I'm not engineer, but apart that construct a building inside an habitat is
one of the pointless things I can think of, I doubt there is a limit to how
many stories you can go up to.

I say it's pointless because the habitat shell itself is perfect to contain
all the room and enclosed space you may need, so the whole point of the
internal surface is that is well, a surface... If you build even only a
couple of floors in the actual shell that should give you so much living and
working space that the whole surface in proportion will barely be enough as
a park, if you want to have a green space proportion comparable to today's
large cities.

If for some reason you want to build a tower anyway, as it grows taller it
will get closer to the gravitational centre and therefore weight less, so it
shouldn't be a problem to build all the way up to the centre, and even back
down the other side for that matter, except of course that as you climb a
floor after the other the gravity will reduce proportionally.

As for the pressure, the outer shell would need to be built so strong to
contain the internal atmosphere that the additional weight of a building
shouldn't matter much... think of the tank of a compressor, if you put a
brick in it is hardly going to make much difference...

I've got the impression you are thinking to an habitat as a rural piece of
countryside floating in a glass bubble, that's not the case really, think to
a nuclear submarine with a hydroponics garden inside, that' closer to the
mark... there won't be anything like 'ol pa and ma on their rolling chair
watching the cattle grazing in the sunset, more likely you'll get a couple
of technicians in sterile suits overseeing growing pools of yeasts...

Cheers,

Claudio

> I've got the impression you are thinking to an habitat as a rural piece of
> countryside floating in a glass bubble, that's not the case really, think
> to a nuclear submarine with a hydroponics garden inside, that' closer to
> the mark... there won't be anything like 'ol pa and ma on their rolling
> chair watching the cattle grazing in the sunset, more likely you'll get a
> couple of technicians in sterile suits overseeing growing pools of
> yeasts...

While I agree that the first habitats will be probably be "submarines with
hydroponics", I hardly believe that they will remain that way once space
colonization is bootstraped. Assuming that economy of scale will make
habitats cheaper and cheaper, people will naturally prefer habitats with more
space - eventually, there could be even habitats immitating rural areas of
Earth. (Though I much doubt that a civilization that developed in space
arcologies will even think of rural scenarios. Personally, I don't miss rural
areas at all, for instance. Most likely, once the era of "submarine habitats"
is gone, spacers will continue to live in hive-like cities - but they will be
hives with more space and more extravagant architecture.)

> Cheers,

Cheers,

> Claudio

Lucio

> While I agree that the first habitats will be probably be "submarines with
> hydroponics", I hardly believe that they will remain that way once space
> colonization is bootstraped. Assuming that economy of scale will make
> habitats cheaper and cheaper, people will naturally prefer habitats with more
> space - eventually, there could be even habitats immitating rural areas of
> Earth. (Though I much doubt that a civilization that developed in space
> arcologies will even think of rural scenarios. Personally, I don't miss rural
> areas at all, for instance. Most likely, once the era of "submarine habitats"
> is gone, spacers will continue to live in hive-like cities - but they will be
> hives with more space and more extravagant architecture.)

I should expect many types of habitats. Keep in mind too that even when we are able to build large habitats, the majority of immigrants to many new habs will be emigrants from Earth. As for me, I should like a landscape like to the rural areas of western Norway where I grew up, with the very easy access to cities made possible in the space habs as well as to habs of very different landscaping and climate. Then, when coming home from work in a typical Weejun winter drizzle, I should enjoy spending a few hours at the beach in a sister habitat running a South Sea climate - without chiggers or similar. :-) Though at the time that this can be achieved, I shall very probably be much too old to appreciate the sight of the beach babes (or they the sight of me). :-(
As for whether we will build spacious habitats for all, or crowded hives for the majority and spacious habs only for the well-to-do, there is no way that we can determine that yet. It depends in part on how easy it will become to build habitats. It cannot be ruled out that the biggest bottleneck in expanding the High Frontier will be transportation from Earth. It can also not be ruled out that building the pressure-hull and adding the soil will be cheaper than subsequently building houses and infrastructure. Keep in mind that a habitat hull and windows may well be a matter of Big Dumb Building, where automated processes are repeated endlessly, and where large masses may be shaped by few people, while houses, rails, plumbing etc. require much more personal attention by human workers. If there is a bottleneck in transportation, and if the infrastructure within the habitat proves to be relatively expensive compared to the habitat shell, then we may well very early see habitats with a very low population density. Perhaps low enough that everybody can have a beef steak as often as they want to, from cattle grazing in ranch habitats with little supervision, and eating little besides naturally growing grass.

