"Airlock Despotism"]

From: Monart Pon [mailto:monart@...]

In a contained environment, everyone's life depends on public
infrastructure--the hull of the station, its oxygen production and
waste-treatment systems, etc., and you can't just walk away.

But it's important to remember that in a space habitat, the "oxygen
production system" would be every green plant growing in sunlight. I don't
see how the waste-treatment systems would be any different from sewage
systems here on Earth. One might argue that one difference is that the
space inhabitants would be vitally dependent for their lives on the function
of the waste-treatment systems, but I'd daresay life in New York city would
quickly become impossible in their absence as well.

The relative lack of privacy lends itself to regimentation (such as
how loud you can play your music, what pets you can or can't have,
how many children you can have, etc.). It's easy to imagine
regulations on how much water you can use in a shower, etc. Whoever
controls the airlocks ultimately controls the society, even a very
large "country-sized" O'Neill colony.

I simply cannot agree that a "counry-sized" (or even a "county-sized")
orbital habitat would be restrictive in these senses. I'd sooner expect
population control measures here on Earth where land area is a fixed number,
than in orbital settlements which can be constantly constructing new land
areas. I don't see a reason why shower restrictions would be necessary in
any situation where water was being recycled, as opposed to, say, being lost
to space. I think this concept of "shower restrictions" is a sci-fi notion.

I think it's always possible that some space settlements will live in very
collectivised and regimented societies. But if they do, I think that will
be a matter of deliberate decision on the part of the founders, and not
because of something intrinsic to the space environment. I anticipate that
other settlements may be successful in even exceeding the levels of freedom
that we enjoy in the industrialized West.

Regards,

Mike Combs

From:
Monart Pon [mailto:monart@...]
In a contained environment, everyone's life depends on public
infrastructure--the hull of the station, its oxygen production and
waste-treatment systems, etc., and you can't just walk away.

But it's important to remember that in a space habitat, the "oxygen production system" would be every green plant growing in sunlight. I don't see how the waste-treatment systems would be any different from sewage systems here on Earth. One might argue that one difference is that the space inhabitants would be vitally dependent for their lives on the function of the waste-treatment systems, but I'd daresay life in New York city would quickly become impossible in their absence as well.
The relative lack of privacy lends itself to regimentation (such as
how loud you can play your music, what pets you can or can't have,
how many children you can have, etc.). It's easy to imagine
regulations on how much water you can use in a shower, etc. Whoever
controls the airlocks ultimately controls the society, even a very
large "country-sized" O'Neill colony.

I simply cannot agree that a "counry-sized" (or even a "county-sized") orbital habitat would be restrictive in these senses. I'd sooner expect population control measures here on Earth where land area is a fixed number, than in orbital settlements which can be constantly constructing new land areas. I don't see a reason why shower restrictions would be necessary in any situation where water was being recycled, as opposed to, say, being lost to space. I think this concept of "shower restrictions" is a sci-fi notion.

I think it's always possible that some space settlements will live in very collectivised and regimented societies. But if they do, I think that will be a matter of deliberate decision on the part of the founders, and not because of something intrinsic to the space environment. I anticipate that other settlements may be successful in even exceeding the levels of freedom that we enjoy in the industrialized West.
Regards,
Mike Combs