> > Certain kinds of people will be more-attracted to living
> > in orbit. [...] That makes them part of a self-selected
> > group, and that is the reason that economic comparisons
> > that might be fairly valid for typical places on Earth,
> > might not be very valid for orbit

> if any surplus exists it will likely be directed towards
> investment in IP or other factors that don't require
> shipping, so instead of importing drugs they buy a license
> and manufacture their own supply.
[...]
> shipping costs distort foreign trade decisions and the
> resultant foreign exchange rates. This principle will be
> dominate calculations when shipping costs are $1,000/lb
> or even $100/lb.

Information-shipment costs money. Its CIF/FOB...
http://www.google.com/search?q=cif%2Ffob+landlocked

...is never unity. Typically, the CIF/FOB of shipment of mass, to
orbit, would be higher. I suggest that we refer to the cost of
shipping mass as the "mass penalty", or Pm (Penalty, mass). Pm would
compete with Pi (Penalty, information). In a freely competing
shipping-market, Pm might not be the same for every type of mass. Raw
materials, and even high-value/mass laptop computers, might naturally
be cheaper to ship than would be live humans.

Factors that have any social-relevance, by implication, do not exist
individually in vacuums. They interact with other social-factors. The
Pm-factor might interact with the population self-selection factor.

Why would the individual Earthlings who would be considering
travelling-to (to stay temporarily or permanently; in flesh or
telepresently), or travelling-from (to leave temporarily or
permanently; in flesh or telepresently), an orbital-habitation not
take the Pm-factor into account? If they were to take that factor
into account, would that not distort the orbital demographics? If the
demographics were thus distorted, could we not then call an orbital
population a self-selected population?

As I (largely) previously-asked here...

...why would a self-selected orbital population not:

1. Have a higher-than-average mean-IQ?
2. Have higher-than-average productive-potential?
3. Have a higher-than-average per-capita GDP?
4. Have higher-than-average valuation for IP?
5. Have higher-than-average valuation for remote-services?
6. Have higher-than-average valuation for remote-experience?
7. Have higher-than-zero valuation for future-experience on Earth?
8. Have higher-than-zero valuation for Earth social-affairs?
9. Have higher-than-zero valuation for high-value/mass items?
10. Have higher-than-average valuation for computers?
11. Have higher-than-average valuation for scientific instruments?
12. Have higher-than-average valuation for advanced plastics?
13. Have higher-than-average valuation for organic chemicals?
14. Have higher-than-average valuation for pharmaceuticals?
15. Have higher-than-average valuation for precious stones?

(Item 3 note: U.S. top 10% earn $138,000, top 1% earn $966,000.)
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22richest+1%25+earns%22
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-
factbook/geos/us.html#Econ

We might compare that list to the 2006 top-ten export commodities (by
share of world trade):
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-
factbook/geos/xx.html#Econ

1. electrical machinery, including computers 14.8%
2. mineral fuels, including oil, coal, gas, and refined products 14.4%
3. nuclear reactors, boilers, and parts 14.2%
4. cars, trucks, and buses 8.9%
5. scientific and precision instruments 3.5%
6. plastics 3.4%
7. iron and steel 2.7%
8. organic chemicals 2.6%
9. pharmaceutical products 2.6%
10. diamonds, pearls, and precious stones 1.9%

Most of the items I mentioned also show up on that top-exports list.
We might note that toothpaste is absent, as are food and textiles.
Balance of trade would be negligibly-affected if toothpaste, food and
textiles were, even entirely, produced locally.

Item 3 might be imported into space, and/or imported solar-power
equipment and/or beamed-up-power might strongly compete and therefore
replace.

Item 4 might be replaced by electric vehicles (e-cars and e-scooters
already exist; Tesla roadster would cost $28,000 to ship to orbit at
$100/lb) and bicycles/HPV's (many of these are electric as well --
~$8,000 for a good one; good carbon-fiber/CNT bikes cost about the
same or more).

Item 7, as I previously mentioned, can arrive in the form of a
shipping vehicle, and therefore offset the cost of the rest of the
payload. It can also be replaced with high-value/mass metals such as
aluminum-lithium alloy, and titanium, and by the already-mentioned
advanced plastics.