Jon Lennart Beck.

> As for whether we will build spacious habitats for all, or
> crowded hives for the majority and spacious habs only for the
> well-to-do, there is no way that we can determine that yet. It
> depends in part on how easy it will become to build habitats.

no, it doesn't. This is the point I was trying to make, it's not a matter of
space, it's a matter of human being not being very mature I guess... :)
regardless how easy would be to build them, regardless how much space there
will be, human will grow in number until every inch of it is full, and then
start to compete for it. It's our nature and until we learn better we will
keep doing that.
Look at what happened in Egypt when they built the Aswan dam, it would have
granted water and energy to live at as good as any western standard to the
entire population at the time it was built. Not even twenty years later the
population boomed so much that they were all back in the same misery they
had always been. Our planet could be a veritable garden of Eden if we were
to make a rationale use of it, but that's not the human nature, or at least
we are not evolved that much yet anyway...
We are doing the same right now on global scale, as we have always done.
Someone has talked about population on Earth not being an issue, at last
count I think we're growing something like a 100 million per year. It's hard
to imagine this can be kept up for much, but is also hard to imagine how can
it be stopped short of some big tragic event of a sort or another. Pop
growth in the west is indeed diminishing, but in the most populated area of
the world is not. The sad truth is that is going to grow as much as it can,
that is until it becomes a BIG problem, and only then we are going to do
something about it. Probably some big war as usually.
As for people in Brazil being able to afford meat everyday, looking at the
millions living in the slums around Rio and the other big cities there it
doesn't look like it to me, but even if it was so it certainly isn't the
case in India, China and Indonesia, which account alone for nearly half of
the world population if I'm not much wrong... most people in Asia and Africa
live on the threshold of misery. I'm not sure about South America, but I
don't think there is such a pressure of illegal immigrants on the southern
borders of US because they like the president face to be honest... :)

As for us in the West having a middle class living a much higher standard
than it was in the middleage, it's undeniable, but is looking at things in a
false perspective. In the middleages the dominant classes lived their
privileged lives supported by the local (miserable) population.
Today, in the West, we've made many important steps toward human dignity,
and not only the middle class but pretty much any citizen have at least a
chance of a dignified existence, but this is only possible because we're
exploiting the rest of the world, which is still as miserable as our
peasants were in the middleages. The West alone uses most of the planet
resources, and it doesn't account even for a quarter of the population. The
US alone I think were still consuming something like half of the world food
production until a couple years ago, and they're a tenth of the world
population if that!

Last, why people would go to live in a steel hive spinning in the middle of
nowhere if there aren't beautiful white houses with flower gardens for all?
For the same reason people always been emigrating, because condition of life
back home are so bad that it is still an improvement for them. Sure you
won't think of doing it now, comfortably sitting at the PC having a pleasant
conversation, and neither do I being in the same condition of course, but
give it a decade of depression and a 50% unemployment rate and even people
in the West would kill each other to get there. It's happened before, and it
is happening right now in all the poorest countries of the world. People
born in the wrong place would go to live and work on an habitat even if they
had to live in a 3 square foot cell all their life right today if they
could. Granted, habitat's job will probably require a good level of
education, and most people will be probably attracted by the opportunity for
fast profits, good wages, the feel for adventure, or a mix of all, as do
people who go today to work on the oil rigs in Alaska for example. Still I
think the idea of habitats population living in little single floor wooden
houses surrounded by trees is just a romantic dream IMHO. At best there will
be places like that which you can rent for a week to go spend your honeymoon
there... :)
Sorry for all the Gundam aficionados on the list... ;)

I'm sure some foolish idealistic group will set up an utopic habitat were
all will finally live a free and fulfilling life, but as soon as the others
will know about it they'll go there and exterminate them on some ideological
or religious pretext as it has always happened. Those things are bad for
ruling classes you see, they show their own ruled population that they could
live without being ruled, which would put the ruling classes out of
business. Fortunately for the ruling classes however, they have always been
in a particularly good relationship with the military, so ensuring that the
ruled are always well aware of how lucky they are to be ruled after all has
never really been a problem, and the ruling classes can go on trying to take
over each other which has always been they favourite pastime.
I guess the truth is that a free and fulfilling life is probably boring like
hell anyway... :)

Bottom line, technological advances are going to make big hives possible,
but for everyone to live a better life we need first a major step in
maturity, call it sociophilosofical evolution if you like.
We're not doing very well on that front I'm afraid, although there have been
considerable improvements, and hopefully the information revolution will
help a lot in this sense... so basically keep talking about it, it helps...
;)

Cheers,

Claudio

>> As for whether we will build spacious habitats for all, or
>> crowded hives for the majority and spacious habs only for the
>> well-to-do, there is no way that we can determine that yet. It
>> depends in part on how easy it will become to build habitats.

