Who's Against Zero Growth and Me First?

On Jan 27, 2007, at 00:34 UTC, ANTIcarrot wrote:

> The problem with ever expanding geometric rises in population (which
> is the assumption behind the full galaxy scenario) is to a large
> extent contradictory with the kind of 'closed-loop/steady state'
> philosophy and culture that is required for the design and habitation
> of space colonies.

Surely a society able to build space colonies can have a more nuanced
philosophy than that, and see that while closed-loop systems are
necessary within a colony, growth is possible (and quite healthy) by
building more colonies.

> Here though might be the answer. You're saying that if a society
> doesn't grow it's shooting itself in the foot. However a society that
> does grow knows that they're going to shoot themselves in the foot
> tomorrow, or will leave the task to their children. That isn't a
> particularly nice or sensible thing to do.

It's also not true. The resources of even our own solar system are
millions of times greater than that of the Earth; we won't hit those
limits for a long, long, time. And by the time we do, we'll be able to
reach the rest of the galaxy, which is tremendously, hugely, really
really big. Your statement is based on a limited-resources world, and
once we're able to live in space, there essentially aren't any limits
to the available resources.

Cheers,
- Joe

Joe Strout -- joe@...