For or Against . . .

--- In spacesettlers@y..., Jack Reynolds wrote:
> Hmmm. This is an interesting point. I think most of us assume
revenues
> generated will increase proportionately with the population.
However, I see
> the logic in not falling for this assumption. It may be quite
simple to
> support a small habitat in LEO or L5 or even on the Moon, say a
population
> of a few hundred at most. But at some point the population may
grow faster
> than it's ability to offset subsidies with products and services
of it's
> own but still be too small to be self-sustaining. That could
definitely be
> a problem.

For what most of us in this group want to see, yes indeed that could
be a problem.

>
> It would seem we need to temper our zeal to populate near space
with a
> heavy dose of reality. However, it would seem logical to conclude
that the
> industries in space will develop at a rate commensurate with
populating
> increases. At least the folks in charge better make sure it does.
This
> sounds like a good thesis topic for a grad student. At what point
does a
> population in space become to burdensome to be supported by
subsidies but
> still too small to be self-supporting? My guess is somewhere
between 100
> and 1,000,000. :)

Well, if your pioneers will accept ANY living standard and endure
ANY hardship in order to make a go of it while not relying on
massive earth subsidies and patiently waiting for the industries in
space to develop at a rate commensurate with populating
increases then what you say is true.