This is a link to John Stuart Mill’s famous and influential essay On Liberty. This work is the base of what we mean with classical liberalism.
This guy explains not only that asteroid mining is feasible, but also how it will work.
This guy explains why space elevators are nonsense. He explains in plain language the technological issues regarding building space elevators. Conclusion: space exploration/travel/colonization will depend on (chemical) rockets.
When space settlements are reality, they will have to interact with other human communities, whether these are other space settlements or terrestrial communities. Especially in the early days of human space colonization, almost every space based community will be dependent on both the Earth and other space settlements, since it will be highly unlikely that one (small) space colony can be entirely autarkic. Therefore space based communities are required to maintain international relations and so they are in need of a foreign policy. In this post I will, for the sake of the argument, assume that space settlements will be sovereign entities, which are free to manage their own affairs.
Relations with terrestrial nations
Basically we have to distinguish between international relations with terrestrial nations on one hand and with other space settlements. This reason for this distinction is simple, for the next few decades, and probably for the next century, Earth will be the most populous entity in our Solar System and for obvious reasons it will also serves as man’s center of culture and civilization.
The first space settlements will depend on trading, especially mineral resources, with Earth for their economic survival. Additionally, the early settlements will have to rely on the importation of many specialized goods from Earth, at least until the moment these can produced in outer space. This means that the Earth as a whole has huge potential of power on space settlements.
It is easy to imagine that Earth will demand low prices for the resources they buy from Space Settlers, while asking for high prices on the goods they sell to Space communities. If terrestrial parties are able to play out space communities against each other, the Earth will probably be able to achieve its aims. One way to counter this is for Space Settlements to develop their economies as fast and as diverse as possible, in order to weaken their dependency on importing goods from Earth.
Another way is for Space Settlements to organize themselves and to act as a unity in their relations with terrestrial nations, much like how organizations as OPEC operate. This strategy is especially advantageous if space settlements are able to play into the differences and conflicts among terrestrial nations and to exploit them to their own advantage.
Relations between space settlements
Inter-settlement relations differ fundamentally from terrestrial-space relations in certain aspects. Trade between settlements will, at least during the early years, be limited. The abundance of mineral resources in outer space (recall that we believe in colonizing the near earth asteroids instead of, for example, the Moon), means that most Space Settlements will be self-sufficient regarding these. The most likely goods to be traded among Space Settlements are agricultural products (because this will be much less expensive than importing these from Earth), and when Space economy became more developed there will be a shift to more specialized goods, which will replace importing from Earth.
A complicating factor in inter-settlement relations are the great distances between space settlements. This will reduce the chance of escalating conflicts, but also hinders cooperation between Space Settlements. The abundance of resources reduces potential for conflicts, therefore war between (coalition of) Space Settlements is quite unlikely during the early decades. Most Space Settlements will probably tend to avoid interference with the domestic affairs of other Settlements.
Suggestions for foreign policy
How should Space Settlements shape their foreign policy? Our advise is basically: avoid meddling with the internal affairs of other communities, both terrestrial and space-borne. As we have argued earlier, Space Settlements shouldn’t join the UN, a statement we want to repeat here. A policy of strict neutrality regarding conflicts between terrestrial powers, will improve the reputation of Space Settlements as peaceful and non-threatening political entities.
Also should Space Settlements abstain from purely terrestrial questions, such as global climate change. There is absolutely no reason for Space Settlements to join, for instance, the Kyoto-protocol or similar treaties. By avoiding getting involved with purely terrestrial affairs, Space Settlements will avoid irritation by terrestrial governments and this will subsequently reduce the emerging of hostile sentiments among some terrestrial groups.
Further we of Lagrangian Republican Association, believe that Space Settlements should also refuse to act as mediators in conflicts between terrestrial nations/parties. If Space Settlement are able to get known as peaceful and neutral communities, some will be tempted to ask them to mediate in purely terrestrial conflicts. However this would be a violation of a strict non-interventionist foreign policy.
