Well, the space age was here and we decided it cost too much.
Lunar Solar Power is an exciting idea but He3 is more science fiction than probability.

As for rocket propellents- while launching HLV’s to the Moon makes sense to build a base, that is about all rockets are good for. The ice on the Moon is much better used as radiation shielding for nuclear propelled spaceships.

We “need” the Moon as a base from which to launch nuclear missions. Then comes solar energy, then comes other Lunar resources such or thorium for reactors and metal from which to build new ships and equipment for colonies.

With enough inputs you could grow bananas at the top of Everest, but anyone investing in such an enterprise would not make any profits, their wealth would shrink, so you have to ask yourself: What’s the cost of the energy to grow the food vs the value of the food grown?

But I’m also concerned about the fate of the other species on our planet. It really wouldn’t be the Earth without them, IMO. And I’m not so sure if the other species on our planet could survive this many human beings or more in the long run.

I’m a strong believer in capitalism within the framework of a strong democratic republic. The problem with the US economy IMO is that many people and politicians have bought into the myth that a politically paralyzed government is better than a strong government. A weak government that can’t get anything done is bad for the economy no matter how big or small it is. The role of government should be to do those things that private enterprise either refuses to do, or can’t do, or cannot do as efficiently as the government can. The role of politicians, IMO, is to make sure that government works as efficiently as possible without wasting the tax payer’s dollars.

The Federal government’s investment in space has been one of America’s greatest economic success stories. And there is no doubt in my mind that the American economy would be in much better shape today if the politicians had allowed NASA to set up permanent outpost on the Moon and Mars after the Apollo program. If that had happened, the political issue of the day might be whether or not to raise taxes on the extremely lucrative lunar corporations that might have currently dominated the satellite manufacturing and launch industry today:-)

Marcel F. Williams

“Land area available” implies agriculture Marcel. There are vast tracts of land on Earth that are uninhabited. I am not one of the Earth is overpopulated crowd. We could have a high quality of life for every man woman and child on this planet if we did not, as a species, spend most of our resources pandering to various moral weaknesses and cravings for profit. When I discuss this fact with others on forums I am invariably labeled a communist or socialist and excommunicated from the discussion by way of a dogpile of insults.

The myth of scarcity is just a smokescreen for the reality of greed and ignorance. Which is why people like Gerard K. O’Neill sought to improve the human condition with space colonies.

We need to go into space to first safeguard the Earth from impacts and the human race from extinction, and along with these missions to spread life into the universe through colonization. None of those three things has anything to do with getting filthy rich or intimidating other nations with firepower so we can steal their resources. Which is why it has not happened.

We are stuck between our wants and our needs. We want to keep competing instead of cooperating. We want to keep intimidating instead of interacting. We need to understand that the universe does not care if we thrive or go extinct. If we continue to indulge our our instinctive and tribal inheritance instead of investing in the future we will have no future. Our race will die as surely as each and every individual dies. That is our choice- the glorifying of individuality and certain extinction or the acceptance of the collective goal and a continued existance of humanity.
Ayn Rand would not agree.

Good take down of the Bland article.

Andrew W says: December 30, 2012 at 1:11 am
“… first Mr. Bland needs to recognize the problems with the future he advocates; there are too many people on this planet for indefinite sustainability without the advanced technology that exists today and that technology consumes resources that are finite, and humans, being humans, will fight each other for their share if the pie is made to shrink.”
It’s go forward or go back, but the going back that’s likely is via the population reduction that happens in a collapse.”

A very succinct description of the situation.

About the only thing to add is that Mr. Bland’s Luddite philosophy (1. Any of a group of British workers who between 1811 and 1816 rioted and destroyed laborsaving textile machinery in the belief that such machinery would diminish employment. 2. One who opposes technical or technological change. After Ned Ludd, an English laborer who was supposed to have destroyed weaving machinery around 1779.) far predates the beginning of the development of space technology.

I suspect that when the first of our remote ancestors learned to start and control small fires (to keep them warm cold nights) another started the first anti developments organization – “Cro-Mags” against Camp Fires”.

No, first Mr. Bland needs to recognize the problems with the future he advocates; there are too many people on this planet for indefinite sustainability without the advanced technology that exists today and that technology consumes resources that are finite, and humans, being humans, will fight each other for their share if the pie is made to shrink.

It’s go forward or go back, but the going back that’s likely is via the population reduction that happens in a collapse.