Space Colonies and Cultural and Biological Diversity

> To really have a viable earth market
> for things produced in space (to pay for the imports)
> it either has to be significantly easier to produce in
> space or have near zero shipment costs. A couple of
> material things fit this definion (requiring a vaccuum
> for shape or purity) and they might allow for a
> billion or two a year of trade. Beamed power on the
> other hand has a multi trillion dollar market, near
> zero transmission costs, and is best produced in
> space.

You make some interesting points. I completely agree with the beamed
power example but I'm not as confident on the scope of that market
as you are. Nevertheless, it will be an important export. So too
will other goods and services that are uniquely produced in orbital
conditions which can find no substitute on Earth. When we compare
the R&D sectors of national economies to the sparse resources
attributed to space science R&D, we can conclude that we are barely
scratching the surface of the possible for space science. What can
we expect if the Habitat R&D budget (comprised of taxpayer funded
and corporate R&D) is devoted entirely to disciplines unique to the
Habitat? I'd expect a burgeoing field of new products, techniques
and services, all of which will bolster the export trade.

You completely neglect the domestic economy in your analysis. I
advance the position that any item that is imported from Earth, will
have a different breakeven calculus than one that is manufactured
within the Habitat. Anything you bring up from Earth, no matter how
cheap, will still have to pay a onerous shipping tariff. Thus, at
some point (most likely an uneconomic point on Earth) the good will
be cheaper to produce in the Habitat than to import.

A consequence of this economic fact, is that the quicker we can grow
our population, the quicker the domestic economy will grow, and this
will gnereate more wealth, more jobs and more consumers. Don't
underestimate the domestic economy by focusing solely on the export
economy.

> Thirdly when has any group of rich professional people
> lead to a population boom? If anything they will
> follow the demographics of all rich countries and have
> a sub replacement birthrate.

This assumes societal and governmentnal factors within the Habitat
will be identical to those on Earth. I think they won't be.

On Earth, with world-wide economic integration, your company in
Dallas or New York, has competitors in London, Buenos Aires, and
Tokyo. You must compete against the world and your government and
society faces those same pressures.

In a Habitat (or Habitats if they all belong to the same governing
group) your constraints are different than they would be on Earth.
Firstly, your company probably doesn't have a direct competitor.
Secondly, the shipping tariff makes your Earthly competitors goods
more expensive. Thirdly, your cost of inputs are different.

It's quite conceivable to me, that the citizens of a Habitat will
have been selected for present health, and possibly even with
consideration given to genetic health. Thus, societally the cost of
health care will be a smaller proportion of GDP than an Earth
nation. Further, depending on the assumption underlying your model,
you may not find it worthwhile to allow dishwashers, waitresses,
maids, gardeners, paperboys, secretaries, etc to immigrate. They may
all be replaced by automation. Thus, the wealth each citizen creates
will be greater.

You may have a tax system, like they do in Singapore, which
progressively increases the reward for well-educated and
economically successfull couples to have children and decreases the
reward for people on welfare and those are have less education from
having children. Such a policy would counter your contention that a
population boom couldn;t result from a population of professional
people. Singapore recognizes the West's dysgenic policies of
awarding more state resources to support society's less capable
citizens who are procreating faster than the more capable.

A Habitat society may encourage the integration of childcare right
into the workplace. No longer do two working parents have to drop
their child off at a seperate day-care, and then face long commutes
to their disparate workplaces. Now they may have a daycare on each
floor of the office bulding so you can see your child every
halfhour. You could have lunch with them, see them right after a
meeting, etc. The commute to and from work will be more reasonable
as well.

Perhaps if there is an imbalance between men and women the nature of
marriage and family will shift to accommodate the new reality.

Also consider what 250,000 miles of isolation from the rest of the
human race might do to the group pyschology of the citizens of the
Habitat. It may spur them to embark on a baby-making frenzy.

These are just a few examples off the top of my head of how a
Habitat may face different conditions from those experienced by
Earth societies and their responses may produce different outcomes.
In fact I think it is more likely that things will be different in a
Habitat than they are in Earth societies.

The first generation may
> find space appealing. Will the second or third see it
> the same way and not want the vastly richer expereince
> of living in a more populous place like a city on
> earth?
>
> Cheers, Thor

You may have a point, but consider how many people on Earth move
away from their country of origin if they are economically,
spiritually and politically happy. Very few! I would suspect that
the rationale the parents had for moving to the Habitat would be
passed down to the kids, and having been spoonfed this their whole
lifes, they'll probably come to think that they're living in the
best place in the Universe. Why go live on a crowded rock, with
crime, a poisoned environment, erratic weather, and all sorts of
other unpleasantries to contend with.

TangoMan