> no, it doesn't. This is the point I was trying to make, it's not a
> matter of space, it's a matter of human being not being very mature
> I guess... :)

Why don't you just come out and say that humans basically suck, and
because of this the future will be a horrible existance for most?
This seems to be your point.

> regardless how easy would be to build them, regardless how much
> space there will be, human will grow in number until every inch of
> it is full, and then start to compete for it. It's our nature and
> until we learn better we will keep doing that.

We haven't done it yet on Earth. Not in the 100,000 years or so that
modern humans have been on the planet.

> Look at what happened in Egypt when they built the Aswan dam, it
> would have granted water and energy to live at as good as any
> western standard to the entire population at the time it was built.
> Not even twenty years later the population boomed so much that they
> were all back in the same misery they had always been. Our planet

But again, NOT because there wasn't enough ROOM. Because there
wasn't enough ENERGY to keep up with population growth that it takes
two or three generations living at high standards to slow down.

> could be a veritable garden of Eden if we were to make a rationale
> use of it, but that's not the human nature, or at least we are not
> evolved that much yet anyway...

There is truth to this. We have known since 1980 or earlier how to
raise worldwide standards of living (powersats and such).

> We are doing the same right now on global scale, as we have always
> done.

Population growth has been less that 1% per year for most of human
history. The runaway population growth that many are worried about
is a relatively recent phenomenon.

> Someone has talked about population on Earth not being an issue, at
> last count I think we're growing something like a 100 million per

Mostly in the undeveloped nations. If they become developed, that
population growth will slow down. It will take a generation or two,
but it will slow down.

> year. It's hard to imagine this can be kept up for much, but is
> also hard to imagine how can it be stopped short of some big tragic
> event of a sort or another.

Or a worldwide surge in living standards.

> Pop growth in the west is indeed diminishing,

High standard of living.

> but in the most populated area of the world is not.

Low standard of living. Developement will fix this.

> The sad truth is that is going to grow as much as it can, that is
> until it becomes a BIG problem, and only then we are going to do
> something about it. Probably some big war as usually.

Does Australia keep it's population from exploding by sending it's
excess people off to war? No.

> As for people in Brazil being able to afford meat everyday, looking
> at the millions living in the slums around Rio and the other big
> cities there it doesn't look like it to me, but even if it was so

I'll let the folks from Brazil address this one.

> it certainly isn't the case in India, China and Indonesia, which
> account alone for nearly half of the world population if I'm not
> much wrong... most people in Asia and Africa live on the threshold
> of misery.

Which is a large part of why they have such rapid population growth.
Reduce the misery and increase the standard of living, and...

> I'm not sure about South America, but I don't think there is such a
> pressure of illegal immigrants on the southern borders of US
> because they like the president face to be honest... :)

They do so because they want to enjoy the high standard of living
enjoyed in the US.

> As for us in the West having a middle class living a much higher
> standard than it was in the middleage,

I'm not saying that modern middle-classers enjoy a higher standard of
living than medieval peasants; I'm saying that somebody living in the
meanest slum or ghetto that the western world (or Japan) has to offer
has a standard of living to rival a nobleman of the middle ages.

> it's undeniable, but is looking at things in a false perspective.
> In the middleages the dominant classes lived their privileged lives
> supported by the local (miserable) population.

True. There was the mercantile class, but for the most part you are
dead on with this.

> Today, in the West, we've made many important steps toward human
> dignity, and not only the middle class but pretty much any citizen
> have at least a chance of a dignified existence, but this is only
> possible because we're exploiting the rest of the world, which is
> still as miserable as our peasants were in the middleages. The West

Now, you have something here. Of course, the main way in which
we "exploit" the poorest of the world is in consuming a lot of energy
while leaving little for them. So powersats. Problem solved.

> alone uses most of the planet resources, and it doesn't account
> even for a quarter of the population.

