Five years in the making, and less than 2 months until the book comes out. Yikes!
Just finished reading my advcopy of 'A City on Mars'. A must-read! I believe successful long-term space settlement is not years to decades away but centuries to millenia; the Weinersmiths explain why and lay out the challenges we must (and I believe eventually will) overcome.
A CITY ON MARSby Kelly Weinersmith and Zach WeinersmithEarth is not well. The promise of starting life anew somewhere far, far away—no climate change, no war, no Twitter—beckons, and settling the stars finally seems within our grasp. Or is it? Critically acclaimed, bestselling authors Kelly and Zach Weinersmith set out to write the essential guide to a glorious future of space settlements, but after years of research, they aren’t so sure it’s a good idea. Space technologies and space business are progressing fast, but we lack the knowledge needed to have space kids, build space farms, and create space nations in a way that doesn’t spark conflict back home. In a world hurtling toward human expansion into space, A City on Mars investigates whether the dream of new worlds won’t create nightmares, both for settlers and the people they leave behind. In the process, the Weinersmiths answer every question about space you’ve ever wondered about, and many you’ve never considered.“Scientific, educational, and fun as hell.”— Andy Weir, New York Times bestselling author of The Martian and Project Hail Mary“There is simply no more engrossing, entertaining, or thorough way to understand the intense challenge of humanity's off-Earth future than A City on Mars. I LAUGHED THE WHOLE WAY THROUGH.”— Hank Green, New York Times bestselling author of An Absolutely Remarkable Thing“Listen up, humans. How to poop in space will be the least of our concerns. Herein are challenges most space-heads, including me, never even considered: not just technological, but legal, ethical, geopolitical. Despite the breadth and depth of research and some impressive near-wonk-level detail, this is a clear, lively, and hilarious read. Slam dunk, Weinersmiths!”— Mary Roach, New York Times bestselling author of Fuzz and Packing for Mars"A City on Mars is deeply researched, hilarious, and sobering. Zach and Kelly Weinersmith have given us a bracing to-do list for the new age of space. Highly, highly recommended.”— James S.A. Corey, author of The Expanse series
You have questions about space, @ZachWeiner and @FuSchmu have answers. Join them for a @reddit_AMA tomorrow at 12pm ET! @Reddit
Thanks to @peterrhague for taking the time to review A City on Mars. Here is @ZachWeiner and my response:
Peter Hague's the critic of the book, part two: https://planetocracy.substack.com/p/review-of-a-city-on-mars-part-iiIt's increasing clear to me that this recent surge of anti-space settlement literature is nothing but a symptom of EDS.
Review by Robert Zubrin:https://quillette.com/2023/12/04/why-we-should-go-to-mars/No surprise, he’s not a fan!
Quote from: thespacecow on 11/28/2023 02:07 amPeter Hague's the critic of the book, part two: https://planetocracy.substack.com/p/review-of-a-city-on-mars-part-iiIt's increasing clear to me that this recent surge of anti-space settlement literature is nothing but a symptom of EDS.If you mean so-called "Elon Derangement Syndrome" (EDS), then you are absolutely wrong.The idea of space settlement has been around for a lot longer than the period of time since SpaceX (i.e. Elon Musk) actually started looking like it might be able to somehow play a part in future space settlement.However remember that SpaceX itself has only ever been pitched as a low-cost transportation entity to ENABLE space settlements (starting with Mars), so opinions about whether space settlements can succeed are completely separate from the ability to move people and cargo to space settlements.For instance, we have had the ability to move people and cargo to locations under water here on Earth for decades, but despite predictions that we would have cities under the oceans, it hasn't happened.Personally I WANT space settlement to happen, and I WANT humans to expand out into space. And I am always looking for facts, information and opinion that can help make that happen.Apparently this book may not be a source of facts or information to make help that happen, but that doesn't mean I won't stop doing what I can to support future space settlement.My $0.02
...It’s a really stupid trend, and people who do this sort of reactionary thing have lost a lot of my respect (it shows how much their thought and logic process is influenced by political fads and peer pressure). But Musk doesn’t really do space settlement any favors by engaging in politically charged culture war stuff, either.
"Elon Derangement Syndrome"
I think that’s somewhat naive. There’s a lot of unknowns in this topic, and a lot of the impetus for it is, shall we say, aspirational. That means that in a lot of ways, the conclusion is influenced by who or what sources they choose to use.
