[LMB] Are we still reading Gentleman Jole and the the Red Queen?!

Eric Oppen ravenclaweric at gmail.com
Wed Oct 26 00:54:49 BST 2016


The thing is, I can think of several Earth cities that are in danger zones
that may well be far more endangered than Kburg.  Naples (Vesuvius) and the
coastal cities of California (San Andreas Fault) come to mind in this
connection.

That said, since they _can_ move the capital, why ever not do so?

On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 5:34 PM, Matthew George <matt.msg at gmail.com> wrote:

> Given the sort of transportation that seems to be endemic in the
> Vorkosiverse, I don't think that proximity to any kind of resource is
> actually that much of an issue.  There's no real absolute need to have
> refineries close to sources of ore, for example, if for some reason the
> effects of the refineries on the local environment are considered
> undesirable enough, or the locale is dangerous enough.
>
> We're told that trains never developed on Barrayar (despite their immense
> efficiency in the RW) because antigrav made it redundant.  So shipping
> people and material is cheaper with antigrav tech than it is with trains.
> If people need to go across a planet, they can do so quite easily.  But
> they wouldn't need to go for most things, because communication is so
> simple.
>
> So whether the local conditions are desirable is ultimately the primary
> consideration as Chaos Colony develops.  And there's nothing desirable
> about Kburg's locale.  It doesn't get much rain, it's not near any
> important resource that we're ever told about (beyond ViceImp), and its
> tectonic features are unstable.
>
> The more I think about it, the more I think all the people who invested in
> Kburg instead of locations elsewhere with development potential really ARE
> fools.  Ignoring the volcano and earthquakes is short-term thinking, sure,
> but deeply investing in the area is a more subtle and more profound sort of
> the same error.  There isn't any real growth potential.
>
> Things like the Lake Placid vacation cottage rental are (relatively)
> short-term investments meant to produce short-term returns: it's not meant
> to do more than support a semi-retired couple for their lifetimes.  And if
> things get genuinely bad, no one's going to mind abandoning the place.  The
> summerhome (?) being built across the lake is similar.  It's a luxury that,
> if lost, wouldn't render the owner homeless.  Kareenburg ought to be
> something similar, a temporary resource that is useful within the next
> lifetime or two but can be abandoned without regrets when needed.
>
> I wonder if those Kburgians would be interested in the bridge investment
> opportunities I have available...
>
> Matt "great view of Brooklyn" G.
> --
> Lois-Bujold mailing list message sent to ravenclaweric at gmail.com
> Lois-Bujold at lists.herald.co.uk
> http://lists.herald.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lois-bujold
>


More information about the Lois-Bujold mailing list