[extropy-chat] Space: The Final Constraint (was Extinctions)

[Lee Corbin]

KAZ wrote

> > The sooner we realize that right now every human life uses up 1300 cc's of
> > space running a person, the better, and that unless we want to adopt the
> > grotesque and elitist view that "Well, I've got mine!  I have runtime!
> > To hell with everyone else who might exist", then we have to favor *more*
> > advanced uses of space and resources over *less* advanced uses of them.
> 
> ...
> "Overpopulation" and "resource" complaints invariably end up being centered 
> on ignorance of not only economics, but also how technology changes things.

Yes.

> For example, Illinois and China have similar population densities, yet 
> Illinois alone produces enough corn to supply the US... The "overpopulation"
> of China and India purely a matter of their incompetent economic systems...

Quite right.

> What works best, and is why the states [that] I mention seem almost
> underpopulated while bearing a density of people comparable to
> "overpopulated" countries, is to allow /precisely/ the kind of "well,
> I've got mine" attitude you're eschewing.

Ah!  But you say "allow" here. I certainly never meant to imply that
such attitudes should not be *allowed*. Just as you say, when each person
attempts to maximize his or her economic impact (and reward), the
system works best.  It's because of the way so much knowledge can
only be local, as you go on to (more or less) say:

> The subset of "experts" sitting around analyzing "the best use of
> space and resources" are utterly incompetent compared to the whole
> of society making their normal decisions with their normally
> minimal level of regard for such things.

Just so!

In fact, what I was saying fits perfectly well with this: so long as
the government doesn't cordon off land and other resources "for the
people", things are closer to maximally efficient. In other words,
no more so-called public lands, which are lands owned by everyone
and are owned by no one (except the state).

Most here are libertarians, and most here would prefer resources being
in private hands as much as is possible. Surely a profit could be made,
given people's tastes today, on Yosemite and its competitors.

One of my points is that when the VR is good enough, people should 
abandon their ancient instincts that somehow seeing the "real thing"
is preferable. And that *one* of the reasons for this, besides the
cost, is that the on a completely idealistic basis the property can
be put to so much better use.

Lee