Book: A City on Mars by Kelly & Zach Weinersmith

[Coastal Ron]

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.

Agreed. I mean, space settlement is still on the edge of fantasy, even with Starship starting testing. There are just too many unknowns to come to firm conclusions for or against.

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.

Yikes, that is bad. But a great example of why it is too early to treat any critiques of space settlement with ANY level of belief. And that is because NO ONE is an "expert" in space settlement.

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).

Well, unless someone is writing a peer-reviewed study, you have to figure that there is some level of bias. I'm certainly biased FOR the idea of space settlement, but that doesn't make me an expert (there, I've said it!! ).

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.

I think it is quite clear that we have found that the authors are not good enough domain experts to render a valid opinion on this topic, so I think we can stop the angst ridden hand-wringing over whether this book represents an attack on so and so, or whoever.

Let's just give it the attention it deserves. None.

How about that?

Next topic...

[Pipcard]

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.

So Deudney's argument is similar to the plot of the anime Mobile Suit Gundam. One of the expository opening scenes shows the fascist Principality of Zeon dropping an O'Neill cylinder on Australia. Stuff like this has convinced a lot of people that space colonization is "the absolute worst idea ever conceived by the human mind" and that 'humans are too arrogant and don't deserve space.'

The creator of Gundam (Yoshiyuki Tomino) has come out as a critic of space colonization/settlement because of "rocket pollution" (even though they currently make up a minuscule fraction of CO2 emissions, even if increased a thousandfold would only be 0.0059%) and according to Renato Rivera Rusca, Tomino apparently gave a presentation to undergraduates that was "very critical of NASA, JAXA, and such organizations."

(I was interested in Gundam several years ago, but after learning that its creator seems to be opposed to all space development and not just warfare, I have no interest in that franchise anymore.)

[Blackstar]

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


The New World on Mars: What We Can Create on the Red Planet
by Robert Zubrin

    When Robert Zubrin published his classic book "The Case for Mars" a quarter century ago, setting foot on the Red Planet seemed a fantasy. Today, manned exploration is certain, and as Zubrin affirms in "The New World on Mars," so too is colonization. From the astronautical engineer venerated by NASA and today's space entrepreneurs, here is what we will achieve on Mars and how.

    SpaceX, Blue Origin, and Virgin Galactic are building fleets of space vehicles to make interplanetary travel as affordable as Old-World passage to America. We will settle on Mars, and with our knowledge of the planet, analyzed in depth by Dr. Zubrin, we will utilize the resources and tackle the challenges that await us. What we will we build? Populous Martian city-states producing air, water, food, power, and more. Zubrin's Martian economy will pay for necessary imports and generate income from varied enterprises, such as real estate sales—homes that are airtight and protect against cosmic space radiation, with fish-farm aquariums positioned overhead, letting in sunlight and blocking cosmic rays while providing fascinating views. Zubrin even predicts the Red Planet customs, social relations, and government — of the people, by the people, for the people, with inalienable individual rights — that will overcome traditional forms of oppression to draw Earth immigrants. After all, Mars needs talent.

    With all of this in place, Zubrin's Red Planet will become a pressure cooker for invention, benefiting humans on Earth, Mars, and beyond. We can create this magnificent future, making life better, less fatalistic. "The New World on Mars" proves that there is no point killing each other over provinces and limited resources when, together, we can create planets.

    Hardcover, ‎320 pages
    Diversion Books (February 20, 2024)
    ISBN-10: 1635768802
    ISBN-13: 978-1635768800

[chopsticks]

I liked this part from the Ars Technica article:

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.

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.

[Blackstar]

I liked this part from the Ars Technica article:

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.

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.

Just scroll up and read the description of Zubrin's new book and you see that mentality--Mars is Nirvana and will be a wonderful place. From the description:


"Zubrin even predicts the Red Planet customs, social relations, and government — of the people, by the people, for the people, with inalienable individual rights — that will overcome traditional forms of oppression to draw Earth immigrants. After all, Mars needs talent... "The New World on Mars" proves that there is no point killing each other over provinces and limited resources when, together, we can create planets."

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.

[lamontagne]

It was an enjoyable read!  well worth the price.  It's not a technical work, just light science vulgarization, so it should be evaluated on that basis.  The fact that it is very popular is perhaps the more interesting result, but as a sociological phenomenon rather that the science in the book itself.

I think I mostly agree with the authors:
Go big, small won't work.
Space settlement is not a plan B. It may eventually turn into one in the longest time.
Non rotating space stations are not going to be very popular destination, or high volume.
Radiation protection is absolutely required as soon as you leave LEO.
The Moon and Mars surfaces are not the best places to live.
Space powder beamed to Earth probably won't work as a revenue source.
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.