For instance, they pick Duedney as a kind of expert on space settlement because he wrote a book about it. But Duedney is 100% not an expert in any of these technical questions! He’s a social science expert in *checks notes* international relations, and he wrote a screed against space settlement that was borderline racist (if it’s possible to be racist against future “races”) against future space settlers, calling them “monstrous.” But this is treated as a serious critique! There are several other instances of this sort of thing. The most subjective aspects are treated as authoritative experts. And a lot of this critique didn’t exist pre-Musk.
I think the authors are being sort of sincere here. But I think they’re biased by the ideological circles they run in (which to be clear, I also sort of do).
There has been a huge influx of social science folks who haven’t the slightest clue about the technical aspects of space flight and have very little interest in engaging with the space settlement community on friendly terms who are treated as experts on the topic when their primary motivation for discussing the topic at all is explicitly ideological, ie “critiquing settler colonialism in the space settlement discourse” sort of thing. It’s a sort of laundering of credentials. And I think a lot of well-meaning people buy into it, unfortunately.
Peter Hague has the first part of a review up on his substack now....https://planetocracy.substack.com/p/review-of-a-city-on-mars-part-i
The most detailed treatment of the issue comes from international relations scholar Dr. Daniel Deudney and his book Dark Skies: Space Expansionism, Planetary Geopolitics, and the Ends of Humanity. It’s an involved argument, but the basic idea is this: humans being what we are, the move into space creates at least two forms of existential peril: the risk of nuclear conflict on Earth due to a scramble for space territory, and the risk of heavy objects being thrown at Earth if humans are allowed to control things like asteroids and massive orbital space stations.
The Weinersmiths treat all their experts rather kindly. But, frankly, reading between the lines, there is a thick streak of libertarianism running through the space settlement community. From these experts' position, they need a really big telescope to see reality. For instance, supposedly space will end scarcity… and yet, any habitat in space will naturally have only a single source of food, water, and, even more urgent, oxygen, creating (perhaps artificial) scarcity. The idea seems to be that everyone will go to space for profit, except for the necessities of life, where we will all be caring and sharing. The magical thinking is more apparent when you realize that it is believed that encountering the vastness of space will make humanity ultra-altruistic, while still being good capitalists. I have my doubts that this philosophy will work out well for anyone involved. In a more realistic take on how societies function when there is only one source for the vitals of life, the Weinersmiths draw on the experiences (positive and negative) of company towns. It’s not all bad: Some company towns were very well run and fair, while others could have been dedicated as a shrine to tin-pot dictatorships. There is no reason, the Weinersmiths argue, to think we will not see the same in space, with the added benefit of not being able to escape from the company towns.
I liked this part from the Ars Technica article:QuoteThe Weinersmiths treat all their experts rather kindly. But, frankly, reading between the lines, there is a thick streak of libertarianism running through the space settlement community. From these experts' position, they need a really big telescope to see reality. For instance, supposedly space will end scarcity… and yet, any habitat in space will naturally have only a single source of food, water, and, even more urgent, oxygen, creating (perhaps artificial) scarcity. The idea seems to be that everyone will go to space for profit, except for the necessities of life, where we will all be caring and sharing. The magical thinking is more apparent when you realize that it is believed that encountering the vastness of space will make humanity ultra-altruistic, while still being good capitalists. I have my doubts that this philosophy will work out well for anyone involved. In a more realistic take on how societies function when there is only one source for the vitals of life, the Weinersmiths draw on the experiences (positive and negative) of company towns. It’s not all bad: Some company towns were very well run and fair, while others could have been dedicated as a shrine to tin-pot dictatorships. There is no reason, the Weinersmiths argue, to think we will not see the same in space, with the added benefit of not being able to escape from the company towns.This a great example of how the silicon valley tech bro mindset takes over these types of things and doesn't consider all of the other human aspects like psychology, social issues, etc. They believe that technology will be the solution for basically everything. Extremely flawed logic.
I think humanity's control of reproduction means that it can serve as a way to create a new population center, and provide a slow increase of available quality living space.
Quote from: lamontagne on 01/15/2024 03:22 pmI think humanity's control of reproduction means that it can serve as a way to create a new population center, and provide a slow increase of available quality living space.How would that happen?Note that on Earth there have been a number of countries that have sought to increase reproductive rates, mainly through financial incentives like tax breaks. I'm pretty sure that none of these have worked. So how do you think it would work in space?
