I think that the reason is a precise point of bifurcation in Daniel’s scenario: we have treaties that ban colonization of Antarctica and Outer Space Treaty does effectively the same.
That’s true, but we also don’t see a rush to build cities similar extreme environments on earth where treaties aren’t a barrier, such as the interior of Greenland or the coastal shelves. I’d argue that the treaties remaining in place are probably a result of very low demand to colonize these areas rather than the opposite.
Yes, plus also, there are three good economic reasons Space > Antarctica: (1) Tourism. I think there would be tens, maybe hundred million people wanting to visit LEO every year, if the cost was $15/kg. That’s enough to support a city of millions on tourism income alone I think. Antarctica would be somewhat cheaper to visit, but much less exciting. (2) Asteroid mining and zero-G manufacturing. While Antarctica probably has some nice mineral deposits or whatever, it’s not anything that doesn’t already exist on Earth elsewhere in large quantities, whereas e.g. a single asteroid might have a ginormous amount of rare elements in it. (3) Solar power is significantly cheaper in space than on earth, due to being more efficient / less intermittent. Antarctica meanwhile basically can’t use solar power. In a world where solar power is the cheapest form of power in general, this is a pretty big deal.
I think that the reason is a precise point of bifurcation in Daniel’s scenario: we have treaties that ban colonization of Antarctica and Outer Space Treaty does effectively the same.
That’s true, but we also don’t see a rush to build cities similar extreme environments on earth where treaties aren’t a barrier, such as the interior of Greenland or the coastal shelves. I’d argue that the treaties remaining in place are probably a result of very low demand to colonize these areas rather than the opposite.
Yes, plus also, there are three good economic reasons Space > Antarctica:
(1) Tourism. I think there would be tens, maybe hundred million people wanting to visit LEO every year, if the cost was $15/kg. That’s enough to support a city of millions on tourism income alone I think. Antarctica would be somewhat cheaper to visit, but much less exciting.
(2) Asteroid mining and zero-G manufacturing. While Antarctica probably has some nice mineral deposits or whatever, it’s not anything that doesn’t already exist on Earth elsewhere in large quantities, whereas e.g. a single asteroid might have a ginormous amount of rare elements in it.
(3) Solar power is significantly cheaper in space than on earth, due to being more efficient / less intermittent. Antarctica meanwhile basically can’t use solar power. In a world where solar power is the cheapest form of power in general, this is a pretty big deal.