Some general thoughts:

Interestingly, although they spend a lot of time on space sex, they fall into the common fallacy that space is not a population relief valve and therefore irrelevant.  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.

I  also agree, and I hope others in this forum do as well,  that the company town model is not correct and not likely to be a success.  Companies hate running company towns anyway, and would much rather do without.  Company towns are a model of the past, not of the future.  The first rotating space station may be a company town or a space hotel, but not the hundredth, or even the tenth.

I think the legal question may be a bit overblown, and since planetary surfaces are an outside possibility, we might avoid much of the possible litigation.

The questions they raise about war are interesting, and I think the point that we might be adding a new way to destroy the Earth, rather than helping to make life multiplanetary, is worth further exploration.  My guess would be that in the future orbital protection systems/departments will include a division tasked with identifying changes in NEAs orbits that might not follow existing 'flight plans'.  Ideally nipping off any attack in the bud before it can build up speed.  This would eventually extend to at least the Kuiper belt, I expect.  Plenty of grunt work for the space patrol :-)

Something like a future Gaia type telescope with adequate computing power behind it should be pretty effective at following changes in orbits.  So in a sense the technologies that make orbital attacks possible would also make prevention possible. As long as we don't have inertialess drives, we should be able to detect any powerful fusion acceleration of small to mid-sized bodies as well.  Putting a HEO settlement into Earth collision orbit is also fairly hard, takes time and is very visible to anybody with a computer and a radio telescope.  Hiding in space is really difficult.

If you are going to spend significant resources to damage the Earth, good old nukes are probably equivalent in simplicity.  And the risk from asteroids seems significantly lower than AI, grey goo or biologicals. These have much lower mass/effort to damage ratio.

There is however a quasi certainty that Earth will eventually become unlivable, so alternatives are a good idea.  but there isn't much urgency on this. 

Regarding governance there are some interesting counter arguments that can be proposed:

The Earth will continue to exist, so Earth may be an escape valve for space settlements, rather than the other way around.
Elon Musk has addressed, up to a point, the question of the company town by saying that the price of a Mars ticket will include the return price.  I.E you can always leave.  This might be built into a space regulation fabric, if need be.  Having a lot of people in space, and many space settlements, also helps.

There is a lot of emphasis in the book on how terrible space is, and how the worst place on Earth is a paradise compared to Mars.  But the worst place on Earth is not a paradise compared to a rotating space station (or a well designed enclosed martian city).  If the space station is pleasant, then it becomes equal to some of the best places on Earth, that are not all that plentiful, and already full of people that like their way of life and their space are not willing to share it with others.  In particular since moving in too many people will ruin the space, kind of destroying the value anyway.

I think anyone who want to propose counter arguments needs to address how a space settlement can be democratic and more universal.  The obvious counter example being the movie Elysium.  If an apartment on a space settlement costs millions of dollars, how can an African peasant hope to buy one?  I think the point needs to be made that, perhaps not in the first space settlement,  but in settlement 100 or settlement 1000, cost will no longer be an object.  This will need to be true in any case, because if the first owner of a settlement apartment needs to be a millionaire, the third generation of his/her descendants will just be ordinary people.  So the millionaires need their children to be able to afford a similar apartment to the one they bought. 

The book, and most models of the future, fail to address what will happen to Earth society in the next few centuries and millennia.  It's a common failing, because it is so hard to do.  Avatar, for example, doesn't show life back on Earth, and although we guess it's really bad, this doesn't make much sense to me, given the capabilities of the technologies illustrated in the movie. 

So I think the book is certainly worth a read, but it's not a very good argument against space settlement.  However, there isn't a good popular counter argument book that has been proposed recently, and unfortunately Hollywood and other media by their very nature emphasize drama, rather than the more boring possibilities of a fine life in a tranquil environment :-)

So perhaps this shows it's time for a new good accessible book on the value of space settlement.

[Blackstar]

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.

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?

[lamontagne]

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.

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?

Human control of their reproductive rates by safe and effective contraception is recent.  We definitively haven't worked out all the details.  However, I think that it should be possible to create an incentive structure that makes it interesting for individuals to at least have the minimum reproductive rate, and something that oscillates around an optimum growth rate overt time.
Some incentives have worked up to a point in Quebec, where  I live, mostly involving improved family care conditions and various types of family support, including a big boost from parental leave for men.  But still it just moved from 1.3 to 1.5, some years 1.6  Ideally, the model shouldn't involve the state at all, and be some kind if socially inbuild control process.  I think that a positive outlook for the future is part of this, since parents want their kids to live in a better future, not a worse one.

