> > IMHO that is only wishful thinking in your part!
>
> no its commercial thinking... this has happened in the past in many many areas and it
> will happen again in this area.

Well, IMHO your optimistic position may not be sufficient to execute such a commercial space program!

> > It makes good PR, but the issues associated with
> > safety, liabilities, finger pointing, etc, etc,
> > are all going against your position...
>
> All the same was said about aircraft flight in the beginning and you say 'etc, etc' in
> such a glib way as if there is a mountain of evidence in only your favour.

Of course there is a lot of evidence in my position. In any transportation (air, sea or lan) systems on Earth, you are moving people from point A to point B. In space, there is no point B! LOL

This is the main problem. We would have to first "build" one or more point B's that can sustain life and the international space station is a very weak first stage on that direction. Even that require international cooperation and a lot of politics...

> Open the other eye, there is evidence in my favour too...

If could elaborate on the evidence inyour favor I would be happy to comment on it, but I don't see any right now!

> the example I have given about the early aircraft industry is a very good one,

It is NOT a good one since, as I have mentioned above, there are no practical "destinations" (point in space! That is so obvious that it amazes me that you can't see it!

> but you have given no example of 'issues associated with safety, liabilities, finger
> pointing, etc, etc' holding technology and commerce back over a period of say 100 years.
> In fact this is a business opportunity, WHEN the prices come down... I'll be doing it.

Maybe when you are 200 years old you will be doing it

or maybe it is in a different life time...

Seriously, it has taken us about 50 years or so to get to here now in terms of space exploration and it is becoming more and more obvious that the present socio-economic debt based system is hitting a wall in terms of scalability, so what evidence do you have that makes you believe that space exploration can become commercially viable in your life time? The human spirit!?

> > > Then when the commercial sector can deal with
> > > getting people in to space, NASA the
> > > ESA and others can concentrate on solving the
> > > next level of problems, inter solar travel.
> >
> > No within a debt based socio-economic system with
> > the present growing energy costs! IMHO your
> > idealism is not real in terms of execution!!!
>
> Good sound bite, no fact. In my experience your pessimism is not real in terms of the
> real world, and as I've said above you haven't given any examples (and no strawmen
> please if you decide to)

First of all, realism is NOT pessimism, it is a THIRD state in between the middle of optimism (+) and pessimism (-). I am more of a "realist" not a pessimist!

Also, there is no "strawmen" or "tinman" here!

In summary, pessimism is not realism, but optimism is not realism either! Realism is realism... LOL

> > but what is different now is that the socio-economic models
> > that we have been using for these last few
> > centuries are going exponential and, therefore,
> > can no longer scale as is in the 21st century.
> > Note that all the data supports my more
> > "realistic" position on this vs. your idealism!
>
> Again I need evidence of what you say,

For crying out loud, look at any of the USA debt based charts that the Fed publishes! In addition, look at what is happening with the infrastructures in the USA which are also starting to get old, like in Europe, but most states, counties and cities here in the USA are all pretty much broke and can't afford to fix them! So now they have new laws here where they can just take the land from the people and give it to the commercial developers to make a bigger mess! I guess this is their way to fix the budget problem!!!

So, do you really think that this "transition" will go smooth?

> though the socio-economic model has changed everything you are saying about
> the future is based on supposition.

Of course, any and all future telling us based on certain assumption and suppositions. I am just extrapolating the present reality in logical way...

> Again putting yourself on the pedistal of being in the 'realistic' possition, whilst
> kicking me in to the possition of idealist seems harsh.

I am not kicking any one! If you feel that you are being kicked, then I don't know what to say about that!!!

> > > From a personal perspective as well, I don't
> > > think society is quite ready to explode
> > > in on itself at the moment.
> >
> > Well there are some significant global
> > socio-economic changes going on right now. For
> > example, for these last 5+ years, China and
> > India's economies have grown much, much faster in
> > real terms than USA and Europe...
>
> Is this really a problem?

Well, it is an issue of natural resources and how they can sustain everyone's growth without some significant changes to the socio-economic models! It seems straight and forward logic to me...

> Those economies NEED to grow to support the peoples of the said countries. Have you
> Visited India? I have? Have you visited China? I'm exceptionally well travelled and
> I've seen some horrendous poverty. Maybe thats why I'm an optimist (note not an
> idealist...

Mike, there is nothing wrong of being an optimist. I was just saying that optimism is not realism. Ther is optimism (+), then there is realism (0) and then there is pessimism (-). It is a tri-state and not a dualistic state!!!

> an idealist bases their thinking on ideals.... I'm not doing that, I'm saying comercial
> forces will win out, I've got a degree in business studies so I can agrue this point if
> you wish). I've seen terrible poverty but I've also seen the strength of the human
> spirit.

IMHO there are idealists that are optimist and idealists that are pessimist, but an idealist is usually at odds with a realist due to the reference being used. Your reference, as you have stated, is that commercial forces will win out, my reference is that natural forces will win out... Now tell me, which one is more realistic?

> > So there is a global shift of economic power going on...
>
> yes as I've said... and I don't think more influence and power going to third world
> contries is necessarily a bad thing.

I didn't say that it was a bad or good thing! Not everything is either good or bad, some things just are what they are...

> > > I think today it will only really be
> > > noticeable by a shift in power, ideas and information,
> > > and not by the bloody upsurges of the past.
> >
> > I don't know about that since History tends to
> > repeat it self over and over again, it is always
> > the same old story to a certain extend, but with
> > different players. The game of life...
>
> Actually the old 'history repeats itself' is over used.

You mean it is used, over and over again?

> On a small scale it is true, and I think it shows just how much of an animal
> the human being is, and how much instict is in the genes so to speak.

That's what I am saying...

> However, that old saying doesn't really work on a large scale... we always keep making
> some progress (even if we cause damage in other areas)

Interesting, so you can only see progress at the macro level and not the degeneration! This is fascinating to me!!!

> Now go on WG, turn that frown upside down

OK, here it does...

> If you are always glumly looking at the floor, ok you might avoid some of the dog
> muck, but you'll never see the wonders of the sky (and clean shoes are over-rates!)

Well, the problem here is that I am actually looking at the sky and I see it falling down...

..but, ultimately that is still a very good thing I suppose...

+-wirelessguru1