Bootstrapping Hawaii

>
> > I present Case's Principle: If the goal is long-term sustainable
> > development then if you can't get there in little steps, you
can't get
> > there.
> >
> > >As a rule of thumb it's true. However the Channel tunnel was
funded,
> > and until it opened, no >baby steps would have created it. It's
very
> > likely to be long-term sustainable now it's open, >(although the
> > Japanese banks that funded it took a bath, since the repayment
is
> > going to be >much longer than they hoped.)
>
> I think the Chunnel is actually a point in favor - By the time the
> Chunnel was built tunneling technology was sufficiently mature
that the
> only really new thing about it was the length. There were some
minor
> innovations, but the technology was well proved out, and there was
> little doubt that the project would succeed.
>

The point I took from Ian's example was that if you take the Chunnel
to be a surrogate for orbital development, how would numerous
actors, all showing up independently on the English or French
shores, all digging willy-nilly to achieve some goal of their own
actually complete the Chunnel. They'd dig for a few feet in some
direction and then give up because there was no money in it for them.

The Chunnel is the totality, not an extension of previous technology.

TangoMan