Im constantly amazed how our major ecological organizations continue to be completely ignorant about space.
Space stands the best chance of saving the earth from complete ecological disaster.
Maybe its time for NSS, SFF or similar to make a major push to get the idea across.

No, don’t "send elite" to colonize.  And "we" can’t force world actions.  Some groups may be able to fund sending some of their elite, but governments doing so means some sort of central control gets the opportunity to make mistakes.

Releasing restrictions on commercial launches may allow self-paid growth of space activities.  Some private individuals are already buying their way into space.  Some will do so to become colonists (elite? not all people with money are special).  At first they might not have many neighbors, but a frontiersman expects that.

There are more metallic resources on a single metallic asteroid than are available to us on the Earth’s crust.  There will be asteroid miners.  There will be facilities built to supply and entertain them.  Those facilities will grow along with the growth of the customers.  Enough growth will require businesses which service the population more than the original customers.  At some point a truck stop can become a village and a city.

The first groups of people who can live off Earth will be living in space.  Whether in the Moon’s shallow gravity well or not, the environment is similar.  These people have to be able to live off planet and many will see little need to go to a planet.  There will be many such humans living in space before they build enough space travel infrastructure for the planetbound to consider moving to another planet.  Whatever the planets do, there will be many people living away from planets.  

Once colonies can become self-sufficient then the asteroids become home.  There are a lot of fissionables there, so there is compact power available in addition to solar power.  If someone manages to create a sublight space ship, they can go play in a different solar system but they won’t affect this solar system much.  People on one planet won’t be able to help those on other planets much, it will be those in space which will have massive amounts of resources.  Only compact and specialized help (vaccines?) may help between planets — but that’s a matter of where that specialized help exists to be offered, whether it happens to be on a planet or not.

Ricky, where are those opinions? I love Sylvia’s term, “humanization” – hadn’t heard it before (and I’d thought she was a strong advocate for “colonization” as the term). But it expresses exactly the right concepts, to me.

The history of humanity is one of constant struggle against limited resources, and a continuing growth in our capability to command the resources of the Earth (and now extending to the solar system) to do our bidding. You can argue all you want about whether it’s a good thing or a bad thing – the fact of the matter is, those who actually have the most control over the world are the ones who are the most powerful in human affairs as well. Isn’t it important that the most powerful groupings of people are those who have a notion of using their power to protect and help all people, rather than just a few? And evolutionarily, those nations that choose growth over stagnation are bound to win out in the long run.

You honestly wouldn’t want to give up your car, your cell phone, your computer, your easy access to food and housing for the hard-scrabble world of pre-Columbian America, would you? Why force that on anybody? And weren’t Native Americans constantly at war with one another, except perhaps in the resource-rich Northwest?

I’m going to let others have their say for a day or so before I weigh in. Sometimes I think I come on too strongly and inhibit the input of others by launching several pages thick with words of what I think. Besides, I’ve been busy today – getting ready for a computer security audit at work and a three day trip to NASA Langley next week.

My car, my cell phone, my computer, my easy access to food and housing and most of all my Tivo will get pried away only from my cold, dead fingers. You bet I want to keep them.

The question at hand, though, is whether or not in principle primitive societies (or stable zero-growth technological ones) can or cannot exist indefinitely or will instead inevitably go extinct, not whether or not I want to live in one.

A quick comment on terminology, before I write replies to the subject at hand
(which I may not get to until later today). “Space humanization” is not my own term; at the time I was working on a thesis proposal in anthropology dealing with the evolutionary significance of space colonization, it was being used in the social sciences. An academic journal by that name had been launched. It was a good term because it covered more than colonization or “settlement,” and was not objectionable to the people who don’t like the term “colonization” because of its bad connotations in history. But it never caught on. I originally wrote the essay now at my website for a class I began to teach in 1989, though; so I was still using it, there and in my Space Age Mythology series. I no longer do in what I write today.

I did not realize that people now, who haven’t heard it before, might interpret it as an alternative to colonization, as Ricky did. Actually it is a broader term. It covers both orbiting colonies and/or large-scale permanent facilities in space AND colonization of planets. I advocate both, though I believe the former will be more essential in the relatively near future.