True. Absolutely true. And if we in the West (and Japan) share
things out equally, then we too will be poor (and so will the rest of
the world, only slightly not a much).

> The US alone I think were still consuming something like half of
> the world food production until a couple years ago, and they're a
> tenth of the world population if that!

Do you have anything to back up that claim? It's hard to believe
that a third of a billion folks, even if they are aLL overeaters, can
eat more than five and three-quarter billions, even if they are on
the edge of starvation. And about a billion of them are in nations
just as developed (or nearly so, in some cases) as the US.

> Last, why people would go to live in a steel hive spinning in the
> middle of nowhere if there aren't beautiful white houses with
> flower gardens for all?

Well, again, you act as if there is nothing between in-shell hovels
and "beautiful white houses with flower gardens." What about nicely
(not extravagantly) furnished apartments or modest (neither mansion
nor shack) houses with three bedrooms and one and a half bathrooms?

> For the same reason people always been emigrating, because
> condition of life back home are so bad that it is still an
> improvement for them. Sure you won't think of doing it now,
> comfortably sitting at the PC having a pleasant conversation, and
> neither do I being in the same condition of course,

I'd be happy to go if I could enjoy my present standard of living,
and be in space besides. I might even be willing to give a few
things up. And I am not a rich man (by Western [or Japanese]
standards).

> but give it a decade of depression and a 50% unemployment rate and
> even people in the West would kill each other to get there.

Well, sure, you can always conjure up a horrid future scenario that
makes people willing to accept almost anything. Why not just say
that most of Earth is poisoned by radioactive waste, or invoke a
comet strike? I doubt the business cycle is dead and buried.

> It's happened before, and it is happening right now in all the
> poorest countries of the world.

Yes. Powersats. Other technological advances.

> People born in the wrong place would go to live and work on an
> habitat even if they had to live in a 3 square foot cell all their
> life right today if they could.

No. I fail to see the advantage of this over living under a bridge
or in a junkyard. Now, throw in three good meals a day, medical
coverage, and a good edcation for their children so that THEY don't
have to settle for in-shell hovels, and yes, many of the poorest
people in the world would jump at the chance. However:

> Granted, habitat's job will probably require a good level of
> education,

Which the world's poorest do not have. So those who would be willing
to live in your in-shell hovels will not be welcome, because they
have nothing to offer. Unless you are invisioning a charity programe
that throws in three good meals a day, medical coverage, and a good
edcation for their children so that THEY don't have to settle for in-
shell hovels. Otherwise, those who mone to space will be educated,
not-that-poor folk who are not about to settle for a three-foot
square, windowless cell-in-the-shell.

> and most people will be probably attracted by the opportunity for
> fast profits, good wages,

Those who make good wages will not settle for a three-foot square,
windowless cell-in-the-shell.

> the feel for adventure, or a mix of all, as do people who go today
> to work on the oil rigs in Alaska for example.

What do Alaskan oilfield workers live in?

> Still I think the idea of habitats population living in little
> single floor wooden houses surrounded by trees is just a romantic
> dream IMHO. At best there will be places like that which you can
> rent for a week to go spend your honeymoon there... :)

Sorry, dude, but math trumps cynicism. Those who are desperate
enough to settle for your cell-in-the-shell will not be in space, and
those in space will demand more than your cell-in-the-shell.

> Sorry for all the Gundam aficionados on the list... ;)

I'd be willing to give up several square metres of living space in
exchange for not getting smashed by a giant robot!!

stuff with nothing more to support it than "that's just how people
are," which is never a good enough argument>

Xenophile (math trumps cynicism... a good mantra)

> Pop growth in the west is indeed diminishing, but in the most populated
> area of the world is not.
This is because in the West we are rich and educated. This does not prove that any rich and educated population will cease to grow in numbers, but it does indicate the possibility.
It is quite possible that in space the entire population will be rich and educated, because of the practically gratis energy. Not certain, but certainly possible. Therefore it is quite possible that the population in space will reach zero growth, or almost zero, so that most of the new habitats can be used to expand the living space of the existing population.

Jon Lennart Beck.

> Pop growth in the west is indeed diminishing, but in the most populated
> area of the world is not.