...I think I mostly agree with the authors:1) Go big, small won't work.2) Space settlement is not a plan B. It may eventually turn into one in the longest time.3) Non rotating space stations are not going to be very popular destination, or high volume.4) Radiation protection is absolutely required as soon as you leave LEO.5) The Moon and Mars surfaces are not the best places to live.6) Space powder beamed to Earth probably won't work as a revenue source.7) Space mining is risky at best, and mostly makes sense for space settlements, not for the Earth, which already has plenty of everything. Space will not solve the Earth's problems. But it can help a bit....
In Quebec, where I have actual numbers, the population growth rate decreased dramatically as the available land area was filled up.
Quote from: lamontagne on 01/15/2024 07:05 pmIn Quebec, where I have actual numbers, the population growth rate decreased dramatically as the available land area was filled up. My limited understanding of this issue is that the primary factor in reduced reproduction rates is female education--where women were educated, reproduction rates dropped dramatically. Of course there are a lot of sub-factors in that relationship, but it is apparently the primary one.I see several big problems with reproductive rates on a space settlement. The first is that children are incredibly resource intensive, and are not productive until at least their teens. If a settlement decides that it is okay to send children off to toil in the thorium mines of Mars when they turn 13, that still leaves 12 years of them using resources on Mars. From a simple resource-utilization standpoint, an adult who is productive for 12 years while using resources is a better bet, so what incentive does the settlement have to actually support children? In addition, another factor is whether people producing offspring will believe that those offspring will be healthy. If you think that a child might be born malformed due to radiation, would you risk it? So it seems that in order to have a settlement actually produce children would require a high level of development, both to support them, but also to assure that they would be healthy.
"Company town" isn't the only way to do things. I think Svalbard should be looked at as a better model.
Quote from: lamontagne on 01/15/2024 03:22 pm...I think I mostly agree with the authors:1) Go big, small won't work.2) Space settlement is not a plan B. It may eventually turn into one in the longest time.3) Non rotating space stations are not going to be very popular destination, or high volume.4) Radiation protection is absolutely required as soon as you leave LEO.5) The Moon and Mars surfaces are not the best places to live.6) Space powder beamed to Earth probably won't work as a revenue source.7) Space mining is risky at best, and mostly makes sense for space settlements, not for the Earth, which already has plenty of everything. Space will not solve the Earth's problems. But it can help a bit....I mostly agree with these points.Some of these are highly subjective, though. Like #5. Some people REALLY LIKE the desert. Or living on a mountain. Or living in Minnesota or Iceland. Humanity can *make* places nice to live, and a ton of whether it's nice or not is subjective. Yes, probably most people would like a Mediterranean climate or northern California weather. Not everyone!#6... I agree with the "probably," but I also think it's becoming possible. For instance, I believe it's possible for SBSP to compete with terrestrial nuclear power. This is worth a shot. The O'Neillians are too dependent on space mining and SBSP as rationales. I think the Muskian "because it's cool" is more durable.I also think the radiation situation is not that bad on Mars. I think the radiation risk is usually exaggerated.
There are so many contradictions in the advocacy for space settlement, like this belief that it's going to be very open and democratic, except that anybody who freeloads will be using up valuable resources and will probably get pushed out an airlock (when you think about how many limited resources would go into supporting a prisoner in a jail, capital punishment may be applied to many crimes). And the whole argument about infinite resources is out of whack, ignoring the fact that many basic resources, like air and water, will be hard to obtain. It's a very utopian and naive vision.
I don't think there will be Thorium mines on Mars, or anything involving children's work I think you make the point quite well that for resource mining there is no interest in families. Ideally, no humans at all.You don't need to use humans for labor work, it's the most absurd waste of their potential. A human can output at best a few
[...] at least for a long period of time, anybody who goes to a space settlement is going to have to work, they are going to have to produce.
Quote from: Blackstar on 01/15/2024 10:56 pm[...] at least for a long period of time, anybody who goes to a space settlement is going to have to work, they are going to have to produce.This assumes most resources consumed in a settlement are produced at the settlement. What's the evidence that will be the case? Couldn't wealthy immigrants use their Earth-dollars to purchase transport of goods from Earth to the settlement? Even easier: a bank wire transfer!Which will be less expensive in the settlement, a kg of pinto beans produced locally, or kg of pinto beans imported from Earth?