This one is tops. Let’s just go colonize, not because we are doomed, but because we are compelled.

What do you mean by a primitive society, or a zero-growth technological one, though? Situations always change: the ice ages come and go, the saber tooth tigers and dodos disappear; animals become domesticated, rain patterns shift, the continents move, the sun blows up in the long run. Any society that cannot change is certainly doomed. But that’s not quite what you mean?

In any case, change is a given – that means some forms of human organization will respond well, others less well. The ones that respond well will naturally grow, the others will decline, or else change their ways. Zero growth requires either all change to artificially stop (so things reach an eventual equilibrium) or a continually shifting balance artificially imposed. Zero growth just isn’t natural :-)

About 10 years ago I read one version of Thomas Malthus’ “Essay on the Principle of Population”. While he’s been derided by critics since for predicting a population collapse that never happened (which wasn’t really the point of his book), he had a lot of very interesting data and observations on population growth rates, balance between deaths and births, effects of poverty and different types of food, etc. I believe these observations formed one foundation of Darwin’s evolutionary theory, not too long after. Stability and zero-growth are not natural states for humanity, or any living system.

First let me say that this is not an either/or issue. I advocate both types of colonies. I have, on the occasions when I could afford it, paid dues to the Mars Society. O’Neill-type colonies could be established sooner; but will they be? I don’t know. It now looks as if a small-scale
settlement on Mars will precede the building of orbiting colonies, as distinguished from permanent facilities in space and on the moon; but I
believe offworld habitats of some sort, whether or not of the sort O’Neill
pictured, will be necessary long before a Martian colony can become self-sufficient.

This is really ironic — Ricky was the one who originally introduced me to O’Neill’s ideas, back in the mid-70s. He was then enthusiastic; I was less so at first, as I had recently written a novel about the colonization of Mars (Journey Between Worlds, a romance for teenage girls) and I couldn’t imagine any other form of colonization being more practical. By the time I became a convert a few years later, Ricky had lost his enthusiasm, which was a common reaction among supporters of O’Neill colonies — also known as L5 colonies, orbiting colonies, or space settlements — during the ensuing years. This phenonmenon has been widely noted. In many cases (not necessarily Ricky’s) it was a matter of disillusionment. Young people had been convinced that we could have such colonies soon, within their personal active lifetimes, as indeed we could have had, if it had been merely a matter of technological capability. The awakening to political and financial reality was painful; and I think that unconsciously, many succumbed to the “sour grapes” syndrome. In any case, the L5 Society finally gave up and merged with the National Space Society.

Incidentally, when Ricky says little of O’Neill’s work has made it to the Internet, he must be referring to scientific papers. There are several sites that describe his concepts in detail, including the NASA studies, which can be accessed from links at the end of my article (cited in Ricky’s story above).

Since the benefits to Earth of O’Neill colonies are detailed in that article, I won’t repeat them. The real question here is whether lunar and/or Martian colonies could become independent of Earth within the next few centuries, providing no benefits to Earth. I don’t believe colonies offering no benefits to Earth could ever be established in the first place, as I explained yesterday in
another article that I wrote before I saw this one (the one by Ricky to which I’m now replying). And neither does Zubrin!

We need look no further than Zubrin’s book
The Case for Mars to find strong statements that Mars colonization would benefit Earth, and the need for it to do so. On page 218 he states, “To be viable, a real Martian civilization must be completely autarkic (very unlikely until the far future) or be able to produce some kind of export that allows it to pay for the imports it requires.”