Regarding pharmaceutical-production in orbit: drugs/neutraceuticals
have high value/mass; and high-quality, high-variety production does
not make sense for a small population. If you think it is easy to
make high-quality pharmaceuticals, I recommend a visit to any major
American- or European- based factory -- Merck, for example. Speaking
of Merck, even it has a hard time with pharm production:
http://www.google.com/search?q=merck+dump+water

As I also mentioned in Message 7893:

Why would Earth-markets not respond to orbital-demand by
accommodating with specially-valued-by-orbit products-and-services
(novel or orbit-refined)? Why would this accommodation not change the
trade-balance implications?

Again:

Factors that have any social-relevance, by implication, do not exist
individually in vacuums. They interact with other social-factors.

As Julian Simon put it:
http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Ajuliansimon.com+substitution
http://www.google.com/search?q=site%
3Ajuliansimon.com+substitute+production
http://www.juliansimon.com/writings/Articles/LEBATLAN.txt

"In fact, all natural resources become less
important for production as technology advances,
because of our remarkable ability to substitute
one material for another...."

We can substitute light things for heavy things. We can modify heavy
things so that they are lighter. We do not do those things now,
because it does not cost very much to ship mass right now. If a
market were to appear in orbit, we would then have a reason to make
commodities lighter.

Social-actors accommodate to social-dynamics. You probably are not
going to get away with putting a thousands- or millions- strong
community in Earth-orbit without someone, somewhere on Earth,
noticing.

> As I (largely) previously-asked here...
>
> ...why would a self-selected orbital population not:
>
> 1. Have a higher-than-average mean-IQ?

They probably would. So what?

> 2. Have higher-than-average productive-potential?

Potential only matters when potential is realized. Take a very
productive person on Earth and ship them into the middle of a desert
or into the Arctic and think about what happens to their productivity.
Earth has a more densely layered and interwoven network of
productivity enhancing tools than does orbit because these tools are
easier to provide on Earth than in orbit.

> 3. Have a higher-than-average per-capita GDP?

This is almost tautological in that in order to justify their presence
in orbit a worker would have to generate a lot of added value. It's
unlikely that we're going to be sending French-Fry cooks into orbit to
make McDonalds' crispy fries.

> 4. Have higher-than-average valuation for IP?

It's quite clear that you've constructed a vision of supermen wanting
to live in orbit, so on every metric these supermen are above average,
but sadly lower income folks are larger consumers of broad types of
IP, like entertainment and by voting with their pocketbooks and time
they clearly indicate that they value IP quite highly..

I think I'll stop at this point because the remainder of your points
are simply strawman conjectures in support of the fantasy you've created.

> 5. Have higher-than-average valuation for remote-services?
> 6. Have higher-than-average valuation for remote-experience?
> 7. Have higher-than-zero valuation for future-experience on Earth?
> 8. Have higher-than-zero valuation for Earth social-affairs?
> 9. Have higher-than-zero valuation for high-value/mass items?
> 10. Have higher-than-average valuation for computers?
> 11. Have higher-than-average valuation for scientific instruments?
> 12. Have higher-than-average valuation for advanced plastics?
> 13. Have higher-than-average valuation for organic chemicals?
> 14. Have higher-than-average valuation for pharmaceuticals?
> 15. Have higher-than-average valuation for precious stones?

> Tesla roadster would cost $28,000 to ship to orbit at
> $100/lb)

The Tesla roadster only masses 280 lbs? Look, it would only cost 28
cents to ship to orbit at $0.0001/lb. DO you honestly believing that
pulling numbers out of your ass convinces anyone of the points you're
trying to advance?

On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 4:06 PM, victoriatangoman
>
>> As I (largely) previously-asked here...
>>
>> ...why would a self-selected orbital population not:
>>
>> 1. Have a higher-than-average mean-IQ?
>
> They probably would. So what?

Especially if orbital settlements specifically select for it.

> I think I'll stop at this point because the remainder of your points
> are simply strawman conjectures in support of the fantasy you've created.

You're a far more patient [Hu]man than I am, Gunga Din!

Whenever you get tired of having this battle of wits with an unarmed
opponent, we miss you at that OTHER group where idiots are not allowed
;-)

As always, ad astra per aspera! -- Spike