Jan 11, 17 / Aqu 11, 01 20:14 UTC
Re: Eliminate the monetary system and here's why. ¶
True, eliminating money will not eliminate lazyness - but, having money doesn't eliminate that either. I do honestly think this would be a minority. Between personal goals and the social stigmata developed by the new "classes" - Those that will and those that won't - and education it'll be really minor. Even if not, a notable economist analysing the UBI model seems to think it'd still function if "80% of people sit on their couch and smoke weed" - So I see no reason why that should cease being true if one simply removed the tokens. Definitely, there's those that will, when offered the chance to realise their full potential, choose to instead sit watching porn(without artificial gravity, that could get messy) or play games - or demonstrate they are a complete spastic by entering data into the datamines of a corporation that has given multiple examples they have no ethical or moral restrictions in the way they abuse this data, or their position as a data source as they manipulate feeds in order to adjust the limits and directions in which they victims, I mean users, can think -=- Like facebook. As long as this isn't excessive, then with the exeption of docile media it shouldn't be too dangerous, and not impact upon anyone else - ultimately, tasks like completing Grand Theft Auto 15 won't be lent as much weight as designing a new exhaustless propulsion method, reasearching new methods to fight cancer, or exploring somewhere never trod by man before....
It should certainly never exist at the saturation to cause an issue with you - maybe once they're too fat to fit through the door to their hab it might be tiresome having to cut them out so they can be taken to medical services, then repair the damge you just caused.
Initially, the first in space will undergo psychological testing - Like NASA / ESA / Roscosmos etc do already. The early starters will be in the worst conditions, and it needs to be assured they can handle it. Handle being squished into a tin can with five others. etc. By the time we're thinking about housing our population however, then in order to do that we're going to need a lot more resources than we can feasibly lift from the surface -=- So it's got to wait until after we've acquired infinite resources(Acting now, I could get this done to allow for construction about 2050/2060) and v/little of of what you'd expect to exist would be absent, having literally every element in the periodic(apart from the unstable superheavies etc) in more abundance than we can use. Environment engineered to suit.
As for how big the ship/station is - depends which one. Different ones for different purposes will be different sizes. Due to the vast nature of space, in different places too. But even in the early days of setting up in near-Earth orbit, it'd makes sense to build more than one - A single point of failure is only clever if you intend on failing - minimally three, preferably nine spaced across the same orbital belt should allow for multiple redundancy. Should one suffer critical systems failure causing abandonment, there's two stations either side to split the load across. In less serious situations, and with the right spacing, assistence can be there in under and hour. If I have anything to say about it, each would have stock capacity for about 100,000 people - which splitting our current populaiton across would leave plenty of room for expansion - and design capacity to be expanded for another 700,000 or so heads. Plus farms(conventional and energy), research stations, etc. So should you want to cut these people out of your lfie, it's not as if you'll be cramped up in the same eight by ten foot room with them.
The only problem you highlight I'm unable to resolve with logic is the fabrication of "classes" and social stygmata - This I feel is contradictory to founding Asgardian ethics. But, I don't have all the answers. Human behaviour is something that often confuses and even more commonly concerns me. I can't understand it so I'm unable to accurately model a solution.