[lamontagne]

In Quebec, where I have actual numbers, the population growth rate decreased dramatically as the available land area was filled up.  Not all land, but economically farmable land.  There was a final period where we exported population to the US and heavily favored the institutional solution of nuns and brothers and settled people in marginal areas.  After the world wars, we moved to a situation where the incentives are heavily anti-children, with corporate and employment structures practically punish parents for having kids. Kids are essential for society, in a way they are the reason the society exists in the first place, but they are not optimal for the company/institution that employs the parents.  This is the incentive structure that needs to change, but I can't really propose a method for this due to ignorance.  I can observe, but not necessarily understand :-)

I also think that all the built areas in future space settlements will need to be great places to live, or they will not exist.  It is simpler to send robots and use fly in fly out intervention teams otherwise.  So I see space settlement as an extension of the best places in the world, so that these type of places can be accessible to more people.  My intuition is that for space settlement to work, it will have to attract immigrants, rather than promote high population growth.  And the Earth would be a great source for these immigrants.

[Robotbeat]

...
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.

[Blackstar]

In 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.

[Robotbeat]

"Company town" isn't the only way to do things. I think Svalbard should be looked at as a better model.

[lamontagne]

In 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.

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 hundred watts, and requires food any number of incredibly wasteful facilities.  Robots are so much better, and never complain.
No if we have settlements in space, they will be places mainly to live, and need to offer the best possible quality of life.  Because otherwise, anywhere on Earth is indeed better.  I think that the only settlement that can happen will be human centric, and the production has to be for the humans that go into space in the first place.
If you do not produce children you don't have a settlement, at best you have a work camp.  There's no future in that.

[lamontagne]

"Company town" isn't the only way to do things. I think Svalbard should be looked at as a better model.

Looking at Wiki, it is a company town.  No one owns their house, a typical aspect of a company town.  If the coal runs out, there is no value to the houses, so no one would want to own a house there.
The population growth is nil.  That is hardly the proof of a active settlement. Researchers are fly in fly out.  There seems to be no potential growth there, it mainly exists because coal is a valuable product.  No coal, no people. 
As an example of development into occupying space, it's a great demonstration that it is incredibly unlikely that this type of settlement could expand significantly.  This is exactly the way expansion into space will not happen.
If we want a permanent and significant expansion into space, then we need to make living is space an attractive place to live and grow and have children.  Otherwise, it'll never get much of anywhere.

Northern Canada has unbelievable amounts of space.  The population density is often under 1 person per km2.  Space is way worse.  However, the space settlement itself can be a great place to live, if the energy can be made available and the resources assembled sufficiently economically.
The builders of Svalbard are only interested in offering the minimum economical value and quality of life to keep humans in place because they want the coal.  The house seem cheap, and there are no lovely parks with colorful birds.  In a space settlement there isn't even coal.  the only likely value will be the space settlement itself.  The question is, can it be made great enough that it can attract people, and therefore become a self perpetuating system?  In other words, the mining that must be done needs to serve the space settlement, not an absentee owner.

[lamontagne]

...
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.

#5, sure some people may live on Mars and like it.  Most won't though, unless Mars habitats are as nice as a sunny day in California.  Or Montreal.
#6  If space power become viable, it probably won't work as a population magnet, however.  It'll probably be cheaper to use robots and visit only from time to time.
I tend to agree that Mars is a maybe, when I don't think about the effect of reduced gravity.  We don't know yet and perhaps reduced gravity will be a solvable issue.
I think that the best way to have people live in space is to have it more fun, more practical, less stressful and better in every way ;-)  Lots of energy and easily available resources can help a lot, but there remains a big gap from 'here' to 'there'.

[lamontagne]

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.

Why on Earth would people go there if it's so bad?  What would be the point?  Why would they stay if Earth was available?  Why would evil space corporations use humans at all when robots and solar/nuclear power can do a better job, without all the mess?  Kids are incredibly expensive to raise and maintain compared to any near future production technology.  So why have them?  Why have people in space at all?  just to push buttons and procure judgement in complex situations?  We don't even need people do drive rockets, what can they be good for up there?
95% of all resources used on Earth are rock and iron.  Are those that hard to get from asteroids?  I'll agree that nitrogen will be a pain, but it is infinitely recyclable, as are all things.  Oxygen will quickly become a waste product, not a resource.

Do we really want to have sweatshops in orbit?  It seems like such a situation will always be cheaper to do on Earth.

[Blackstar]

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

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.

[sdsds]

[...] 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?

[lamontagne]

[...] 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?

Transportation and energy costs.  Except for very small installations, it will be about 1000 times cheaper to import materials from the Moon than from Earth, and probably a similar ratio for local food and goods compared to Earth food. 

The joined spreadsheet has the transportation cost and some production cost calculations. 
Although the spreadsheet presents fixed numbers, reality has a huge spread arount these values, from way more expensive if self replicating factories never happen and mass drivers are a failed technolgy, to lower than these costs if entirely self replicating factories and space elevators can actually be built.

[Blackstar]

This 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.