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 ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!mc.lcs.mit.edu!KFL
From: KFL@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU ("Keith F. Lynch")
Newsgroups: net.space
Subject: Re: Population
Message-ID: <[MC.LCS.MIT.EDU].851959.860315.KFL>
Date: Sat, 15-Mar-86 16:52:58 EST
Article-I.D.: <[MC.LCS.MIT.EDU].851959.860315.KFL>
Posted: Sat Mar 15 16:52:58 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 17-Mar-86 03:19:26 EST
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 50


    From: Chuck Simmons <chuck%dartmouth.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>

    If the population stays the same size, but each
    person's disposable income increases by a factor of a million, they would
    buy enough goods to justify all sorts of economies of scale.

  Not true.  No matter how rich I was, I wouldn't buy two copies of
the same book.  I wouldn't buy more food than I could eat.  I wouldn't
buy more clothes than I could wear in a week.  I wouldn't buy two
copies of the same CD.  I wouldn't buy more computer power than I
could use.  I wouldn't buy more than one calculator.
  There is a BIG difference between a trillion people with $100,000
each and a billion people with $100,000,000 each.
  Once we colonize space and make extensive use of the resources of
the solar system, we won't have to choose.  We will be able to have a
trillion trillionaires.

    Secondly, you are assuming that economies of scale will continue to exist.
    I believe it may be possible that this is not the case.  As an example, it
    used to be that it would have been cheaper for a car maker to make 1
    million cars that were each painted black.  These days, it costs nearly the
    same amount of money to make cars in lots of different colors.

  Not a good example.  It is still true that building a million cars
is nowehere near a million times as expensive as building one car.
Building a trillion cars would probably be even cheaper, per car.
  There are only a few things where economy of scale does not apply.
Anything requiring personal service, of course.  Electric power, since
the main cost now is fuel rather than plant.  Land, for obvious
reasons.
  Given robotics to do most of the boring and dangerous jobs, enormous
amounts of power and materials from space, and a much higher
population, I forsee an economy where the major occupations are
writer, programmer, philosopher, scientist, architect, artist,
entertainer, musician, etc..  All of these have nearly constant cost
regardless of audience.  It doesn't cost any more to write a book if
there will be more readers.  It is no harder to compose a symphony 
if there will be more listeners.  Discovering a new law of science is
no more difficult if it will be used by more people.

    ... During the current industrial
    revolution, we are learning techniques for producing many similar but
    unique items on a large scale.

  I doesn't really matter whether everybody's space habitat is
absolutely identical or slightly different.  Since these will be made
by robotics, the cost of food, shelter, air, water, and clothing will
be negligible.
								...Keith