🚀 go-pugleaf

All in all, Philip, I would say that you need to bone up on logic and the
construction of logical arguments.

In article <DH48x9.5E6@abs.net>, pfilner <pfilner@mail.bcpl.lib.md.us> wrote:

>  Jeff Wilson <jdwilson@bnr.ca> wrote:
>  
> >Human do have a place in space.  Shall we debate whether of not this planet
> >and the natural resources that we waste every day will last forever?  
> >Like it or not, we will eventually need to venture out for resources.  If
> >you think it can be done easily robotically, just look how long NASA has been
> >trying to design a Mars rover!
> 
> Humans certainly have a place in space: earch.  The earth is our space ship.
> 
> The way to stop wasting natural resources is to stop wasting natural
resources.
> The notion that we should replenish our resources by harvesting
spacestuff, so we
> can waste even more, strikes me as obscene. Neither our resources on
earth, nor 
> humanity will last forever.

You just screwed your own logic.  Something like -> humans should stay on
earth : humans should stop waste of earth resources : earth resources are
finite.  By that logic expansion into space and use of space resources
_are_ required to continue the human race (note, I didn't say "expansion
of").

> There are economic and technical barriers to the sci-fi vision of mining
> spacestuff and shipping it back to earth for human consumption which are, 
> currently and for the foreseeable future, insurmountable.

I'm not sure what timespan you envision by "forseeable".  In the late
1800's there was (generally) no forseeable future in flying!

>    The cost in resources and energy that would be required to transport and 
>    set up an extra-terrestrial mining operation would be prohibitive, even if 
>    it were technologically feasible (which it is not for the foreseeable
future, 
>    considering existing knowhow).

Perhaps you need to read materials from some of the more noteworthy
advocates on extraterrestrial activities.

 Only the most precious and light-weight of
>    stuff has any chance of being sufficiently valuable to justify the cost of 
>    getting it from space. The things which are most precious and lightweight 
>    are entities with very complex and specific structures, usually
biologically 
>    active - e.g. perfumes, flavors, drugs, art objects, and more
recently perhaps 
>    a different kind of entity: recordings of music, images, software. Such 
>    high-value per unit of mass things will not be found in space unless
we put 
>    them there.

It seems absolutely certain that many of the types of items you've
described will go for a high price in space.  At least in the early years
of exploration, colonization and exploitation.

 Boxes of space-rocks could never pay for their cost, even if 
>    precious metals or radionuclides could be extracted from them. They
are just 
>    not valuable enough. 

Wrong.  If there is a market, then the pricing will be set so that the
customer can pay.  It may be extraordinarily high but there is much
historical precedent for that, too.

> Until someone invents a machine and power source which can provide
transport at 
> speeds approaching the speed of light, for stuff other than digitized
information, 
> the only ways we can explore the universe is by studying electromagnetic
waves and 
> space-debris reaching earth, and by sending out telecommunicating robots
on very 
> longterm (multi-generational) missions.

You've made a big jump from frollicking around the solar system to
exploration of the universe.  Let's take it one step at a time.  (Well,
alright, let's do the two-step.:)