"The engineer says: the glass has a 100% safety factor."
---------------------------------------

No one claims that capitalism creates simply "growth." Capitalism creates not just growth, but improvement.

Of course it does: as a spin-off of investment, as a way to increase ROI - by increased efficiency and/or creation of new markets. In other words: growth.

In almost any field of economics and industry, you can find examples of our modern society doing a hell of a lot more with a hell of a lot less. While it doesn't get a lot of publicity, recycling is not only a major industry, but a profitable one for a great many materials.

No argument there - in fact, no argument with any of this (it'll be nice to have a genuine discussion for a change). But, and I must admit to being refreshed by Robinson-as-Fort, that's efficiency. Thermodynamics prevents one from attaining 100%, so in the long run all you do is push the limits off as a function of time - presuming a steady-state population (i.e., demand-side), and we know better than that.

U.S. energy consumption per capita has been largely flat for the past thirty years, which considering the increasing population, ain't bad.

I'll take your word for "largely flat" for now, but remember, in spite of current foreign policy the US is not the planet. The same needs to be said for "modern society" (see your previous paragraph).

You can't make soil out of electricity, but then if you ask yourself exactly what you are using the soil for, you might come up with some more creative answers.

Precisely my point, by adoption from Robinson/Fort's. For capitalism to remain viable, let alone attractive, as an alternative to centralized economy enforced by despotism, growth must be maintained, or what's the point of investing? As we asymptotically approach those very real limits to raw materials (and I'm including recycling), we should already be creating the next paradigm, and adopting it.

Second: Return on investment.



Assuming that NASA's numbers will always define the space industry is like assuming Univac to be the permanent model for computers.



Agreed - more issues of efficiency. Skip monetary costs for a minute and think kilograms and megawatts. There are minimal expenditures required no matter how efficient the process. Of course that does translate into dollars when soliciting investors and marketing the final product...

As for potential moneymakers, I will try and post my asteroid resource paper on the space board.

That I would like very much to see, being a fan of asteroid harvesting myself. I'll keep a weather eye on the board.

Thanks ~

Fox