Building Loads on PressuShells

>> I'm sure that there will be animals also. People will want to
>> bring their pets, and they will want animals for consumption as
>> well, in agricultural areas. Getting the first generation of
>> animals into space is expensive, but the resources in space can
>> provide a lot of room for them.

> that's nonsense.
> There isn't enough room for them on the planet already.

Oh, there's plenty of ROOM. It would be possible to house the
world's population in Texas (room for 6,783,541,459.3). This is
taking into account only the land area of Texas (you're not draining
lakes to make more room), and assuming 100 square metres for each
person (the NASA/AMES study assumed that 49 square metres per is
reasonable). Of course, Texas would have to be one humonkious
apartment complex, and if they are all to have the standard of living
most Texans take for granted (air-conditioning, electric lights,
etc.) then we'd better bring those powersats online, and fast. So
yes, there is plenty of room for cattle ranches, wildlife refuges,
and Six Flags Over Earth (outside of Texas, of course).

> We can only afford the luxury of having animals for food in the
> west because most of the world population is living on the edge of
> survival. If the current world population would eat from MacDonalds
> it would starve in a year.

Yes, but that is because of scarcity of resources, such as energy and
fresh water, not a scarcity of space.

> In artificial habitat space is at premium, and meat will be a
> luxury that very few will be able to pay for. Indeed, unless
> something happens that wipes a couple of billions people off the
> face of the planet (and every generation), meat is going to be a
> luxury already here, and pretty soon.

I don't know. What do the rest of you think? Do you think that
between the abundant energy of powersats and perhaps tissue
engineering, will meat become more available to those on Earth who
cannot afford it now?

> You can expect your average space folk to eat reconstituted yeasts,
> probably arranged in a very glamorous shape and color, and sold in
> irresistibly attractive packaging.

Reconstituted yeasts, grown no doubt in some sort of vat or tank.
But muscle tissue can be grown in vats and such. Also skin, bone,
cartilage, etc. So you can grow meat in those vats. So the space
folks can be as carnivorous as they want to be. Of course, if the
habitat is founded by vegetarians...

>> In a habitat where there is so much symetry and regularity of
>> architecture makes people want to customize and differentiate it.
>> I suspect that this will be reflected by landscaping and
>> gardening. I also think that people will need to have some trees
>> and bushes and ponds and streams, to make the place seem more
>> normal. Future generations used to the conditions in the habitat
>> may change them over time, but those used to Earth will want to
>> make the first habitats a little earthlike.

> Sure. They will want that.

And if they can afford it, they will have it.

> They will want beautiful houses with white columns on the front,
> and gardens and orchards and swimming pools. And they will want to
> ride horses in their private parks as well.
> Some of them will too. Someone does even today.
> For every one of them anyway there will be hundred thousands if not
> millions of people who will live their ordinary lives in a small
> cubicles in the shell, and they will have to work hard to afford to
> pay the rent.

Then the breakout into space may never happen. After all, why would
anybody want to go?

> It's called "Capitalism", you live in it.

No. What you are describing is called "Feudalism," a system to which
capitalism, for all its imperfections, is vastly superior. For
instance, where is the middle class? Those who live neither in
mansions nor hovels, who manage to pay the rent (and their modest,
though attractive houses) just fine, and who, though they can not
afford a horse of their own, may none the less visit the riding
stable every month or so.

> Since politics and social structures evolve much more slowly and
> take extremely longer times than technology to improve you can
> expect that by the time there will be habitats in every corner of
> the system the social system won't have changed that much. Probably
> the lowest cast (those who today live in Africa, India or China,
> eat little and generally die of disease before they reach maturity)
> will be gone, upgraded to some kind of low level working class,
> with the rest of the population living proportionally improved
> lifestyles. That's what happened so far if you look back, I see no
> reason to expect that to change anytime soon...

The idea is that the resources of space are what makes that change.
That we get out of the zero-sum game that must be played on Earth.
Also, it should be remembered that a Brit, American, Japanese, etc.
living in the meanest slum or ghetto that his nation has to offer
enjoys a higher standard of living than a nobleman in the Middle
ages, or a middle class family of 75 years ago. So it does change,
and not that slowly. And the pace is increasing, with scarcity of
mostly energy being the main thing holding it back.

> Still, for every nicely landscaped house with garden inside the
> habitat surface you can have hundreds cubicles (apartments, flats,
> call them as you prefer) cheaper living accommodations built
> underneath in the shell. The privilege will be priced accordingly.

Well, sure. But people make their choices based on more than
efficient utilization of land. And besides, starting from scratch
will let you do a "population in Texas" sort of thing.

> Cheers,
>
> Claudio

Xenophile (who wonders how long it would take to build enough
habitats to equal the land area of Texas)