket for $500.
>
> Frankly, the way I see it. If you put your mind onto something
and work for
> free educating yourself on any means needed to reach a goal and
then do it,
> even poor people with no money and a lot of will will find a way
to get into
> space, even if it mean going there as a dishwasher for 3 years.

Absolutely true. I won't even venture a guess about what skills
we'll need when the time comes. But we will need a fully functional
society and all of the people that requires.

>
> But while talking about future 50 years from now is a lot of fun,
the better
> question is still what are we doing now to get to the first base?
>
> Carl

Why I working out the plans right now ;) I think my Shuttle will be
ready to launch in about a year. Watch the news for it. :) Seriously
though, we'll all do what we can to help the endeavour along. There
are a lot of business plans circulating for private space companies,
but I've been told, and I also firmly believe, that it'll take a
technology that absolutely MUST be in space in order to deliver some
fantastic benefit to mankind, in order for some group to free up the
Huge capital that'll be required to make it happen.