why outer space?

I agree that finding energy sources in the less
hospitable regions of the earth is a considerable
obstacle to populating them. Although I'm not sure it
would be any easier, or any less expensive, to fuel
space colonies.

As far as energy sources go, I heard about a guy named
Alvin M. Marks who's working on a thin film solar
material called Lumeloid that can (theoretically)
capture 80% of the energy from the sun that lands on
it (as apposed to the measely 12% that is the current
average). And it's supposed to be cheap! This got me
pretty excited, but then again, I'll believe it when I
see it. I've also wondered wether some type of a
solar or wind power source, coupled with a pumped
water storage system might have potential (ie the sun
or wind would power a pump to move the water up to a
reservoir on the top of a hill and then (whenever it
was needed) the water could be sent back down through
a turbine at the bottom of the hill). You wouldn't
need a river and you would still have power when the
sun set and the wind died down. And then there's
hydrogen (I heard that alkaline fuel cells are what
powered a lot of the appliences inside the space
shuttles). I suspect there are a number of
influential people who would rather not see any
serious development of alternatives to oil and gas.
This disappoints me.

Your point about the physical carrying capacity of the
earth is an interesting one, and it's the rationale
that I expected to hear for populating space.

And your right, if population growth continues at the
current rate, we will eventually axhaust the earths
ability to support us ... it's just a matter of time.
Nevertheless, I would rather see every possible effort
be made to create sustainability on earth than to say
it's a lost cause and it's time to start looking for
other places to live. Population control is something
we can do something about. It doesn't require any new
technology. All it requires is cooperation. I'm not
advocating any solutions that would increase the
mortality rate. I think the focus should be on
reducing the number of new people being produced.

Don't get me wrong, I would love for us all to be able
to take trips into space. I think that would be
awsome. But I also don't think it's the most cost
efficient solution to our problems on earth and it may
even provide people with an excuse for not being good
stewards of the environment. I mean Hey, if we're
going to be leaving soon we might as well have a going
out of business sale on all of the earths resources,
and not worry about sustainability right? We don't
need to recycle anything or conserve oil for the
manufacture of important things like plastics instead
of just burning it as fuel and creating dirty air in
the process. This attitude is both foolish and
shortsighted. But it's an attitude that many people
seem to have adopted and it seems to be gaining
popularity.

I think JFK was a smart man to challenge the soviets
to a race to the moon. Socialism has typically not
been the best economic system when it comes to
generating wealth, so by encouraging a proud socialist
dictator like Kruschev to divert money from social
programs like healthcare, education, and also wages,
and spend it instead on the military, an expensive
space program, and amateur athletes, he wasn't making
it any easier on the citizens of that country. In
retrospect, perhaps JFK should have created the
illusion that we were investing billions in lunar
missions and mars satellites, to keep his adversaries
on their toes, while all the while he was using that
money to asuage some of the shortcomings of capitalism
and other, more pressing issues like sustainability in
the face of a population explosion.

--- Bill wrote: