Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site topaz.ARPA
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!columbia!topaz!milne
From: milne@uci-icse
Newsgroups: net.sf-lovers
Subject: Re: Why would we go in to space
Message-ID: <3096@topaz.ARPA>
Date: Sun, 4-Aug-85 02:39:03 EDT
Article-I.D.: topaz.3096
Posted: Sun Aug  4 02:39:03 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 5-Aug-85 00:37:47 EDT
Sender: daemon@topaz.ARPA
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.
Lines: 61

From: Alastair Milne <milne@uci-icse>


>  Why would we leave this planet?
>  The several possibilities are:
>  1. Exploration
>  2. Colonization
>  3. Escape
>  4. Invitation
>  5. Expansionist (Manifest Destiny)
>  6. Dumb Luck (My favorite)

   It seems to me you overlook that most powerful of inducements: commercial
   gain.  This, and the opportunity to extend national influence, were the
   primary reasons for the various European empires.  Colonies were usually
   established so that the "mother" country could use the colonies' natural 
   resources (and even establish a trade situation, where the ruling country
   would refine and manufacture goods to be bought by the colonies).  Thereby
   would a developed country extend and vitalise its economy, while also
   extending its political power to remote areas around the world.

   Actually colonising, at least adequately to maintain a reasonable
   population of colonists, could be a serious problem.  In many or most
   cases, there was only a limited number of people willing to go.  There are,
   of course, great exceptions, like the Puritans driven to North America
   by religious persecution; or cases where willingness was irrelevant, like
   the original prisoners sent to Botany Bay, Australia.  But think, for
   instance, of the various schemes tried by the French government to get
   colonists to go to New France, which promised primarily hard work and
   murderous winters.  "Les Filles du Roi" comes prominently to mind.  In 
   most cases it would be the inveterate traveller, or the ardent explorer, 
   who would go.  For most people, considerable persuasion would be needed.

>  As human history has shown most
>  discoverys of new territory (ie the New World ) by early explorers
>  other than Columbus has been because people are looking for a better
>  place to live..

   As I think you may see from my previous paragraphs, I really don't agree.
   While I think you are wise to except Columbus (who was looking for a
   shorter, less expensive route for the Indian-European spice trade to
   follow), I think most of the rest of the great explorers should be
   exempted as well.  Either, like Columbus, they had commerce in mind, or,
   like Magellan and Captain Cook, they wished to discover more about the world.
   Some, like Ponce de Leon, were after the Fountain of Youth, or the legendary
   Cathay.  Certainly the population of Britain was not waiting for word from 
   Cook of a miraculous land to which they could all move, bag and baggage.  
   A miraculous land with which they could trade for fabulous goods and profits
   was more likely.

   Perhaps the need for land to support burgeoning populations will eventually
   be foremost in the motives for exploring space.  But the operation will be
   fantastically expensive, and having it pay for itself, at least partially,
   will be a very attractive idea.  I'm not being cynical, and I trust that,
   when there is urgent human need to be met, commercial considerations will 
   be laid aside until they are met.  But the fact is that commerce has been
   the driving force behind much of the most ambitious exploration so far, 
   and it doesn't seem realistic to assume that will change.


   Alastair Milne