This assumes most resources consumed in a settlement are produced at the settlement.
Quote from: lamontagne on 01/15/2024 08:56 pmI don't think there will be Thorium mines on Mars, or anything involving children's work I think you make the point quite well that for resource mining there is no interest in families. Ideally, no humans at all.You don't need to use humans for labor work, it's the most absurd waste of their potential. A human can output at best a few I think you're missing my point, so let me restate it: at least for a long period of time, anybody who goes to a space settlement is going to have to work, they are going to have to produce. That doesn't necessarily mean digging iron ore. They can be doctors, technicians, robot operators, farmers (or hydroponics technicians, if you prefer), spacesuit cleaners, or other useful professions. But there's not going to be much ability to support people who consume scarce resources and don't actually produce anything. That's what will make children hard to incorporate into such a settlement. That also goes back to my earlier comment about what happens with people who break the law. There's going to be a pretty harsh punishment system where anybody who is deemed dangerous may be executed, because keeping them in jail uses up too many resources.
Quote from: sdsds on 01/15/2024 11:46 pmThis assumes most resources consumed in a settlement are produced at the settlement. Did you read beyond that sentence you quoted?
Quote from: sdsds on 01/15/2024 11:46 pmThis assumes most resources consumed in a settlement are produced at the settlement. Did you read beyond that sentence you quoted? It doesn't look like you did. I mentioned a whole bunch of things people could do, like be doctors, technicians, etc. But what they won't be able to do is sit around doing nothing.
I think there will be a number of retirees.
Quote from: lamontagne on 01/16/2024 01:27 amI think there will be a number of retirees.Eventually that seems inevitable. Unless — as in Soylent Green — aging settlers all decide to "return to the home of God." I suppose that decision could also be made by (or for) settlers who experience injuries or other medical conditions which make them no longer able to contribute to the settlement.
This a great example of how the silicon valley tech bro mindset takes over these types of things and doesn't consider all of the other human aspects like psychology, social issues, etc. They believe that technology will be the solution for basically everything. Extremely flawed logic.
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 12/06/2023 07:55 pmQuote from: thespacecow on 11/28/2023 02:07 amPeter Hague's the critic of the book, part two: https://planetocracy.substack.com/p/review-of-a-city-on-mars-part-iiIt's increasing clear to me that this recent surge of anti-space settlement literature is nothing but a symptom of EDS.If you mean so-called "Elon Derangement Syndrome" (EDS), then you are absolutely wrong.The idea of space settlement has been around for a lot longer than the period of time since SpaceX (i.e. Elon Musk) actually started looking like it might be able to somehow play a part in future space settlement.However remember that SpaceX itself has only ever been pitched as a low-cost transportation entity to ENABLE space settlements (starting with Mars), so opinions about whether space settlements can succeed are completely separate from the ability to move people and cargo to space settlements.For instance, we have had the ability to move people and cargo to locations under water here on Earth for decades, but despite predictions that we would have cities under the oceans, it hasn't happened.Personally I WANT space settlement to happen, and I WANT humans to expand out into space. And I am always looking for facts, information and opinion that can help make that happen.Apparently this book may not be a source of facts or information to make help that happen, but that doesn't mean I won't stop doing what I can to support future space settlement.My $0.02You missed his point I think. Of course the idea of space settlement has far preceded Musk. But the current flowering of anti-space-settlement literature (articles and books) is a direct response to billionaires like Musk popularizing it and, to some degree, making it more realistic by founding space launch and technology companies.It’s reactionary. And I think this is correct, at least to some degree. A lot of people who would’ve been “rah, rah, send humans to Mars, that’s so cool” are down on the idea because it’s not NASA leading it as much but instead people they don’t like.It’s a really stupid trend, and people who do this sort of reactionary thing have lost a lot of my respect (it shows how much their thought and logic process is influenced by political fads and peer pressure). But Musk doesn’t really do space settlement any favors by engaging in politically charged culture war stuff, either.
Quote"Elon Derangement Syndrome"Okay, but - unfortunately - it works both way. It has a mirror, reverse syndrome. "Elon can't be wrong, he is a visionary, blah blah blah". The proverbial mote & beam. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mote_and_the_Beam Funny how the fhanbioys imagined EDS and ignored their own EDS : working the opposite way.
