Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Doodler
Exploration has always been about material gain. Better hunting, better climate for agriculture, better plunder of primitive societies, and a desire for more efficient trade routes. You don't mount up and travel thousands of miles for a few rocks and some untwinkling stars unless someone's willing to foot the bill. And that someone is likely the kind of person looking for further gain for their effort.
|
Exploration of Earth, yes. But you won't find better climtes, hunting or land on other planets in this solar system.
Quote:
|
There's nothing wrong with this philosophy, the exploitation of new resources isn't inherently selfish or evil. The irresponsible management of resource exploitation is selfish and in some cases outright evil, but that's a matter of societal ethics than nobility of purpose.
|
Evil doesn't come into it. Greed simply doesn't look ahead. People will consume almost all the resources on Earth before it becomes viable to get them from other planets - and by that point we might not be able to get to other planets.
Quote:
|
I'll venture my own opinion on what breakthrough is going to be needed to make a space economy work, and that's people who are willing to go up and stay there, along with the technology to support them. Whether its Progress style replenishment missions in exchange for local resources returned to Earth or a self-sustainable on site life support system (not likely for a while), the real boot to the butt that's going to push the whole thing off is a large enough mission that puts people out there that want to live there.
|
This I agree with - but the people who leave Earth won't leave because they think theres gold in them thar asteroids - they'll leave because they feel they were born on the wrong planet in the first place.
If they leave, only the insanely wealthy could afford to be supplied from Earth, and there are too few of them to found a colony. Any colonnisation effort would have to be a one shot, self supporting effort.
Quote:
|
Even 1500 years ago, the European explorers of the western hemisphere understood that the best way to make use of the resources in the Americas was to put people there to stay on site year round, sending materials home. Putting a colony over in the Americas was a risky venture, and hideously expensive, but the long term returns on that investment made the risk worth the effort.
|
I really think this is a bad analogy. Ocean travel is far easier than space travel, and the new world had resources the old world did not. There is likely nothing on the Moon or Mars or anywhere else in the solar system we cannot acquire on Earth. (I've yet to be convinced that the whole Helium 3 thing is ever going to be worthwhile)
Quote:
|
Resource recovery on the Moon will be no different. The bar is substantially higher, but the rewards are no less worth the investment. We're eventually going to need to put a Jamestown up there, and we're going to have to accept the reality that we'll likely also put a Roanoake or two up there while we're trying to conquer this new world. On the upshot, at least there are no native populations to be abused.
|
What will be worth bringing back?