This Introduction is pro-space propaganda. Is it the same text as an article in the same author's Space Folk? I will check.
Anderson lists "...nearly unlimited economic returns..." from "...a permanent human presence in space..." (p. 10):
inexhaustible, free, clean, solar energy;
abundant raw materials;
industries that cannot pollute Earth;
entire new industries;
abolition of all Terrestrial poverty;
from this last, incalculable spiritual benefits.
Questions
Why is this not happening?
Is the initial capital expenditure prohibitive?
Even if solar energy is free at the point of production, will the controllers of the solar collectors try to profit by charging for it or, alternatively, divert their investments to profitable activities elsewhere?
Will pollution recur on a larger scale in space?
Is abolition of poverty compatible with a market economy where wealth is concentrated in fewer hands?
Meanwhile, let's get out into space and see what does result.
3 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
I think your second question answers the first. The INITIAL costs of getting off this rock is what intimidates too many. But as Jerry Pournelle was found of saying, once out of Earth's gravity well you are half way to ANYWHERE in the Solar System. Meaning once a reasonably cost-effective means of leaving/re-entering Earth is found, then it will become much easier to make use of the resources of the Solar System. And people like Elon Musk at SpaceX are trying to do precisely that!
Also, I disagree with what you said about a market economy. When it's allowed to work, a reasonably free economy creates more wealth, long term, for everybody. Not just the rich!
Sean
Sean and Paul:
Pournelle says he was quoting Heinlein about that.
By eerie coincidence, today's strip in the webcomic Freefall (freefall.purrsia.com) is about that very statement.
Kaor, DAVID!
Dang, I did not know or recall that about Heinlein! If I had known I would have attributed the line to RAH. Thanks to the reference about FREEFALL.
Sean
Post a Comment