On page 222 Zubrin says, “Mars and Earth are the only two locations in the solar system where humans will be able to grow crops for export.” (Italics his.) He then goes on in some detail about elements available on Mars that he believes could be exported profitably. He also discusses mining the asteroids, which could be carried on more economically from Mars than from Earth. He states: “The future of interplanetary commerce becomes clear. There will be a ‘triangle trade,’ with Earth supplying high-technology manufactured goods to Mars, Mars supplying low-technology manufactured goods and food staples to the asteroid belt and possibly to the Moon as well, and the asteroids sending metals (and perhaps the Moon sending helium-3) back to Earth.” Interplanetary trade is an inherent part of Zubrin’s proposal for colonizing Mars. He is under no illusions about “isolated Moon bases and Mars bases” that “effectively seek their own destiny with local resources,” as Ricky puts it

Ricky, when you talked in the past about colonies being completely isolated from Earth I assumed you meant far-future extrasolar colonies on worlds where no high-tech life support is required. I agree that such colonies may someday exist, and that they will be of benefit only to their residents and humankind as a whole. But the colonies in this solar system, during the first few centuries of their existence, cannot be economically independent, whether or not they are politically independent. The local resources of the moon and Mars will be unusable without imported equipment, and there will be a need for immigrants, whose passage must somehow be paid for, if they are to be utilized at all.

Zubrin says the cost of transport will fall low enough for immigrants to pay personally–but only because salaries on Mars will be high. There are just two ways high salaries — or any salaries — can be be funded. Either companies on Earth will have employees in the colony, or colonial companies will make sufficient profit on trade with Earth to cover labor costs. Either way, trade is the key to a colony’s existence. (This is, of course, as true of colonies on the moon and in orbit as it is of Mars.)

Obviously, there can be no trade unless a colony offers something Earth wants to buy, and it won’t buy anything not of benefit to Earth’s residents. So there can be no doubt about at least some residents of Earth gaining from the exchange. But there is another major aspect to this, which Zubrin doesn’t point out because it’s self-evident: if Earth’s civilization goes down the drain, it won’t be in a position to carry on any trade. This is why a scenario in which colonies thrive while Earth deteriorates past the point of livability is simply not possible (except in the very distant future after colonies have become large and self-supporting). We must preserve Earth not merely for the sake of people who remain on Earth, but for the sake of human colonies’ survival, for a good many centuries to come. That is why I believe humankind as a whole will be dependent on nearby extraterrestrial resources even if Mars is colonized.

In short, the welfare of Earth and the welfare of its colonies (excluding extrasolar colonies) is inseparable. This is not a matter of altruism; it’s plain economic fact. If we develop the stardrive in the near future and discover one or more pristine planets that don’t need life support or terraforming, all bets are off. Otherwise, we must make do with the solar system nature has given us and use the full capabilities of our civilization to ensure the future evolution of our species.

“I’m truly not trying to argue with you or be a contrarian just for the heck of it…”

Well, Ricky, I did wonder if perhaps you were just trying to generate more activity at this site! :-) You used to be the strongest space advocate with whom I was acquainted, and whereas I know we don’t agree on the nature or role of colonies, I am really shocked to see you ask, other than rhetorically, whether it’s possible that our species could “eventually evolve into a stable, hi-tech one-planet civilization.”

I suppose it’s a matter of how long you imagine we would survive. I
take it we are not discussing a time-frame longer than the stability of our
sun (although advocates of colonization usually do believe we can outlast
our sun if we develop instellar travel). Neither are we taking into account the danger of being hit by an asteroid, which many people do take seriously at present, or that of a natural plague. But when you say “hi-tech” we can’t
ignore the issues of artificially-produced bio-disaster, or nuclear war,
or the newest worry, runaway nanotechnology. So I guess we’re considering
only how long we could survive if all went well and none of those
catastrophes occurred during the period while Earth was trying to establish
stability — an attempt at which humankind has been notably unsuccessful
in the past.

There’s a reason for this lack of success. By definition, stability
is not a characteristic of a species that’s progressing in any way
whatsoever, including its acquisition of knowledge. There are people who oppose science in principle for this reason, and feel we’d be better off
without it; but I don’t think you’re one of them. In any case, “stable
hi-tech” is an oxymoron — technology, by its very nature, is continously
being improved. This has been the defining characteristic of our species as distinguished from all others on Earth, from the discovery of tools and fire onward. There is no stopping place. Humans will continue to build on past discoveries as long as humans have minds.