Indeed, it *is*. The rate of population growth in the developing countries has
been dropping steadily the past decades. See for instance the first graph in
the third page of the presentation
http://www.reprohealth.org/reprohealthDB/doc/demo.pdf

The demographic difference between developing and developed countries is not
in the fall of the birth rates, but rather that in the developing countries
the population growth rate is *still* high enough to prevent population
stagnation or decline (like in many European countries).

Finally, I think that your habit of dividing the world in "west" and
"non-west" is misleading when it comes to demographics. There *are*
non-Western countries that have low population growth (e.g., Japan).

> The sad truth is that is going to grow as much as
> it can, that is until it becomes a BIG problem, and only then we are going
> to do something about it.

I can't agree on that - at least for the next century, based on available
demographic data and in my personal experience - I have seen a lot of
estimations for future population being revised for lower numbers and a lot
of estimations that are not fullfilled - with a population being estimated in
X at year Y actually reaching just 0.9X at year Y.

However, I'm talking about the general tendency for the following decades
based on the tendency of the past decades. In the very long run (centuries,
millennia), I tend to agree with you: explosive population growth will
probably come back, because cultural groups that favor larger families will
be selected - they will grow and multiply, while cultural groups that favor
small families will become extinct.

> Probably some big war as usually.

I would bet on some new world epidemics.

> As for people in Brazil being able to afford meat everyday, looking at the
> millions living in the slums around Rio and the other big cities there it
> doesn't look like it to me,

Ah, but I didn't say that every Brazilian is able to afford meat everyday; I
said that the Brazilian meat consumption per capita is similar to that of the
United Kingdom. But consumption per capita is calculated by dividing total
consumption by the population; that does not tell anything about the
*distribution* of consumption among the population. In Brazil, according to
the article
http://www.embrapa.br:8080/aplic/rumos.nsf/0/d2a63b479fd1e45d8325690400523d93?OpenDocument,
the middle and high classes consume A LOT of meat - I would say that more
than Americans, for instance -, while most of the population consumes very
little meat. (I'm talking about cow meat; however, other animal protein
sources like chicken and eggs are cheaper here.) So, in average you have a
consumption in English levels.

Conclusion: Brazil suffers the same problem of the world as a whole - there is
not an scarceness of resources, there is an uneven distribution of resources.

Finally, a curiosity: oddly enough, Brazilian slums are blobs of urban
poverty, but they are not exactly blobs of subnutrition. According to a study
done as part of the government program Fome Zero (Hunger Zero), the worst
hunger blobs in Brazil are in underdeveloped rural areas mainly in the
Northeast of the country. But that is almost invisible to the international
media because it is thousands of kilometers far from Rio. :-)

> Sorry for all the Gundam aficionados on the list... ;)

Unfortunately, I have never seen Gundam, though I have heard of it. The only
set of unconvincingly idyllic space settlement renderings that I have ever
seen are the ones at the "High Frontier". :-)

> I guess the truth is that a free and fulfilling life is probably boring
> like hell anyway... :)

I would say that a perfect world would be incredibly boring and many people
would prefer suicide. (And now it occurs to me that there *is* a high suicide
rate in some highly developed European countries...) But I also say that we
always think that the world where we live should be a bit less imperfect than
it is...

> Cheers,

Cheers,

> Claudio

Lucio

If we look at most of the designs for colonies we will see that most
have a layer of dirt at the bottom of park-like areas, with larger
structures built on the pressure hull itself. The dirt is very
useful because it provides protection from cosmic radiation as well
as media for trees and other plants to grow in. If you look at
pictures of the large O'Neil cylinders they are filled with a rural
landscape on the pressure hull. There may need to be a double wall
to provide maintenance crews access to the actual pressure hull, but
either way the pressure hull will still need to hold the weight of
the dirt, buildings, air and the weight of itself. I must be
strong. A sky scraper could be attached at both ends so that the
weight would be evenly distributed. Chances are the "rural
landscape" will be flat because if you put too much dirt on a single
spot, the weight on the pressure hull would not be evenly distributed.

I am not sure how this led into a discussion on cows, pets,
overpopulation and beef consumption in Brazil. But I believe that
the space settlements are a solution to our overpopulation issues. I
a colony becomes over populated then build another. Chances are,
some will be densely populated like New York and some will be spars
like South Dakota. I believe that colonists will have pets if they
want. Because their will be plenty of space and resources. And,
because westerners have pets on earth. I don't believe that people
will eat algal slime grown in an aquarium. People will probably have
the same types of foods, laws and customs that they have on earth.

thanks
Jeffrey