Here you go, the complete opposite:https://www.amazon.com/New-World-Mars-Create-Planet/dp/1635768802?keywords=The+New+World+on+Mars&qid=1705190459&sr=8-1&linkCode=sl1&tag=collectspace&linkId=1e5980c32323a5c53362bae5dacc8444&language=en_US&ref_=as_li_ss_tl
Quote from: Blackstar on 01/15/2024 02:34 amHere you go, the complete opposite:https://www.amazon.com/New-World-Mars-Create-Planet/dp/1635768802?keywords=The+New+World+on+Mars&qid=1705190459&sr=8-1&linkCode=sl1&tag=collectspace&linkId=1e5980c32323a5c53362bae5dacc8444&language=en_US&ref_=as_li_ss_tlBlackstar, could you post this as a stand-alone thread? I think it definitely deserves it. I like his books. Uneven quality throughout them, but always interesting and thought-provoking.
Quote from: FutureSpaceTourist on 12/04/2023 06:09 pmReview by Robert Zubrin:https://quillette.com/2023/12/04/why-we-should-go-to-mars/No surprise, he’s not a fan!He's not a fan because he has a logical brain. The authors of the book do not.For me, settling Mars has never been a question of if. It has always been a question of when and how provided we don't destroy ourselves first.
Quote from: Eric Hedman on 01/16/2024 05:32 amQuote from: FutureSpaceTourist on 12/04/2023 06:09 pmReview by Robert Zubrin:https://quillette.com/2023/12/04/why-we-should-go-to-mars/No surprise, he’s not a fan!He's not a fan because he has a logical brain. The authors of the book do not.For me, settling Mars has never been a question of if. It has always been a question of when and how provided we don't destroy ourselves first.He's not a fan and he gets different results because he is working from different premises. There is no point in attacking this book on the quality of the people writing it, this never gets anywhere. It's more valuable to question the quality of the arguments. And this book will sell many more copies than Robert's excellent ones, partly because of the semi informal tone. This could also be used to more effect by advocates, rather than the 'they're not logical' false argument. A lot of the book is factually correct.
Quote from: lamontagne on 01/16/2024 01:34 pmQuote from: Eric Hedman on 01/16/2024 05:32 amQuote from: FutureSpaceTourist on 12/04/2023 06:09 pmReview by Robert Zubrin:https://quillette.com/2023/12/04/why-we-should-go-to-mars/No surprise, he’s not a fan!He's not a fan because he has a logical brain. The authors of the book do not.For me, settling Mars has never been a question of if. It has always been a question of when and how provided we don't destroy ourselves first.He's not a fan and he gets different results because he is working from different premises. There is no point in attacking this book on the quality of the people writing it, this never gets anywhere. It's more valuable to question the quality of the arguments. And this book will sell many more copies than Robert's excellent ones, partly because of the semi informal tone. This could also be used to more effect by advocates, rather than the 'they're not logical' false argument. A lot of the book is factually correct.Illogical conclusions can still be made from from factually correct elements. Assuming problems stated can't be resolved is to ignore the history of human innovation.
There is no point in attacking this book on the quality of the people writing it, this never gets anywhere. It's more valuable to question the quality of the arguments.
Quote from: sdsds on 01/16/2024 03:02 amQuote from: lamontagne on 01/16/2024 01:27 amI think there will be a number of retirees.Eventually that seems inevitable. Unless — as in Soylent Green — aging settlers all decide to "return to the home of God." I suppose that decision could also be made by (or for) settlers who experience injuries or other medical conditions which make them no longer able to contribute to the settlement.The food content of a human is over rated Just general plant production produces huge amounts of non edible biomass. To humans. This biomass can be converted by chickens or fish into much less morally difficult to eat chicken and fillets, by many orders of magnitude. So there is no real gain in eating or composting humans. It might be a ritual, but the effects would be more symbolic than real.
