One stone, number of mangoes.. continued (2)

These are good questions! Let me see if I can provide you with one
point of view that might be helpful.

> 1. Our economic system based on mass production and free market
> economy, which involves transfer of goods from one corner of the
globe to
> another will it work when humans become space faring?

I see no alternative to a market based economy. It centers around
moving a commodity from a place it has little or no value to a place
where it has higher value. In the words of Robert A. Heinlein, "A
smelly nuissance in the barn is valuable fertilizer in the field." In
the future some parts of a habitat will produce one thing, which will
be moved to another part of the habitat that is need of that thing.
In exchange, some good or service in demand will be exported to the
first producers.

The alternative to the free market is socialism. In this controlled
economy, it is the central authority that determines what is
produced, where, and what value it will have. It seems logical, but
has failed miserably throughout history.

> 2. The design of our cities, in which agriculture plays no
important
> part, which just acts as a sink for organic matter. Will future
cities in
> space be designed this way?

I'm sorry to say that organic resources are not recycled in modern
cities. Ideally, the farmland that usually surround cities produce
goods (food, fabric, etc.) used by city dwellers. When those organics
are "wasted," they are almost always buried or burned. Cities should
recycle their organic wastes (trash and feces) and return them to the
farms as fertilizer. Will space cities be different than eart-bound
cities. Count on it! Recycling organic resources in a space habitat
will be vital to their survival.

> 3. The nature of the educational system. Clearly children in
space
> habs will have to be taught early in life the nature of the hab
and areas of
> collective responsibility to keep the hab safe. Something not
taught to
> terran children. In fact terran grownups don't even seem to know
what would
> be the safe population for the planet. Will this attitude work
in space
> habs.

Not even the so-called experts know what would be the safe population
of the earth. I've heard numbers ranging from 100 million to 10
billion at our current level of technology, and higher given future
technology advancements. A space habitat is different. It will be
designed for a certain number of people.

Also, space habitats will operate according a diffent principle. The
earth's surface is finite and fixed. There is only so much space to
be had. Since space habitats are constructed, their capacities are
not fixed. New habitats can be constructed, thus allowing for ever
increasing poplation expansion. The only limits are the available
resources for construction, construction time, and the will to build
them.

> 4. The nature of the political system, which seems on planet
earth to
> center around populist ideas, will it work in future space habs?

A populist is defined as the member or adherent of a political party
seeeking to represent the interests of the ordinary people. To me,
such a creature has too short a filespan to accomplish anything. The
purpose of a political party is to seek the accumulation of power.
Power when concentrated in the hands of one political party is
anathem to individual liberty, and the interests of the ordinary
people.

As to ypour question, yes, populism will work as equally well in a
space habitat as is does on earth. This means the ordinary people in
space will be as screwed as the ordinary people on earth!

Personally, I prefer a liberal democracy. All power remains in the
hands of the people. Politicians, party-affiliated or not, are
elected to a limited number of terms in office to perform strictly
limited duties for the people. The people enjoy rights that
recongnized and gauanteed, and have the power to recall any elected
official who abuses the delegated authority of office.

> 5. The problem of health. Many health issues are created by the
> environment in which humans live, environments that engineers
play a part in
> creating. To make space habs possible, will it be necessary for
engineers to
> become more skilled in understanding issues of occupational
health.

The larger the space habitat, the less engineers will have to do with
it once the habitat is on line. The good news is that the environment
recycles or remediates much of our environmental sins - given time.
The trick is to keep contaminants from overwhelming the finite
systems of the habitat's environment. I should think this will
involve more environmental health research, rather than occupational
health.

> (What
> sticks in my mind the most from the biosphere II experiment is
that by the
> end of 2 years non[e] of them were on talking terms)

Yes, Biosphere II was a mess. There were a multitude of reasons for
it, however. Internal politics of the group, both Biospherians and
managers, caused a great deal of social stress, and eventually
hostility between the resulting factions. To the social stresses were
added inadequate environmental research, design and construction; and
the bad press by incompetent journalists. However, the social
dynamics of the second group proved much better with the removal of
two top managers of the project.

> 6. Engineers; are they worker ants. They seem to be actively
involved
> in changing the face of the globe and they are good at creating
gadgets; but
> seem to be conspicuously absent in the major decision making
forums. How
> will it be in space habs?

More often than not, engineers make poor managers. How many engineers
have invented something great, started a company to sell the
invention, then went bankrupt? Probably most. The wise engineer who
invents a great product hires a business manager to market the thing.
Unless there is a drastic change in the socio-economics of the space
habitat, I don't see engineers doing much decision-making beyond
designing and inventing.

> Living in space will be ten times more difficult than parking
ourselves in
> the middle of the Sahara desert. How can we prepare ourselves so
that our
> venture into space does not fail. Can we simulate suitable
conditions on
> planet earth and learn from the experience? The ideas that we
generate from
> this brainstorming and from this simulation should help to mitigate
some of
> the problems we face on our own planet.

We take baby steps! We build small, and learn. Then, we build bigger,
and learn some more. Eventually, we will reach a point where we can
build big with reasonable assurance of success.

> I happened to stumble into a discussion on global warming between a
> moderator from BBC and I think chief executives from the world's
major oil
> companies. The question put by the BBC moderator was
straightforward. Global
> warming will become critical if the CO2 composition in the
atmosphere
> exceeds 450 parts per million, how are we going to face the
problem? Being
> in a group, perhaps, non of the chief executives wanted to commit
himself:
> the answers they gave was less than edifying. (Keep in mind that
these folks
> represented some of the best brains on the planet, with financial
muscles to
> create now paradigms.) By making tall claims of terraforming Mars,
of
> building space habs, etc, when we lack the ability to solve
relatively
> simpler problems on our own planet, we risk becoming the laughing
stock of
> the galaxy.

The real question is not how we face the problem of a CO(2) level
exceeding 450 ppm? The real question is what is the relationship
between CO(2) levels and globalwarming?

The answer is, we really don't know for certain. What will happen if
CO(2) levels doubled? Will this cause an increase in temperature, and
by how much? What effect will the higher CO(2) levels have on plants
and animals, including humans?

The answers to these questions range from no effect at all to the end
of the world. The fact is the warming effects of carbon dioxide are
mostly theoretical, and not scientific fact. While CO(2) does absorb
some of the IR from the earth, it is later radiated into space when
the CO(2) rises higher in the atmosphere, and the absorption of IR
reaches a saturation point preventing the CO(2) from aborbing any
more.

Also, CO(2) has a negligible warming effect compared to water vapour,
which is 40 times more powerful in globalwarming than CO(2) and up to
100 times more abundant. Thus far, CO(2) has supposedly increased
from 280 (est.) to 450 ppm in 150 years, with a 0.5 C increase in
temperature.

There are four more questions to consider. Have CO(2) levels been
higher than they are today? Yes. Have global temperatures been higher
than they are today? Yes. Has these vents occurred prior to human
habitation? Yes. Since "accurately" measuring CO(2), has global
temperature increases matched CO(2) level increase? Sometimes they
have varied directly, and sometimes they've varied inversely.

rhc