L5

Victoriaman,

I have always appreciated your posts and respected your obvious grasp of
economic issues. I realize that in a debate on economics I will
inevitably emerge out of the losing end. However, I will attept to
clarify my view.

My point that the Earth is going to be a more crowded place is in
reference to the Earth of today and not the habitat. Why would people
want to live on the habitat? If the Earth is plagued with some 10
billion souls by mid-century, the majority of which will be living in an
impoverished, degraded environment, one can imagine the attraction of a
habitat with a tailored environment, unlimited energy, political
stability, perfect weather and a short commute. I can't imagine that
the habitat will be anything other than an energetic frontier filled
with bright, creative people.

The likelyhood that the habitat might support higher living densities
than many places on Earth won't be a detraction. If population density
was the dominant factor in people's choices of where to live there
wouldn't be any large cities. Large cities are exciting, energetic
places which attract people as will the habitat.

My saying that habitat residents will participate in a terrestial
economy was not necessarily an attempt to strengthen the case for a
habitat, but simply a projection of what is likely. If the habitat is
capable of attracting the most adventurous and the brightest, these
people will create information services that are novel and unique which
will likely not be in direct competition with the drudgery of coding
software in Bangalore, for example. The easy and everyday tasks are
likely to be automated regardless. The information economy will be a
competition of new ideas and entertainments. It won't matter whether
you live in New York, Rio, Tokyo, or O'Neill City.

How will cutting-edge habitat development labs get all their hi-tech
equipment into orbit? We need to assume that if there is to be a
habitat of some 10 million souls at some point in the future,
transportation costs will be such that 3 shuttle flights of 300 people,
over a 30 year period (or something similar) will be practical from an
economic standpoint. If such a transportation infrastucture exists the
transportation of specialized equipment to the habitat won't necessarily
be a intractable problem.. I can't tell you how transportation costs
will become practical (other that it is hard to imagine NASA being at
the forefront of such an acheivement) ... I am just trying to envision
an end result.

On the other hand, there is a trend towards flexible manufacturing
processes which facilitate low volume, customized goods. I envision the
habitat having quite an advanced, large scale manufacturing capability,
being tooled to construct SPS and other habitats but also able to
facbricate sophistated, customized tools.

I have to admit that I don't fully understand your argrument that if
things can be done more cheaply on Earth they will be done there.
Although that may appear to be the case over a long period of time (like
the migration of industrial capacity to emerging industrial nations),
over a short period of time imbalance seems more the rule.

Whether it will be cheaper to establish development labs or create novel
full immersion VR or AI software on some location on Earth as opposed to
the habitat is not of central importance. The sky-high living costs in
New York City for example, doesn't stop it from being one of the premier
centres of financial services. It doesn't seem to matter that the cost
of living is cheaper in Cairo and perhaps Cairo could undercut New York
if wished to get into the financial services market.

The financial expertise and practices have gravitated to places like New
York, London and Tokyo and people there keep innovating their products
or offer a critical mass of services which shuts out competition. When
unique services are offered that people want, they will pay the going
price, no matter their origin, until someone else comes along with a
cheaper price.

The point is that in my vision of the habitat, it will not necessarily
be saddled with an insurmountable economic disadvantage that will
preclude it from participation in a terrestrial econcomy. I think it is
obvious that the habitat will never compete with the Istanbul Brick Co.
by peddling bricks made from lunar regolith. However, in an information
economy knowledge and ideas are worth more than materials. In fact, the
habitat might have knowledge and creative ideas in spades which might
provide a decided advantage. For example, as compared to Earth
jurisdictions, the habitat will likely be more advanced in areas such as
recycling and waste management. There will be a ready market down at
the bottom of the gravity well for this expertise.

>
> > If I was a gambling man I would bet that Earth of the future will be
>
> > a more crowded,
>
> How is it likely that Earth is going to having higher population
> densities than a Habitat?
>
> > What are people (besides the few that are actually involved in
> > habitat and SPS development) to do?
>
> That's a very good question.
>
> > They will participate in a terrestial economy that will be largely
> > an information and services economy.
>
> Just because you pose a good question doesn't mean that there is an
> answer for it that strengthens the case for Habitats.
>
> The costs of living in a Habitat will be greater than on Earth, so too
>
> will the material deprivations and the lack of geographic mobility.
> The offset will be the novelty factor and the wonder of life in orbit.
>
> A stock analyst or a programmer will have to compete with their
> terrestrial competitors. Someone living in Bangladesh will be able to
> undercut someone living in Tokyo or New York, and they in turn will be
>
> able to undercut someone living in orbit.
>
> To be able to compete the orbital information worker will have to
> lower their standard of living in orbit to a level below what they
> would require on Earth. The personal trade-offs of significantly lower
>
> standards of living in orbit in order to experience the novelty will
> have to be weighed against a middle class lifestyle that the same
> workplace skill could deliver somewhere on Earth.
>
> > The habitat, being a desireable place to live, will attract the
> > richest and the smartest.
>
> Who says?
>
> > Perhaps habitat managers or venture capitalist will recruit the
> > brightest to this "new world" to join think tanks and cutting edge
> > development labs.
>
> How will these cutting edge development labs get all of their hi-tech
> equipment into orbit? Why would they go to the trouble of launching
> all of that gear into orbit when it would be cheaper to set up the lab
>
> somewhere on Earth? The less expense there is in getting a product
> developed the quicker the path to profitability.
>
> > The habitat may offer the very best full immersion virtual reality
> > sites, or specialized AI software.
>
> Why can't these be offered more cheaply on Earth?
>
> TangoMan
>
education

History of space My first Space exploration