But could we survive as a species with a stable low-tech culture?
Maybe, if we had never had a high-tech one — but that’s like asking
whether we could survive as children if we had never grown into adults. As a culture-bearing species we cannot unlearn what our ancestors knew or the thirst for knowledge they have passed on to us; there’s no turning back to what we were in the past.

Nor would our environment be the same as it was in the past. The Native Americans did not live under zero-sum-game conditions. They had all the frontiers they needed. They had plenty of resources for their tribes to grow indefinitely — until white settlers took their land and killed off most of the buffalo. Then they began to starve. That’s what happens to any civilization (or to any species unable to expand to a new ecological niche) when its resources are gone. Why do we have endangered species on Earth now? Why don’t they just stablize their populations when their habitats are destroyed instead of dying out?

I will concede that if our civilization were totally destroyed, a small population of our species might survive physically at the Stone Age level. A large population could not, since at present technology is needed to feed the number of people Earth now supports. And if the destruction were less than total, either the survivors would kill each other off fighting over its remains with hi-tech weapons, or we’d sooner or later be right back where we are now.

As to zero population growth, I expressed my opinion yesterday in The Myth of Sustainability. Let me add that your advocacy of it, despite the oppressive central government that would be required to enforce it, is not very consistent with the outlook of the Browncoats. :-) Nor is the notion of a permanent one-planet civilization, for that matter.

There’s one thing I forgot to mention about zero population growth that perhaps isn’t obvious. In saying I don’t believe it’s desirable or even possible, of course I mean for humankind as a whole. There will indeed come some level at which the population of Earth has to stop growing; the number of people this planet can support is not infinite even if resources are imported. What I believe is that there must be some other place for growth to continue before that point is reached — quite a long time before, if we want to preserve Earth’s ecology and Earth’s beauty.

Opponents of space colonization are fond of pointing out that ships couldn’t carry people away from Earth fast enough to keep up with population growth, which of course is true. The population issue can’t be dealt with by emigration of adults; at some point in time, further growth will have to be confined to births in the colonies. Whereas I think a law prohibiting more than one child per adult on Earth would be unenforceable and would lead to violence, a law taxing extra children would be no harder to enforce than other tax laws, and would be a realistic way of dealing with the fact that kids consume resources. This would encourage emigration of people who want large families, assuming there was some place attractive to go. Colonies will need people, and will welcome such families — and as long as people have the right to emigrate, their choice about procreation will be preserved.

But for this to work, the cost of transportation to the colonies has got to be a lot lower than the cost of moving all the way to Mars. It’s not just a matter of fuel; there’s the large cost of living quarters and provisions for a long trip. Transportation to nearby orbiting colonies that can be reached in a few days will always be inherently cheaper than trips of weeks or months, not only for that reason but because passenger ships can make more short round trips than long ones.

Furthermore, to offer significant numbers of people the chance to emigrate, the cost of building colonies has to be less than that of establishing Martian colonies–and they have to accommodate more people than will be possible on Mars until such time as it is terraformed, which is a long way ahead. This is where O’Neill-type orbiting colonies have a big advantage even over lunar colonies, and is a major reason why I believe they will be needed whether we colonize Mars or not.

One other thing–it was pointed out in another thread that the birth rate in Western industrialized nations is already dropping to the point of zero growth, without any oppressive government restrictions. This is true in some areas, since it’s not inconsistent with our culture. However, it is contrary to the cultures that dominate many parts of the world. The birth rate drops to some extent anywhere living conditions are improved; but the people of cultures that place high value on large families don’t change their views to match ours, and do not like being told to change them. Attempting to impose our culture’s values on the entire planet is hardly the way promote peace and stability.

One of the great things about orbiting colonies is that there can be many diverse ones, which is another reason they would attract immigrants from the very cultures with the greatest population growth. They’ll by no means all be established by Americans and Europeans. (For instance, at one time India had great interest in O’Neill’s proposal.) Cultural diversity is a good thing for humankind. Mars will certainly develop its own civilization in time, but that is not to say that people of traditional cultures won’t want to preserve them somewhere, or that they don’t deserve a chance to do so.