Humans and Robots test case

>
> > ... Those people must live within an economy,
>
> The economy (at least at the beginning of colony building) that
they
> must be part of is the Earth economy until they have the purchase
price.
> Once a colony has been purchased I forsee the amount of
interaction
> with the Earth's economy has being very minimal. I also don't
forsee
> colonies being purchased on credit through some may try. It is
> difficult to reposess a colony as compared to a house or car on
earth.

I'm having trouble accepting the concept of treating the Habitat as
you would a car or house. An asset that has a value of hundreds of
billions of dollars, perhaps even a trillion dollars isn't something
that is even in the same realm of finance as a consumer item. The
sheer amount of capital involved will create its own economy. I
don't really want to start a whole other thread on banking theory
and macroeconomic principles, but I do feel very comfortable in
disputing the idea that some entity will construct a Habitat and
some other entity will "purchase" it. As for your comment on credit
purchases, the same critique applies; don't think in terms of an
individual consumer buying a Habitat on their VISA card :)

>
> > an economy that
> > demands their diverse talents and an economy that serves as a
> > component part of a larger global economy within which the
> > competitive advantages of companies, industries and nations are
> > sifted and if your argument is indeed accurate, then the human
> > activities in orbit, in support of that economy, will have more
> > efficient substitutes to compete against. Such a scenario spells
> > economic doom for a permanent and diverse domestic orbital
economy,
> > and as a result will provide little attraction for immigrants.
> > Therefore, all of the products that must be manufactured in orbit
> > will continue to rely on robotic technology and earth-located
tele-
> > operators.
>
> Ya. If company A is able to create and sell it's product for much
less
> than company B then company B is not going to be in business for
long.
> I expect that there will be several countries/companies groups
that will
> build SPSs once we arrive at the critical mass for that to
happen.

I'm not sure how you've arrived at this conclusion. If the initial
construction of that "critical mass" is performed by a consortium of
companies, are they going to allow their competition to ride on
their coattails? Same question for a country or group of countries
that finance that critical mass. Or do you expect that many
different groups are going to be putting up their own "critical
mass?" Don't think in terms of Bob's SPS Co., but in terms of a few
dozen large multinationals forming a partnership, or an ISS type of
partnership at the governmental level. Once that critical mass is
up, then the builders will have a monopoly because they'll have
erected a HUGE barrier to entry for their competitors.

The
> group that picks the lowest cost approach will win and the others
will
> go out of business. If as I suspect, a non manned approach will
be the
> lowest cost approach then there simply will not be a reason for an
> INDIVIDUAL to emigrate to space for economic reasons. So if
> manufacturing in space is an economic operation then the economic
> marketplace will destroy the weakest competitor ie manned
> manufacturing. Now I like O'Neil's bootstrap approach and when it
was
> written it was almost impossible to envision a realistic robotic
> capability and therefore manned manufacturing was the primary
> candidate. I believe a robotic manufacturing capability is now
within
> our grasp which should cause us to reevaluate the cause and
effects of
> bootstrapping. Putting humans in space to perform manufacturing
is no
> longer economicly justifiable.

You keep reaching conclusions without facts or without even making a
case in support of your hypothesis. This is as frustrating as
arguing about god with the religious; they can't start at the
beginning and try to build their argument, rather they presume the
existence and then proceed from that point. I'm completely willing
to accept your position concerning robotics, with the supoort of a
compelling argument, but I fear you're unwilling to accept the
possibility that robotics may not be able to do it all. As I read
your commentaries I continually see a reliance on the faith of your
position rather than offering me something substantive in support of
it.

I'm all for re-evaluating O'Neill's concepts but on what basis will
we perform that re-evaluation? Your website is set up to perform a
systems engineering breakdown on the bootstrapping process;
shouldn't the same principles be applied to making your case about
robotics. All I need to do to invalidate your argument is to
demonstrate that robotics cannot perform ONE crucial task and your
your argument falters. To invalidate my argument you need to
demonstrate that robotics can perform ALL tasks in orbit. I ask you,
which position is more easily defensible?

>
> This is not disaster! I see at least two possible roads:
> 1. A group of people whose goal is Space Colonization steps
forward to
> build the best and lowest cost space robotic systems based on the
bazaar
> system of software development. They then use these systems to
> manufacture in space what other people are willing to pay for and
use
> the profits to build space colonies. This is why I created
> www.InnerTransit.org. It is a tool to start this process.

You'll really need to flesh this out for me as I don't understand
the point you're trying to convey. Maybe others can help clarify for
me.

Where are the consumers for these space manufactured products from
which the profits will finance a Habitat?

> 2. When the greedy capitolistic pigs finish creating all the SPSs
they
> need to make gobs of money, they will have excess manufacturing
> capability and those groups wanting to exit the earth can pay them
to
> create space colonies to order.

Think about this for a second. For the moment let's assume that the
SPS are of the PV type. You have these factories that are making
mass quantities of PV cells and then you're going to flip a switch
and that same "manufacturing capability" is going to output the
thousands to millions of distinct components needed to create a
Habitat. The "manufacturing capability" I have in my basement (I
don't know why my friends call it a woodworking shop?) can't be
transformed from furniture making to auto making, circuitboard
making, or even sewing machine making. The same will apply in orbit.

>
> The concept of there needing to be jobs in space in order for
emigration
> to happen is very true for individuals but not for GROUPS. If you
think
> of a space colony as the city you currently live in beamed into
space
> then the only option is individual emigration and therefore a dead
end.
> Instead think of a space colony as something closer to a
kibbutzim,
> United Order if your Mormon, or what a commune was supposed to be
before
> the communists got a hold of it. Groups of this type go where no
> individual would consider going for reasons hardly ever linked to
economics.

So what's your point? That people with millions of dollars each will
go into orbit to live in a Habitat that is constructed without an
economic rationale, and these people won't have anything to do there
that can't be done on Earth or that robots can't do better, no way
to make a living, but they'll go to this frontier because as a group
they are bound by some common philosophy. I really don't get it.

TangoMan