Also by acting as a mediator, Space Settlements risk to lose their reputation as neutral states, especially if negotiations are without result or if one of the conflicting parties believe that the results are not fair in some way or another. Since it is almost impossible to determine whether such party is right or not, this risk is in our opinion to great.
On march 11, 2011, Japan was hit by an earth quake and a tsunami which resulted in the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster. Consequently the public opinion in Japan turned 180 degrees against nuclear power. Even their government began to consider a nuclear free future. But Japan is so heavily dependent on nuclear power, that last summer two nuclear power plants had to be restarted in the face of massive public opposition. The question of this post is what are the alternatives for Japan? I will discuss solar power, wind power and Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC). [However, both wind power and OTEC are in fact indirect forms of solar energy since both winds and the oceans are powered by the Sun.]
Wind and Solar power
These are the “classical” kinds of alternative energy sources. Both options require a lot of space, and the intensity of solar radiation depends on altitude (lowest at the poles, highest at the equator). Japan is roughly located between 30 and 45 degrees north, which is a good point to start with. Currently Japan, together with Germany and China, is one the biggest producers of photo-voltaic cells. Yes, solar power is clearly a major alternative for Japan, but there are some other issues. First Japan is a mountainous country and has high population density, so relatively few land area is available for massive solar farms. To some extent this can be solved by placing solar arrays on roof tops, however this will only be a partial, but very important, solution for Japan’s energy problem.
Another important potential energy source is wind power. There are two main problems with wind power. First it is notorious because it is very irregular, secondly in order to be efficient wind turbines have to place at a minimum distance from each other. This means that in a given area only a fixed number of turbines can be placed. As we know in Japan land is a scarce commodity, although this can be solved by placing wind turbines at sea. In theory Japan has the potential to meet its entire energy demand through wind power alone, but then they have to deal with the irregular supply of energy. Some kind of grid energy storage is needed. Note that solar power has the disadvantage that it is not available during the night.
What is Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion?
Surface water of the oceans has a higher temperature than water a thousand meters below the surface, this difference in temperature represents a difference in energy (as heat), which can be used to power a heat engine. The basic idea is to heat a working fluid with the heat from surface water, subsequently this working fluid is vaporized. Then we can use this to drive a turbine, which produces electricity. Thereafter we let the working fluid condense by cooling it with cold water, which we have pumped up from a thousand meters below the surface of the ocean. In a closed cycle we let the fluid flow back to the evaporator, while in an open cycle we “dump” it somehow into the environment. A more detailed explanation how OTEC works can be found here.
Other proposed applications of OTEC are for instance mariculture, desalination and mineral extraction. Regardless whether these applications are practical, we should ask our selves where the best location for OTEC power plants are. This map shows that Japan is relatively close to one of the best (i.e. the locations with the highest difference between surface water and at a debt of a thousand meters), and this spot also covers a large area. Therefore this area contains an enormous amount of power.
Traditional power lines are impracticable, so energy has to stored somehow. One way to do this, is by producing hydrogen through electrolysis. But hydrogen has some severe drawbacks. First the very low density of hydrogen gas requires either storage under high pressure or liquefaction to very low temperatures, which might cost more energy than can be delivered. The storage problem of hydrogen is one of the greatest obstacles for the transition to a hydrogen economy.
An alternative for hydrogen would be the production of synthetic fuels through the Fischer-Tropsch process from hydrogen and carbon monoxide gas. CO gas can be obtained by electrolysis of CO2 from the atmosphere or sea water. There is also current research of creating fuels directly from water and CO2. Both methods will produce hydrocarbons, like methane gas [main component of natural gas], or alcohols like methanol. These synthetic fuels can easily be transported and because the synthesized fuels are chemically similar to “mineral” gasoline, they do not suffer from the transition paradox. This is the problem that no one will buy hydrogen cars if there are no hydrogen gas station, but no one will build hydrogen gas station if no one drives hydrogen cars.
Once the synthetic fuel is produced, it can be transported by tankers to where it is needed. This also solves another problem: the energy production can now be fine tuned to the demand. During peak hours more fuel is burned, and when energy demand is low we can simply turn off some generators.
Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion is an option, which deserves consideration if Japan really wants to phase out nuclear power. Unlike wind power OTEC is a reliable and predictable source of power. In combination with synthetic fuels it also offers the possibility to make Japan self-sufficient in respect of its energy supply. Of course Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion in combination with the production of synthetic fuels is not only a solution for Japan, but it is also interesting for emerging economies like China and India.
The next link is a critique of the hydrogen economy, and prefers an “electron” economy.
After reading “The moon is a harsh mistress” I was wondering whether line marriages can be an alternative for the (welfare) state. As a person with some libertarian leanings (however, I am NOT a libertarian myself) I believe one should investigate whether there are plausible alternatives for the “state” and whether these alternative should be preferred above the state.
But I will first give a short impression of Heinlein’s concept of line marriage in The moon is a harsh mistress. In this novel the Moon is colonized by humans, the Lunar government is set up and run by the United Nations, while Lunar society is highly anarchistic. The primary purpose of the Lunar government is to ensure the delivery of grain to Earth, and the local population is mostly left on their own. All necessities of life are to be bought, even air.
In this harsh environment, it is not surprising that people are seeking cooperation. One of the forms described, and the only one actually discussed in detail, in The Moon is a harsh mistress, is the line marriage. In this kind of marriage multiple people are married together, and in the course of time new spouses are allowed to enter the line. In theory such marriage can survive for generations, even if the original spouses have been dead for centuries. Since the potential durability of a line, all wealth collected by it, will be kept together. The particular line described by Heinlein, is highly self-sustaining, they produce their own food and recycle their own water.
Since the bond between the spouses, of both sexes, is based on mutual affection the members are ensured of assistance whenever required. Younger spouses take up the care of the elderly, children have virtually no worries about being orphaned.
Personally I do not believe that the Moon is the proper place for human settlement. When the age of space colonization will seriously begin, space habitats would be build in the neighborhood of the Near Earth Objects. And these first space colonies will be the initiative of either corporations or governments, therefore the governance of those early space colonies will be rather bureaucratic. Only after a few decades, as predicted by O’Neill , some private individuals will start their own small space colonies.
In chapter 11 of The high frontier, O’Neill describes how five couples and their families leave their own space habitats and travel for months to the asteroid main belt. Instead of group of five separate families, we can easily imagine how a family of a line marriage travel to the Belt.
In the neighborhood of asteroid, especially the smaller ones, there will be enough resources for a group of people to survive for generations. Barter with other groups in the Asteroid Belt will enable a group to meet all their material needs. And since distances between several group is large, the development of large conflicts is unlikely and if one group get into to trouble with a neighboring group/tribe/clan they can move with all their belongings to somewhere else in our Solar System, space enough. Therefore such settlers will not have great need for establishing a powerful government. The only reason to do this is in case of an external threat, but this unlikely since due to both the self-sufficiency and large distances military operations are almost futile to begin with.
 The high frontier, chapter 11.
World population is expected to grow to nine to ten billion people around 2050. And all this people need to be fed, but arable land scarce. Most land suitable land is already in use, so the challenge is obvious. One of the proposed solutions is urban vertical farming, i.e. growing crops in skyscrapers. In this post I will question whether vertical farming is actually a good idea.
The Wikipedia article on vertical farming mention several advantages of this mode of agriculture. First there is the preparation for the future argument: since there will be more people, we will need more land for agriculture and one way to do this by stacking up several layers of greenhouses. The second argument is about increased production, since indoor conditions are controlled we can produce crops all year round. Which means a multiplication of productivity with several factors. Related to this argument is the fact that indoor farming in a skyscraper will eliminate most weather related problems. Ordinary greenhouses, however do this already.
The subsequent argument mentioned is about conservation of resources, which means that by switching to vertical farming large pieces of land can be “recovered” and brought back to a more “natural” state. Also deforestation and desertification will be halted, and the need for fossil fuel powered plowing, planting and harvesting will be reduced, saving fossil fuels and reducing carbon dioxide emissions.
The next argument goes that by indoor agriculture less pesticides and the like are needed, therefore food will be healthier. The last argument I want to mention is the energy argument. The proponents argue that by employing methane digesters the farm will be able to produce some of its own power needs.
Well, its true that by using organic waste as an energy source, some reductions in external power supplies can be made. But I do not think that will be quite significant. From the second law of thermal dynamics we know that in a closed system the total energy is constant, it can only change from one form to another. If we subsequently extract energy from such system, the amount of contained energy in the system is lowered. What crops do is, energetically speaking, converting solar energy into chemical energy (stored in sugars and starch). Should we initially consider a vertical farm as a closed system, if we then remove some crops (for sale) and the farm will lose energy, which should be replenished. With only biogas from organic waste from the farm, we will still lose energy. What we need is an external supply of energy.
Since vertical farms will put layers of crops atop of each other, they have to replace sunlight with artificial light. Some research shows that with proper lighting will increase production in comparison with sunlight (this is due to the fact that plants will only absorb light of certain frequencies, and all other frequencies [notably green] will be reflected). And this lights have to be powered. A lot of energy is required, for heating the building, air circulation, pumping water and lights. Actually there is only one energy source suitable for powering vertical farms, and it is not solar, bio or wind power. The answer is probably not the one which is favoured by vertical farm proponents. Only nuclear power plants are able to provide a stable and reliable power supply for vertical argrarians.
Since the members of the Vertical Farm movement are eager to point out how environment friendly their ideas are, it is quite remarkable to see that they do not tell how they want to power their plans. They only mention energy recovery through bio methane gas and saving energy by reducing transportation. But this is not enough, we need a good plan about how to power such structures and how to finance it. History provides ample examples of nice plans, but which failed because the were not properly explained (the notorious Freedom ship is a classic).
The need for feeding nine billions people is out of the question, everyone acknowledges this. The actual question is how to do this. Vertical farms are one solution, but what are the alternatives? My favorite is the saltwater greenhouse. This concepts relies on the Sun to evaporate seawater, which is thereafter liquefied and used for the crops, but for more details you should check this link.
The most suitable places for saltwater greenhouses are large pieces of desert. The Sahara is on the first place of candidate locations. The world’s largest desert is sparsely populated and receives more solar energy than any other place on this planet. Further its location is strategic. Only a modestly small proportion of the Sahara is needed to generate enough energy for the entire world. What I mean to say is that unlike the vertical farm concept this plan is much more realistic, it is clear how it is powered. And unlike vertical farms, it can be done at small-scale, after which it can be scaled up. Therefore it is possible to test in practice before investing large sums of money into the project.
What about the energy cost of transporting food from the Sahara the rest of the world? Well, energy enough in Northern Africa, I would say. Just converting solar energy into some fuel. There are a number of methods to produce so-called synthetic fuels. Actually there are plans to build large solar farms in North Africa which should be linked to the European Superlink.
But there are other solutions for solving the global food shortage. First we should note that a lot of the world agricultural production are crops for feeding livestock, by consuming less or no meat we need less land to feed the world population. Secondly we have to understand that the food problem is actually more about distribution rather than production, in fact the total world food production is enough to feed everyone. But since there is unequal distribution of wealth in the world, some people do not get what they need. Perhaps we should solve this problem politically rather than technologically.
Vertical Farming in space
This post, however, is about vertical farming on Earth. But this concept might have more potential for space colonization, I will work this out in an upcoming post on this blog.
Recently much attention has been paid to the Mars One initiative, a Dutch “space” organization devoted to bringing humans to Our Red Neighbour in 2023, by the blogosphere. As any regular visitor of our site will know, we of Republic of Lagrangia are very sceptical about any plan involving the colonization of the Moon or Mars. In this post I will discuss why we believe that Mars One is almost certainly deemed to be a failure. However, I will not touch the question whether Mars One is a hoax, which would imply that the people behind this group are deliberately pursuing a fraud, a sever accusation. Instead I believe it will be sufficient to deal with the relevant arguments only.
