Chunnel as metaphor (was Bootstrapping Hawaii)

>
> >>
> >> That's not the appropriate analogy: the chunnel was impossible
> > until
> >> people had achieved similar but smaller goals.
> >
> > Actually it is - Here's my perspective.
> >
> > Chunnel = Orbital economy;
> > Chunnel workers = orbital players working to same goal;
> > Chunnel completion = establishment of multinodal economy with
many
> > interlinked profit centers.
> >
> > This is what I interpret where you're coming far. Correct me if
I'm
> > wrong.
> >
> > Chunnel = orbital project;
> > Chunnel workers = orbital project workers;
> > Chunnel completion = successful orbital project completion.
>
> This is where we disagree - I don't think any single project can
serve
> as a model for an economy.

Neither do I.

Every economy that has been run as a single
> project has failed miserably.

Examples?

The only way for an economy to run
> effectively is for there to be multiple independent players.

That is exactly my point.

There is
> simply no way for a small group of people to absorb and analyze
all of
> the information needed to maintain the necessary dynamism.

Very true. That's why these bootstrapping ventures don't lead
anywhere. They're all single projects, they don't interact, they
don't create dynamism and specializtion.

A single
> project with a single goal can stay on track because there is only
one
> goal, and everyone is working towards it. Even so it is only
possible
> if the path is well enough trodden that most of the hazards are
> understood - that way the people at the top can focus their
attention
> on the novel hazards and leave the familiar ones in the hands of
> specialists. Unfamiliar hazards mean no specialists, which means
the
> people running the show have to deal with everything. This causes
> information overload and project failure.

And this is where the diversity of an orbital economy trumps the
single project visions of bootstrapping which will run into
unfamiliar hazards, because as you said you shouldn't expect any
project to go with no unknowns and no risk.

>
> For a model of an economy we have to look to an economy, not a
project.
> A possible candidate might be some subset of the global economy,
such
> as information technology, or transportation.
>
> If you look at the way transportation has developed in
capabilities, a
> lot of things which were only novelties (analogous to suborbital
> tourism) turned out to be key enablers of later developments.
Early
> flight was a novelty, but it developed into a major industry.
Bicycles
> were toys initially, then they became a major form of
transportation,
> and helped to develop technologies that went into motor cars and
> airplanes. Now very few people take bikes seriously as
transportation
> (umm... except for the majority of the world's population, that
is :-)
>
> The key thing about an enabling technology as part of an economy
is
> that it is not an end in itself, and does not necessarily lie
along a
> linear path to the final destination. All that is necessary is
that
> some subcomponent be enabling to some other application, the way
> lightweight high efficiency drive mechanisms from bicycles were to
the
> Wright flyer.
>
> ......Andrew

All of your examples aptly demonstrated my point. They were all
interlinked to a greater economy. Bicycles and airplanes served
functions within the whole rather than acting as the whole.

TangoMan