home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Xref: sparky sci.space:18972 talk.politics.space:1684
- Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space
- Path: sparky!uunet!gatech!asuvax!chnews!hfglobe!ptd!greason
- From: greason@ptdcs2.intel.com (Jeff Greason ~)
- Subject: Re: Justification for the Space Program <long>
- Message-ID: <1993Jan8.020405.26730@ptdcs2.intel.com>
- Sender: news@ptdcs2.intel.com (USENET News System)
- Organization: Intel Corporation -- Aloha, Oregon
- References: <C0163t.Mq4@news.cso.uiuc.edu> <1992Dec29.181813.11510@unocal.com> <jfelder-070193115431@latvia.lerc.nasa.gov>
- Distribution: usa, world
- Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 02:04:05 GMT
- Lines: 99
-
- In article <jfelder-070193115431@latvia.lerc.nasa.gov> jfelder@lerc.nasa.gov (James L. Felder) writes:
- >
- >Premise 1. We live on a finite planet with finite resources.
- >
- >Premise 2. Our technological society is highly dependent on resources that
- >are being used up faster than they can be replaced.
- >
- >Premise 3. Economists seem to insist that we must continue to grow to
- >increase our standard of living, and the public and politicians seemed to
- >have bought into this premise. For proof one only has to look at the last
- >election to see cries that we are "loosing the American Dream" because we
- >are not better off than our parents held up as worthy compaign issues. The
- >strong implication is that an ever increasing, I would hazard
- >materialistic, standard of living is something we must all strive for.
- >
- >Premise 4. We will not stumble across some unlimited sources of energy
- >(fusion) or materials (say a way to mine the earths core) here on earth.
- >
- >Conclusions. Energy and materials will become increasingly hard to obtain,
- >and that eventually the net energy and material production will decline
- >below what is required to maintain some existing standard of living.Unless
- >we find a way to circumvent the limited resources of our planet, we as a
- >technologically advanced society will cease to exist. People will continue
- >to exist, but society will not be as we know it. I do not know the time
- >frame, nor care to hazard a guess, but the end seems to me to be
- >unavoidable.
- >
- I find this a very concise summary of the "limits to growth" argument.
- I am also a strong believer in the need to expand to space -- but I find
- this argument very unconvincing in this (the usual) form.
-
- To rebut:
-
- I will grant Premises 1, and 3.
-
- Premise 2 I *almost* agree with -- but there is a slippery loophole which
- I believe invalidates it. "rate" and "resource" are very slippery words.
- Your "rate" of using resources can be diminshed by improving technology.
- What defines a "resource" is also changed by improving technology. 100
- years ago, coal and iron were critical strategic resources, while petroleum
- was of marginal value, and aluminum and uranium ores were essentially
- valueless. Needless to say, the situation has changed radically.
- Postulating a (hypothetical) super increase in aluminum extraction
- techniques, common clay (for aluminum) can become a valuable resource.
-
- Given this, what of Premise 4?
-
- We may not stumble across "unlimited" sources of materials, but, in the
- discussion above, I show why this is not necessary. Assuming (a key
- assumption) that technology continues to advance at the unbelievable rate
- of the last 200 years, you can start thinking about basing an economy
- on recycled trash and dirt! 1/2 :-)
-
- The energy argument is the most persuasive. It seems that using less
- "simple" materials takes more energy. This requires an advancing EARTHBOUND
- civilzation to increase the technology for energy production from EARTHBOUND
- resources FASTER than a SPACEFARING civilization would have to. A
- spacefaring civilization can choose to use "simpler" materials on other
- planets to do those manufacturing operations which require acess to those
- materials. If we use this argument, we need to argue that it is "cheaper"
- IN ENERGY TERMS to do this than to do it on Earth.
-
- For example: we want to mine asteroids for cheap iron. So, we fly out and
- do it. This burns rocket fuel (or uranium for fission rockets or deuterium
- for fusion rockets, etc.) which came from Earth. This has energy content.
- We could have used that energy to extract iron from less efficient ores or
- to replace them with aluminum...etc. So, while it is POSSIBLE that the
- spacefaring civilization can survive with a slower rate of technological
- advance, it is not OBVIOUS. In either case, the rate of energy technology
- must continuously improve.
-
- Now we come to the critical point in Premise 4, which I would state as "the
- rate of technological growth cannot be adequate unless we go to space". For
- that, I see no evidence. Focused R&D efforts do produce spinoffs, and these
- do accelerate technology if they "push the envelope" -- I believe. However,
- it seems clear that the technological advances of, say, the Manhattan
- project were probably at least as great, if not greater than, the Apollow
- program. Just as a case in point, IC's, which are often credited to the
- space program, depend heavily on ion implantation, which is a clear spinoff
- of the Oak Ridge facility in the Manhattan project. Etc, Etc.
-
- So, I just don't see it. "Limits to growth" in the material sense is not
- a convincing argument for the space program. PSYCHOLOGICAL "limits to
- growth" may be much more convincing.
-
- Now, IF we decide (for other reasons) to BUILD a spacefaring civilization,
- then it will (in retrospect) appear to have been a great idea! Because,
- just like the Manhattan project and the Apollo program, the technology would
- spin off, and it would look great, in hindsight. However, if we decided to
- spend what it takes to BUILD a self-directed AI, or BUILD a genetically
- engineered mammal, etc., it would probably ALSO look great, in hindsight.
-
- Disclaimer: All opinions expressed are my own, and do not reflect the
- position of Intel, Portland State University, or Zippy the Pinhead.
- ============================================================================
- Jeff Greason "You lock the door ... And throw away the key.
- <greason@ptdcs2.intel.com> There's someone in my head, but it's not me."
- <jeffg@eecs.ee.pdx.edu> -- Pink Floyd
-
-