Space Cadets

[chris_gerrib]

The science fiction writer Charles Stross has been having a series of discussions about minimum sizes over on his blog. Minimum sizes as in "smallest population that can be self-sustaining in a generation ship" or "smallest population that can sustain a modern technological society." Now, his numbers are not mine (he's higher than mine by at least an order of magnitude) but Charlie and I both are realistic enough to know that we simply don't know. There is insufficient data. I would also argue that "the number" varies wildly based on what actually happens. An ill-timed natural disaster (or avoiding same due to blind luck) can make all the difference.

But where I've jumped into the discussion is in his talk of Space Cadets. These are the type of (usually) libertarian, white, American, male, engineering types who will jump in at these discussions and argue how easy and simple such a project would be. They also argue from the analogy of the American West circa 1866, and wax rhapsodic on the virtues of Rugged Individualism (tm).

Now, don't get me wrong - being on the wrong end of a million-mile supply line with a busted air filtration system will require a certain ruggedness. But libertarian ideology will not get one to Mars, and life in a Mars colony will be more like living in a particularly fussy condo or co-op than wide-open Montana. (Especially since the average Space Cadet learned everything they know about life in Montana from watching John Wayne movies.)

Although the Corp of Space Cadets could easily be renamed the Corp of Wanton Optimism, I do think that they have some valid points. Specifically:

1) Cheap(er) access to orbit is critical. If getting to orbit is a once-in-a-lifetime thing, building the expertise needed to get past orbit is difficult.

2) Incremental development is key. We didn't go from the Wright Flyer to a 747 in one jump, so it's unreasonable to expect that we'll do the same in space.

3) "Freedom" is a motivator for leaving. Read Ice Bound by Dr. Jerri Nielsen. Even though the Antarctic "colony" is by no means independent, the people who volunteer to go there are not just in it for the money. The very sense of being "away" motivates most of them.

Don't get me wrong - government support will be critical to becoming a space-exploiting civilization. I think that private enterprise will be a generation behind the government. Also, the American West is by no means the only or even best model for expansion. But humanity has been extending their range since Homo Habilis reared up on his hind legs and walked over the nearest hill. I see no reason for that to stop.

Comments

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

But humanity has been extending their range since Homo Habilis reared up on his hind legs and walked over the nearest hill. I see no reason for that to stop.

Indeed ... this is part of a more general principle, which is that life expands into any available habitat which becomes available (specific other worlds "become available" to Man when we acquire the technology to reach them at a cost reasonable to whatever organization or individual wishes to go there). Because of the "ratchet effect" of technology, one pretty much has to assume future technological stagnation, and one lasting until the annihilation of our lineage, to prevent the human race or its descendants from colonizing other worlds.

See "The Ratchet Effect" (http://jordan179.livejournal.com/164904.html#cutid1) by me on this topic, in some detail.

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

Don't get me wrong - government support will be critical to becoming a space-exploiting civilization. I think that private enterprise will be a generation behind the government.

Well, it generally was in the colonization of the West as well. The usual sequence was a few private pioneers (trappers and the like) followed by the troops, followed by the masses of settlers.

A lot in any particular era will depend on the specific technologies employed and their costs, and on the polcies of the governments concerned. For instance, it's quite plausible that a future world government might lose interest in expansion into space for a long while, but that people in the colonies already planted there might launch private ventures to go further out, perhaps as a strategy for becoming economically-independent from said world government.

And it is also possible that an authoritarian human government might centrally-control all colonization and ensure that nobody does anything without permission by making it artificially-difficult to obtain the equipment to do so. Indeed, both mgiht happen, at different times.

In fact, I think that the model for colonization will seesaw and vary between libertarian and authoritarian modes. Why not? That's what happened in the European Age of Exploration.