RE: starship-design: The Case for Space

["L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>]

Zenon,

> Of course, I did not intend to include you among "equalists" -
> my remark concerned the fragment of the article you quoted.
> And the phrase '"equalists" here' referred to "equalists" in Poland,
> from where I am writing these letters...


We in America seem to have an even harder problem with such sentiments these
days. Please forgive my vehemenence, but I do not believe that "equality" as
it is currently practiced here in America, is a "right". There are many
peoples in the world who would give anything for even half the chance we had
when out nation was born. Most Americans truly do not appreciate what they
have and at what cost it was bought.

> Sorry for that - I am personally quite down-to-earth in everyday life,
> hence sometimes I must compensate with a few ;-) "great words"...
> Anyway, the activist with whom I have argued also used such
> words for his case, so I tried to outspoken him...;-)

That is okay, but there is the terrible homo sapiens uber alles attitude
that seems to pervade our society...<G>

 > And what else that particular form of life had been doing
> through all that three or so billion years before?
> The very existence of life fundamentally requires,
> and is a result of, that ability to spread/infest,
> hence there is no ethical question involved here, I think.
>
> > but based on current evidence, we may be the ONLY life...
> >
> But even if we were not the only life, so what?
> There is no other, ethical or not, way to decide
> which form should spread to/infest other places
> except direct competition in spreading/infesting...

So even though we are conscious of the fact, we should subscribe to
Darwinism as an inviolable rule? Mind you, I am not taking sides, but I
think that perhaps a little introspection may be called for before we cast
our seed across the universe.

> > > Of course, the way to the really space faring civilization
> > > most probably will lead through an earth-bound civilization
> > > profiting from space exploration, but it will be a comparatively
> > > short, transitory phase only.
> >
> > Of course you are correct, the near term will look much like
> > it does now, but I think it will be more a matter of the corporate
> > paradigm will evolve to encompass first off-earth and then
> extra-solar
> > activities.
> >
> Something seems to be missing in the above sentence -
> I do not catch well your intentions. Can you explain?

The future evolves from the present, even though we may not be able to see
clearly enough to predict its course in advance, it is always clear in
retrospect how a certain set of events came to be as a result of the
conditions that prevailed before. The current corporate paradigm that now
drives society on Earth cannot help but to persist even off-planet for at
least a little while, perhaps longer.

So for the near future at least, I see the status quo, business decisions
will drive the development of space and little else. After that, well, who
knows?  Perhaps more business, perhaps change, but  for the next fifty
years, I think we will still be in what you call the transitory phase.

Lee