🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Dec28.172419.1305@cs.rochester.edu> Paul Dietz,
dietz@cs.rochester.edu writes:
>The differences between the age of exploration and today are
>considerable.  The raw mineral and agricultural products (and slaves)
>that profited the explorers of that age are a much smaller fraction of
>GDPs today.

Since the whole arguement is based on unforeseen long-term benefits,
which may or may not be animal, mineral, or vegetable,
this "difference" is neither valid nor pertanent to Herman's point.
Furthermore, raw materials may be a smaller fraction of GDPs, but
they are not inconsequential to the health of an economy. Furthermore,
in some present-day economies, oil is most of the GDP. Finally, if
a naturally-occuring rare or unknown substance (or microgravity
manufactured substance) of great applicability
were found/produced in space (or on another body), it
could result in a shift in the
importance of raw materials to the GDP. I know that you are going
to now ask "what material?". However, since Herman's arguement
pertains to unknown benefits and the danger of lack of foresight,
it is a valid arguement.

Even as we speak, satellite weather/soil monitoring and satellite
communication and navigation, which not very long
ago were unforeseen applications, have changed our world. Some of
the benefits you claim will never come are already here, right under
your nose. Note too, that they are not animal, vegetable, or mineral.

>
>More generally, arguments by analogy are essentially circular.  You
>have to assume that the analogy is valid to believe the argument.  I
>don't see any reason to do that here.

That is because you are being really short-sighted. Paul, are you so
sure you can see our future well enough that you can discount this
arguement? Can you tell me any compelling reason to believe we
will gain nothing from aggressive space exploration and development
based on fact rather than speculation?

>There are contrary analogies:
>for example, exploration of Antarctica has been of little practical
>benefit to the exploring countries (although it has been of scientific
>benefit to humanity as a whole).

Very bad example. Antarctica has remained undeveloped for essentially
political reasons.  I can't remenber the treaty name off the top of my
head, but it has reserved Antarctica as a wildlife reserve and research
laboratory. There have been challenges to this treaty
recently because it is believed that there may be huge
caches of minerals to be found there.
Even if Antarctica were open to development, it may take
awhile for the benefits to become apparent. However, since the question
being debated here is long-term benefits, there is no reason to put
stringent time limits on those benefits coming to full fruition.

Norman

Dr. Norman J. LaFave
Senior Engineer
Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Company




When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro
                               Hunter Thompson