Quote Originally Posted by halfeye View Post
What I was and am saying is that there shouldn't be measuring contests in space. Space colonisation is about humans in space, and eventually it should be about all humans in space being their own nation to start with, if they have any national allegiance at all, which they probably shouldn't and wouldn't have.
On the contrary, I would expect a national consciousness to form due to shared interest; those living in space would face challenges which those on earth simply don't; unique environmental challenges would result in unique culture, unique customs, and would probably result in a demand for self government. To put this in terrestrial terms, it isn't a brilliant idea for civilians living in Anchorage to have all their rules set by people living in Honolulu.

Then, too, there's the simple fact of gravity. People born in lunar or orbital gravity probably *can't* come down to Earth and take their seats in a governing body. Likewise, if governing the Moon or an L5 satellite means eventual loss of conditioning for earth-gravity, politicians from earth will be extremely reluctant to make that trip. They'll either exile their no-hopers to permanently live in space -- which will not make the orbital people happy -- or else the Terran administration will be short-term, a series of revolving-door executives who are for the most part ceremonial while the real work is done by long-service deputies born in space.

Barring artificial gravity or some other method of allowing humans to permanently transition between orbital space and earth without long-term ill effects, autonomy, probably independence, is all but certain for the people living there. It's just not going to be feasible for a Terran-based government to govern them effectively.

Although perhaps autonomy is more likely than independence; unless and until we can find some way to be self-sufficient in space Earth has a lock on things like water, oxygen, and food needed by the orbital peoples. In historic terms, this is called a hydraulic empire. Historically, water empires were among the most absolute despotisms because the governing authorities had a monopoly on water, and could simply turn it off if anyone was rebellious. This meant rebellion was nearly impossible, and the resulting state was near-absolute in its authority.

Still, it seems unlikely that the orbital people would submit to any kind of despotism for long. For one thing, the gravity issue means the earth-based government can't govern effectively. For another, both the moon and LEO are on the top of a gravity well. It's easier to drop stuff like rocks down on Earth than it is to lift weapons back up the gravity well without being intercepted.

So: The earthlings can't effectively govern orbit but can literally strangle orbit with an embargo. The orbitals can conduct terror bombings but they'll never have the ability to *conquer* earth. Again, the gravity would weaken them. Also, they would never, ever have the numbers.

This implies some sort of detente between mutually autonomous states; neither has the power to conquer the other but equally each has something the other needs. This implies periods of peace interspersed with the occasional turf-dispute war and maybe the occasional decades long period when one dominates the other. But ultimately the stable outcome must be mutual interdependence and autonomy between separate peoples. Not unity either through brotherly love or military conquest.

For this discussion I am indebted to The Man Who Pulled Down the Sky , by John Barnes, and The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress , by. R.A. Heinlein. Both put a lot of thought into this sort of thing. Yeah, Heinlein's a nut but when he's talking space and not politics he's well worth listening to.

Respectfully,

Brian P.