You speak of a large space industry in the future. Even if we can get shipping costs down to $500 per kilogram, what are space inhabitants shipping back to Earth that makes that worthwhile at that price? As far as I can see, space is valuable for telecommunications — which can be done without people in space — and for research. But there is only so much research we can do in space. Once we have that covered, why send additional people there?

When Europeans came to America, there were so many things they could ship back to Europe that it was worth it. What would we economically import from space?

You speak of using hydroponics to grow food in space. Indeed, and they use hydroponics to grow plants in space as a research project. ( NASA Astronauts Are Growing Plants in the International Space Station — but How Do They Water Them? – Green Matters ) Great. But that is a long way from growing all their own food.

To be self-sustaining, they would need to grow all their own food through a biosystem that would feed on their waste and whatever other ingredients they supply. If those other ingredients come from Earth using rocket fuel from the Earth, the colony is not self-sustaining. And if those other ingredients come from trips to the moon and asteroids, how can we possibly expect such trips to come back with enough nitrogen, carbon, phosphorus, calcium, and all the other materials that plants use? ( see Stranded Resources | Do the Math ) And not only that, but space inhabitants must somehow create enough fuel to supply the next two-way trip. Otherwise, it is not self-sustaining.

OK, maybe we don’t try to make it self-sustaining, but we use the model of when Europeans colonized America. So, the people in space trade with Earth. If they had enough exports to Earth to justify all we send up to them in the supply missions, then yes, this could be a profitable endeavor. What are the odds that we will get a civilization in space that ever gives enough back to Earth so that the Earth breaks even with what it provides to space?

If we ever ran out of room on Earth, we might want to find a way to live in space. But why let it get to that point? If the Earth maxes out at say 9 billion people, and we find a way to support another 1 billion people on the moon, great, I guess. We now have 10 billion instead of 9 billion. But if those people on the moon are a massive drain on Earth’s resources, while giving little back to Earth, why do that? Why not just stop at 9 billion?

Living in Antarctica or under the ocean would be far easier, safer, and more economical than living in space. If we ever ran out of room on Earth, those might be better places to build future condos.

I already covered all this.

It devolves into just two facts:

Space colonization requires two phases.

Phase one is to get the cost-per-kilogram-to-orbit down. I think studies show it needs to be about $500 for large space industry to be profitable; even SpaceX has failed to honestly achieve that target despite claiming to, since its launches are covertly subsidized, hiding the true CtO; Blue Origin is closer but still not there. That addresses the home supply stage you mention.

Phase two is to use Phase One to get it to no longer need it. That is, to set up mining, agriculture, and manufacturing in space (moons, asteroids, lagrange zones) because that bypasses the cost of climbing a gravity well (this also means planetary colonization is not likely a part of Phase Two because that adds gravity wells back in, needlessly increasing costs again; planetary colonies might be Phase Three but possibly that will never be needed at all).

-:-

The biosphere experiment was practically a scam so is useless data. It was never properly set up to do what it was supposed to and had none of the requisite support. But it’s also not a relevant design.

The problem B2 faced was maintaining atmosphere, but in a realistic space colony program that would be mined (we’d get the gasses from space mining, for example, and just haul them in at a regular clip). We would not depend on a self-sustaining agrosystem; the only agrosystems needed will serve only one end: food production, which can be done with supplied and compartmented hydroponics, not the biosphere method (which was to try and “recreate” Earth ecosystems; no space colony would ever do that, it’s the least efficient method of growing food in space, it would all be industrialized). At the very least, carbon scrubbing might be accomplished by algae tanks, which might double as a food source, but this would be a straight-input-output factory system, it would not look anything like what B2 was trying to do.

Indeed, the things that actually went wrong on B2 can’t happen in space (e.g. chemical reactions with the concrete foundation; space cities will not be made with concrete) except for the mismanagement and insufficient funding, which are obviously solvable problems.

Actually, we know that space is survivable with a big enough supply hose. The closest we have to a survivable space station for an extended period of time is the International Space Station. It requires eight resupply launches a year to keep it supplied. We use 2750 tons of fuel a year to launch the vehicles to resupply it. We spend about $1M per day per occupant to keep people there. See 2025: A Space Absurdity | Do the Math . That is in no sense proof that space is survivable anywhere close to economically and without constant resupply from outside.

If the goal is to demonstrate survivability in space, we need to show that people can remain in an enclosed space for an extended period with no outside replenishment beyond what is available in space. If an experiment of this kind begins with a station with a supply of food and charged batteries, it must end with the food and batteries in a comparable state. The one substantial attempt to do something like this, Biosphere 2, was a complete failure. Yes, perhaps we could do better if we put our best scientists on it, but we haven’t. I personally doubt we could do it with any reasonable investment. See Biosphere Theatrics | Do the Math .

So, if we really want to live in space, then let’s begin with a test of a self-contained enclosure on Earth of any size and see if we can do it. At least if it is on Earth, people can open the door and walk out if things go wrong.

If we can do that, then let’s see if we can get it small enough and reliable to launch it into space with people in it.

My guess is that such a study would not be worth the cost in today’s world. And, if we ever end up in a situation where we absolutely need space survival as part of our human strategy, we certainly won’t be able to afford it then.

a) Hydrogen does not require oil. It requires energy. It’s just a portable fuel that has to be produced just like gasoline, which also doesn’t make itself (you can’t drive cars on crude oil). This is why I described a hydrogen economy as based on “solar, wind, and nuclear.” When it becomes cheaper to make hydrogen fuels with nuclear power than to refine oil into fuels from mines and refineries, we will switch. That’s how economics works. It’s why we aren’t running ships on coal or driving cars with horses today.

b) “Wet-bulb temperatures are likely to exceed respiration rates of pretty much everything land-based” is simply 100% false. Don’t purvey bullshit here. Please. The Earth has had thriving land-based life with global warming far, far higher than human climate warming will ever approach—which is only a few average degrees centigrade, compared to a dozen degrees centigrade during the hottest paleo-biospheres.

And within a hundred years we will likely be reversing this with nuclear atmospheric converters anyway. Because when the problem becomes large enough people cannot ignore it anymore, then they will start spending what it costs to fix it—too late to right all the damage it will have by then wrought, and at greater cost than would have been required had they not acted so stupidly, but nevertheless. Because this is what has happened in every other case of global environmental concern (e.g. I discuss in the article lead poisoning; as also the bullshit claims about mass starvation). Which, incidentally, as always, will create jobs and sustain economic growth.

c) “We are a lot closer to this reality then most realize.” No we aren’t. Everything you just said is bullshit. Check the actual sources. Repeating bullshit like this is exactly what my article is warning you against. Stop that. Actually check your facts—reliably.

d) “All still require oil inputs.” Please read the article you claim to be commenting on. Especially what it says (and links to) about alternative energy sources like nuclear—as well as others (solar, wind, hydro, geothermal) and the exploitation of space (e.g. orbital solar; off-planet nuclear).

e) You seem to be the one who doesn’t know what you are talking about—and didn’t even read the article you are commenting on, as it already debunked several false claims you made (such as that nuclear power doesn’t exist or that anthropogenic global warming will even approach much less exceed that enjoyed by previous biospheres).

f) “You err greatly not being informed of these identified limitations and dependencies.” My article actually addresses all of that and proves it either false or irrelevant. Read the article. Don’t just skim it and pretend you know what it said.

g) I never said anything was easy. To the contrary, I said there would be hardships, and it is those hardships that warrant early action rather than late (quote, “This does not mean we can just ignore shit.”). And we actually do know what we can do: we literally already have the tech. All we have to do is divert costs to it instead of the current regime. As we did when we shifted from charcoal to coal, and from coal to petroleum, and from gas to electric. The difficulties will be no different than then. This tells me, again, that you didn’t read the article you claim to be commenting on.

h) “There are countless pollutants that have gone up and not gone down.” That isn’t relevant. You seem not to even understand what the debate is about even, much less what my article is saying. The issue is not whether pollutants are going up, or will ever go up. The issue is whether they will continue to go up “forever,” which past history proves false. I give several examples proving the point. You clearly did not read my article. I actually mention “micro-plastics,” for example. Read the article before commenting next time.

i) “Food production does decline with hotter temperatures.” Not globally. You are confusing local changes in productivity with global net productivity. Global warming will only move bread belts north and south. It will not “eliminate” them. This, too, I discussed in the article you lazily and incompetently didn’t read.

j) “Space is dead and non-habitable.” False. Unless you didn’t notice, Earth is in space. It’s not dead and non-habitable. We already have built our own artificial space habitats and have the tech to expand them and make them self-sustainable and base them almost anywhere. The only barrier has been willingness to invest in them. Eventually that financial will will exist—precisely when we need to invest in it. That’s how economics works. And it’s inevitable. As for the energy cost, read the article you lazily and incompetently didn’t read. I cover that.

k) This “must be solved quite rapidly – or we will go extinct.” This is 100% bullshit. I have a whole section on the extinction claim being bullshit. One you clearly didn’t read. Likewise, you clearly didn’t read my article because in it I agree we have a crisis to solve and sooner would be better—but not because of “extinction.” That is a bullshit exaggeration that actually encourages people to not take seriously what has to actually be done. You are destroying your own cause by making it look ridiculous and easily refutable.

You need to stop shooting yourself in the face like this and get on to doing what actually has to be done: make a factually accurate case for why action is needed. The costs in treasure and harm from inaction will be real; but they won’t be this exaggerated bullshit. Stop selling bullshit. That leads people to think our call for action is also bullshit, because it is based on a bullshit premise. So dump the bullshit premise. Pick up the actually true premise, and argue from that. My article is all about this, and hence even concludes with the line, “There are honest and productive ways to promote needed change on greenhousing. Please use those instead.” Read the fucking article.

I wonder if you realize the following:

a) Hydrogen does not make itself, it requires oil to be produced, processed, stored, transported, etc. Hydrogen is not actually a fuel source either.

b) Wet-bulb temperatures are likely to exceed respiration rates of pretty much everything land-based. Humans, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, etc. Mass extinctions will result should this occur. So will mass starvation (long before wet-bulb temperatures kill us off) as food crops will virtually disappear. Most life is projected to disappear from the world’s oceans. We have already eaten our way through the majority of edible fish and critical levels of depletion of fish stocks have been measured throughout the world.

c) We are a lot closer to this reality then most realize, and projected to vastly exceed this biological temperature limit. At 4C increase, we’re already doomed, while projections and current trajectory indicate we are going to accelerate past 8.5C warming and even higher. In your lifetime.

d) Alternative energy sources are also not fuel sources. All still require oil inputs (and corresponding carbon emissions) for energy production. Alternative energy sources still don’t mine, process, smelt, assemble, transport or build the vast majority of minerals and ore that is produced to make the machinery of civilization (including alternate energy power). Nor does alternative energy produce the majority of the world’s dwindling food supplies. There is no reason to think that it ever will either.

e) You exhibit a profound lack of comprehension of the complexities and dependency of a world powered by oil energy. You also do not grasp the severity of deadly climate change and what it will actually mean for biological survival (not just human).

f) Since the publication to the Limits To Growth, enormous amounts of knowledge have been acquired about resource consumption and waste, energy sources and supplies, pollution and the effects industrialization have had upon the climate. You err greatly not being informed of these identified limitations and dependencies.

g) Nothing is “easily replaceable” as you supposed. Civilization was built with abundant and cheap resources, all of which has now been consumed. It is not only significantly more costly to build the same items as before, it’s also becoming more difficult to obtain the same essential resources required. Even outer space does not offer humanity a “resource” as supposed without great expense. You pose these claims without evidence, or as a technologist would without understanding the dependencies and energy requirements involved. It would be too easy to just say “it’s never been done” but it’s worth reminding your readers of this simple fact. We do NOT know that it can be done, in time, before the world runs out, overheats, or fails from some other reason. All are actually likely, all are actually happening right now, vs. the futuristic but empty promises you’ve supposed.

h) There are countless pollutants that have gone up and not gone down. Micro-plastics are now ubiquitous and found even in newborn infants and the remotest, deepest regions on the planet far from civilization and human impacts. Toxins exist everywhere and are still rising.

i) Food production does decline with hotter temperatures, so does protein (nutrition) content with major grain crops. This is already a present day problem. The effects of drought, extreme weather events, declining availability of essential fertilizers and phosphorous, and lack of distribution has shown to be critical weak points in the world’s food production. Present studies are predicting severe food shortages, not the abundance that you’ve proclaimed.

j) Space is dead and non-habitable, requiring enormous energy inputs and the efforts of an entire civilization to just minutely explore for exceedingly brief periods of time by a tiny few, let alone extract resources from. Space and what lies on and between the planets does not offer humankind salvation, only exploration at great costs and resource expense. Space is at present, another empty technological promise that will not deliver as proclaimed. Meanwhile, urgent and severe problems back here on Earth continue to worse, with the promises of space exploration unable to solve in any measurable way.

k) Chicken Little scare tactics aside, the resource and energy problems facing humanity are quite serious. Combined with deadly climate change (no hyperbole here) and humankind has a severe challenge that must be solved quite rapidly – or we will go extinct. This is not like the resource wars of the pasts, or the over-exploitation of the localized environment in our own history, this is a global, all-consuming problem of the utmost importance. We are in a crisis, what should be called an extinction-level event in reality that is unfolding on a single generation of people (the young) who will face a horrific unsurvivable reality if we continue to adequately grasp the actual reality unfolding right now.

THAT is the what people need to “get on board with”. What this actually means for the survival of our entire species – not just our own children.

He is if he argues “since it’s obvious that Manhattan isn’t under water, climate change is false.” And if he doesn’t argue that, what relevance is his video here? If it just repeats my own point, then it’s redundant and we don’t need to watch it. If it makes that crank argument, then I’ve already refuted it and we don’t need to watch it. So what is the point of it? Why is it being cited here? Does it helpfully add to my point? Or does it just repeat it? I think it’s just not been articulated clearly enough why this video is being linked here.

Same way pre-modern societies did it. You convert wood to charcoal. Then use the charcoal in a properly constructed furnace with a billows. The Bessemer Furnace has actually been in use in various forms since the 11th century, long before fossil fuels were employed and Bessemer patented his version. But you also don’t need a Bessemer to forge steel. It’s only a process for making steel that is more efficient. Humans have been making steel for almost four thousand years, without Bessemer-style furnaces. And in a post-apocalyptic future, we will be able to skip the three thousand years of crucible and bloomery techniques, because knowledge of Bessemer techniques will remain available. We will jump right back in to high efficiency steelmaking within a generation.

You also don’t “need” steel to scale energy sources, so you don’t “need” Bessemer furnaces. A working steam engine was developed by Hero in the first century, with fully adequate metallurgy and fitting precision (I discuss this in The Scientist in the Early Roman Empire, index), all without steel (though he had steel, and if motivated, could have used it). And a simple nuclear reactor is just another steam engine. Likewise a solar thermal generator. None of these things require steel. They benefit from it. Not the same thing.

FYI, Richard, the Youtuber potholer54 is not a crank. Not in the least. I’ve been subscribed to him for many years.