Quote from: lamontagne on 01/16/2024 01:23 pmQuote from: sdsds on 01/16/2024 03:02 amQuote from: lamontagne on 01/16/2024 01:27 amI think there will be a number of retirees.Eventually that seems inevitable. Unless — as in Soylent Green — aging settlers all decide to "return to the home of God." I suppose that decision could also be made by (or for) settlers who experience injuries or other medical conditions which make them no longer able to contribute to the settlement.The food content of a human is over rated Just general plant production produces huge amounts of non edible biomass. To humans. This biomass can be converted by chickens or fish into much less morally difficult to eat chicken and fillets, by many orders of magnitude. So there is no real gain in eating or composting humans. It might be a ritual, but the effects would be more symbolic than real.Yes, clearly the Soylent Green comment should have included a winky-face emoticon. The deeper point about what happens to settlers whose medical condition prevents them from contributing directly to production of the goods and services needed at the settlement is still open. Some likely feel they should be returned to Earth for care. Perhaps some even feel every early settlement inhabitant should rotate through a tour of duty and then return to Earth.On a side note, the non-edible biomass presents ethical issues for vegans! Can it also be fed to worms or something and thus provide additional enriched soil for expanded agriculture?
Yes, clearly the Soylent Green comment should have included a winky-face emoticon. The deeper point about what happens to settlers whose medical condition prevents them from contributing directly to production of the goods and services needed at the settlement is still open. Some likely feel they should be returned to Earth for care. Perhaps some even feel every early settlement inhabitant should rotate through a tour of duty and then return to Earth.On a side note, the non-edible biomass presents ethical issues for vegans! Can it also be fed to worms or something and thus provide additional enriched soil for expanded agriculture?
Quote from: sdsds on 01/16/2024 07:34 pmYes, clearly the Soylent Green comment should have included a winky-face emoticon. The deeper point about what happens to settlers whose medical condition prevents them from contributing directly to production of the goods and services needed at the settlement is still open. Some likely feel they should be returned to Earth for care. Perhaps some even feel every early settlement inhabitant should rotate through a tour of duty and then return to Earth.On a side note, the non-edible biomass presents ethical issues for vegans! Can it also be fed to worms or something and thus provide additional enriched soil for expanded agriculture?You guys have given me the seeds of a great story: Elon Musk sets up a colony on Mars to serve as a retirement community (a great idea suggested in this very thread!). Starships fly to Mars filled with rich retirees, who think that they're going to live out their golden years on Mars.Except... when they arrive, they are immediately turned into food for the real settlers.I'm copyrighting this story.
Ok SDSDS, quick, make a copy of this thread. If Blackstar ever writes his story and sells it as a movie for 1 000 000 $. we can sue the pants off him for prior art
At the end of the book, the Weinersmiths complain about how critics are treated by space advocatesQuoteWe believe a functioning scientific community should welcome dissent that shows up with citations, but in the space-settlement community, people with negative views about aspects of space settlement are sometimes called idiots or “anti-human” or worse.Putting aside the fact that they themselves have not shown up with proper citations, perhaps they should reexamine their own style of discussion before questioning others in this regard? For instance, they suggest people might “hate” their conclusions, rather than disagree with them or find flaw in them - as if their critics must only be driven by emotion.The subtitle of this book really does set the tone - the authors clearly come across as believing they are the first people to really think about these topics. Repeatedly it comes across that they simply haven’t read what people have already written on a topic. For instance, in their response to the first part of this review, they asserted that settlement of Low Earth Orbit couldn’t be done. There is an entire literature on this that they appear to have missed - notably The High Frontier: An Easier Way by Tom Marotta and Al Globus.The future they advocates is a form of highly bureaucratic socialism across the entire solar system. A place where you must ask for permission to do anything of significance, rather than the state (or world government as the Weinersmiths prefer) needing a reason to stop you. All justified by an unreasonable fear that someone somewhere might turn evil and wipe out humanity if they are not continuously monitored and controlled - a sort of perversion of the harm principle where “your rights end where my neuroses begin”. Those offering alternate visions are dismissed as “libertarian” - used here as a slur, and referring to more or less anybody who believes in private property.Overall, A City on Mars is a disappointment - its good for any advocacy group to have critics, in order to make sure they aren’t simply reinforcing their own errors and to sharpen their arguments, but I haven’t found good criticism here. The authors have obviously spent a lot of time researching things of interest to them (space toilet antics for instance) but skipped significant parts of the research, and have clearly not tested their own argumentation against critics.I’ve not had much fun with this review (hence why I took so long to get the last part out). It is unfortunate that the controversy surrounding Elon Musk has given this sort of book fertile ground in the media, who don’t push back against it at all. Hopefully material progress in space will simply make it redundant in a few years.
We believe a functioning scientific community should welcome dissent that shows up with citations, but in the space-settlement community, people with negative views about aspects of space settlement are sometimes called idiots or “anti-human” or worse.
