Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!henry
From: henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer)
Newsgroups: net.space
Subject: re: space colonization
Message-ID: <3223@utzoo.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 30-Sep-83 16:18:52 EDT
Article-I.D.: utzoo.3223
Posted: Fri Sep 30 16:18:52 1983
Date-Received: Fri, 30-Sep-83 16:18:52 EDT
References: <11995@sri-arpa.UUCP>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Lines: 19

The fallacy in the comparison of space to Antarctica is the assumption
that they are equally hostile environments.  Not true.  Space is actually
quite a benign environment by comparison with almost *any* Earthly
environment.  Of course, it won't support human life without help, but
that is true of *most* Earthly environments as well.  (For example,
much of Earth is uninhabitable for humans without artificial heat
sources [or at least artificial insulation] for part of the year.)
Space presents a much more *controllable* environment; a modicum of
technology can fix environmental conditions at just about any value
you want, with little interference from nature.  This is definitely
not true of Antarctica, where nature gets in the way badly.

Remember, Gerry O'Neill started the whole thing with the observation
that space is a *better* place for an industrial civilization than
the surface of a planet.  Not just an acceptable or equivalent place,
but *better*.  Because it's much easier to control.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry