9 ms·

How is having a small dependent colony of tunnel-dwellers on Mars going to give us a post-scarcity society?

by vacri 9y ago

dwaltrip 9y ago
The same way Columbus gave us our massive modern international shipping infrastructure. It's a small step in a large process. You don't just jump from A to B. In this case, getting nearer to post-scarcity will undoubtedly involve capturing a much larger portion of the Sun's energy output (only one billionth reaches Earth), which will require significantly more developed space industries. Or if fusion becomes viable, we will need to harvest some of the more efficient inputs, such as He3 from the moon. The technologies we develop to accomplish these endeavors will provide enormous benefits to all humans, including those still living on Earth.
friedman23 9y ago
Mars has nothing to do with it. We simply do not have enough resources on this planet to provide everyone with everything they desire without destroying the planet in the process..
- tptacek 9y ago
  Malthusians have been making and being embarrassed by that argument for hundreds of years. Meanwhile, the standard of living for all people on the planet increases, and the link between that increase and resource consumption is not linear. Given the history of the argument, it seems forgivable to assume that the people who make it in the context of space travel are simply besotted by the romance of space travel.
- geofft 9y ago
  And do we have the resources on two planets to provide everyone with everything they desire? Or ten, or a hundred? If you know what the bound is on the resources needed to satisfy people's desires, and that's a finite number of planets greater than one, sure. But if you don't have a bound, it's going to be far more effective to adjust people's desires. (And if you do have a bound, and it's slightly greater than one, it may still be more efficient to adjust people's desires to get it to less than one than to expend the engineering work needed to build a multi-planet civilization.)
  - friedman23 9y ago
    >And do we have the resources on two planets to provide everyone with everything they desire? Or ten, or a hundred? Yes we do because human growth is not exponential and there are limitless resources in space.

How is having a small dependent colony of tunnel-dwellers on Mars going to give us a post-scarcity society?

by vacri 9y ago

How is having a small dependent colony of tunnel-dwellers on Mars going to give us a post-scarcity society?

The same way Columbus gave us our massive modern international shipping infrastructure. It's a small step in a large process. You don't just jump from A to B. In this case, getting nearer to post-scarcity will undoubtedly involve capturing a much larger portion of the Sun's energy output (only one billionth reaches Earth), which will require significantly more developed space industries. Or if fusion becomes viable, we will need to harvest some of the more efficient inputs, such as He3 from the moon. The technologies we develop to accomplish these endeavors will provide enormous benefits to all humans, including those still living on Earth.

friedman23 9y ago

Mars has nothing to do with it. We simply do not have enough resources on this planet to provide everyone with everything they desire without destroying the planet in the process..

tptacek 9y ago
Malthusians have been making and being embarrassed by that argument for hundreds of years. Meanwhile, the standard of living for all people on the planet increases, and the link between that increase and resource consumption is not linear. Given the history of the argument, it seems forgivable to assume that the people who make it in the context of space travel are simply besotted by the romance of space travel.
geofft 9y ago
And do we have the resources on two planets to provide everyone with everything they desire? Or ten, or a hundred? If you know what the bound is on the resources needed to satisfy people's desires, and that's a finite number of planets greater than one, sure. But if you don't have a bound, it's going to be far more effective to adjust people's desires. (And if you do have a bound, and it's slightly greater than one, it may still be more efficient to adjust people's desires to get it to less than one than to expend the engineering work needed to build a multi-planet civilization.)
- friedman23 9y ago
  >And do we have the resources on two planets to provide everyone with everything they desire? Or ten, or a hundred? Yes we do because human growth is not exponential and there are limitless resources in space.