possible when man first learned to forge copper? Look first at the history of our own civilization: In Europe, whenever in the course

of centuries central authority weakened, countries tended to disintegrate, and smaller geographically determined units emerged, each ruled by a strong man, reigning over the local population but also defending it against

-

exploitation by outsiders. With the notable exception of certain Swiss cantons and some cities, essentially all regional governments were autocratic until quite recently. This phenomer is not limited to Europe: the experience of Asia, North Africa and Central America is similar. With the emergence of larger social units (possibly as a result of imitation), autocratic struct res appeared on every continent. We are probably faced here with a general tendency. Nor is this tendency limited to the past. Hierarchies and ruling cliques crystalling around dominant personalities still frequently appear when the opportunity arises: witness children on a playground unattended by adults, or adolescent gangs in and out of school, And

wherever external control does not restrict the emergence of leaders[11].

if you think that modern adults are immune to these behavior patterns, wait until your next committee meeting or watch your local politicians in action. Granted, these everyday observations are of limited scope. Nevertheless, in conjunction with our brief historical analysis, they show a general pattern. Such generality leads one to suspect that this behavior may be genetically preferred. Indeed, it does have survival value for group animals living in the wild, since it ensures group formation around the strongest leaders. It operates in essentially all higher animal societies and it would be surprising if it were entirely ineffective in humans. At any rate, whether or not genetically preferred, the least we can say, is that in the prevalent cultures

there is a strong tendency towards authoritarian hierarchies.

Nowadays the tendency to form hierarchies seems to have lost much of its primeval value. It is unpleasant for those who are relegated to the lower echelons and it also appears to be harmful to the leaders who occupy the higher levels. This is why the democratic model was judged to be a healthier alternative by various analysts. After several trials and many failures, an acceptable approximation of it was realized in a small minority of countries. In spite of indications to the contrary, there are those who hope that this social model will prove to be viable in the long run, and perhaps some day even come to be accepted by other countries. This hope should not blind us to the realities: democratic governments are, and have "always" been in a distinct minority. Furthermore, even where they exist, they seem to be in constant danger of sliding towards the (perhaps) genetically preferred more autocratic system. Witness the disappearance of the numerous utopian communities, many of them founded in the United States, such as New Harmony, Oneida, etc. On the other hand, the reverse movement happens only as a result of spectacular social changes usually referred to as revolutions, and, more often than not, even these changes merely generate another autocratic system replacing the old one.

In view of the foregoing, we must assume that most isolated space commnities will, with a high probability, eventually develop some non-democratic form of government subject to a relatively small ruling group indulging (consciously or subconsciously) their primeval urge to dominate "others. Space colonies would offer excellent opportunities for this to happen, because of the dicipline needed to operate life support systems, and because of the high degree of control they can maintain over communications and travel toward the outside. Achievement of such control is

12

always a primary concern of ruling groups, since after suppression of
internal challengers the main threat to their power usually comes from
outside the borders of their realm. A space colony so operated would
be more like an island of prisoners than anything else we have seen so
far, and I doubt that it would become the source of great joy for most
of its inmates. At any rate I see no chance for a true diversity of
social systems unless local developments are restrained by effective
outside control. This, however, implies government on the scale of
the solar system and few people would be willing to call that a "small
scale governmental unit." Thus, in my view, the expectation of small
government together with local diversity is not a realistic one.

Note: I do not claim here that a government covering the whole solar system would be a sufficient condition for avoiding oppression. Of course not; both large and small scale social units can be oppressive (although more sophistication is needed to organize oppression on a large scale). What I do claim, is that a large scale tolerant, concerned government is a necessary condition if the emergence of autocratic systems is to be avoided: Indeed, in the absence of big government the many local societies would develop essentially independently from each other, by assumption. The ensemble of such societies could then be treated by statistical methods. Lt on purely statistical grounds, the emergence of many autocratic systems is to be expected, as we have just illustrated on several examples.

Second, let us turn from the internal social organization of the space colonies to the relationship among them. Still assuming that space colonies

13

are sovereign to the extent that nations are today, i.e. that no large overall government controls them, let us ask the question: Is their relationship likely to be always harmonious?

O'Neill argues that these relationships would be peaceful, because the habitable space territories, being extendable, would be practically "limitless," and also because the use of atomic weapons in space is forbidden by an international treaty.

I, however, believe that violent conflicts would soon become likely. Let me enumerate a few of the many reasons for my belief. Construction of a new space colony would require several years,

much work and a great many resources.

Occupation of a colony by force would be faster and cheaper, constituting an economic incentive for aggression. This reasoning is born out by past experience: when the colonists arrived to the New World, they did not just occupy themselves with peaceful labour or the contemplation of nature. They fought numerous battles. And not only with the Indians who understandably objected to their intrusion, but also with each other. The Spanish with the Portuguese, the French with the English, etc. Many of them also fought within their own communities to such an extent that carrying arms became indespensable. Why did they behave in this manner? Because it was faster and cheaper to take the livestock, to occupy the land and house of others than to raise new animals, clear new land or build new houses. Yet, in those days, too, they had "unlimited" habitable areas at their disposal.

Furthermore, competition for the most desirable raw materials (best location, highest quality, etc.) would result in raids on each others installations and in counterraids, retaliations and general violence.

14

Examples of such conflicts

-

between individuals, labor unions,

industrial companies as well as nations -- are so numerous and well known as to render further exposition unnecessary.

Continuing development would be inconceivable without some regulations governing radioactive and other waste disposal, traffic control, maybe even population restrictions and so forth. On the average, there

is always a short term economic advantage in violating such regulations, otherwise there would be no need to invent the regulations in the first place. Hence, the temptation to violate them and try to get away with it. Hence also the need to enforce them by retaliating: yet another source of violence. An illustration of this phenomenon: It is generally agreed that our traffic laws are needed for the common good, and are reasonable. Yet all of us feel tempted to occasionally circumvent them; hence the need for traffic police arrests and other forms of coercion. Even more dangerous than the economic motivations just mentioned could be the various psychological ones. Some individuals may try to destroy certain groups of people, simply because they consider them objectionable for whatever reasons of their own. This kind of intoler ance is obviously alive and well. Recall, for example, the Nazi rise to power in a "culturally advanced" society like Germany's in the recent past. Or think of the religious war in Ireland and the racial strife in Cyprus, both of which have long outgrown their economic origins. Antagonisms of this type are not restricted to the so-called "first world." In the "second world" the best examples are provided by certain East European chauvinist regimes which are trying to eliminate the national minorities living under their rule. The economic motive in this case is, of course,