As I said Mars One aims to send four human beings to Mars by the year 2023, that is ten years from now. The idea is that those people will stay on the Fourth planet for the rest of their lives. Some people will be shocked by this idea, but it makes perfectly sense if you are really interested in colonizing outer space; in this case there is no real need to go back to Earth. This is a big difference between Mars One and projected manned missions to Mars of, for instance, NASA. After a successful first manned landing, they intend to launch four-men crews each two years. In fact the whole scheme as pursued by Mars One is not originally, it has essentially copied from Robert Zubrin’s Mars Direct proposal.
Unlike other space settlement initiatives, Mars One will be entirely funded though private means, e.g. no government involvement and no tax money for this project. This raises of course the question how to fund this program. Essentially Mars One intends to collect money from the public, however they realize this will not be enough, therefore they have thought about a source of revenue for funding their project. One of the “theorems” of space colonization is that the creation of a source revenue is essential for space colonization, because investors wants to make profits (see also this post).
How does Mars One plan to generate revenue? Well, their idea is to use the whole thing as the subject of one great reality TV show, and to sell the broadcasting rights in order to fund the entire project. You will not find another suggested source of revenue, other than just begging for donations. Actually this “business plan” is just silly. Why? Because the team of Mars One grossly overestimate the total revenue what can be collected this way. There are many reasons to be sceptical whether this finance strategy will generate enough money to fund the whole mission. First we have to ask how many people are actually going to watch this reality show, whether they will watch the entire series, at least whether they will watch regularly instead of just watching a few episodes. Since the trip to Mars will take some one or two years, during this time the astronauts will be locked up in their space craft and almost every day will be much the same, it is reasonably to assume that a lot of prospective TV viewers will become bored after just a few episodes. Also we have to consider that a lot of people will only watch the launch and landing of the crew, while ignoring the intermediate episodes.
Even if the first mission to Mars could be funded through this reality show, we have to ask whether the subsequent missions can be funded in the same way. Normally TV series, including reality TV, are cancelled after a few seasons (if not earlier because of declining rates) and only a very few shows manage to survives more than five seasons. And if manned Mars missions are becoming more common, more people will lose their interest to follow the whole mission, with the exception of a few die hard fanatics. While series like Deadliest catch can survive with a relatively small base of hard core viewers, Mars mission cannot.
Not only Mars One does not have a sound business plan, their very schedule is in our opinion quite optimistic: a manned landing on Mars in 2023. That’s in ten years from now. This may seem as no big problem, a closer look at their entire schedule, however, reveals another story. They plan to launch a supply mission in 2016, just in three years from now. Such supply mission is necessary (and is again derived from Zubrin’s plan), and any delay will also delay all other dates. Due to the orbital periods of the Earth and Mars, there is every two years, a so-called launch window for mission to Mars (whether they are manned or not), so if you miss the first you have to two wait at least two years. Of course you can launch a spacecraft to Mars at any time, but then you have to take into account a much longer travel time, and additional fuel costs and so.
According to their own schedule, Mars One has to start in 2014 with the preparations of the supply mission. If there will be a delay in this phase, then they will miss their 2016 launch window and subsequently miss their “2023” target. Whether they will get their preparations finished on time, is partially depended on whether they will be able to get sufficient funding for their enterprise. Our conclusion is therefore that the schedule of Mars One is too ambitious and too optimistic. Its rigidity will ultimately be the downfall of Mars One.
A few days ago I read in my newspaper an article about the use of smart phones in satellites. According to the article, engineers of NASA during a brainstorm session were contemplating that an on board computer of the new generation of small satellites, the smart spheres, should be small, efficient with energy, should have integrated sensors and a usual operating system. The story goes that at a certain moment someone, while the engineers were checking their email on their cell phones, came with the suggestion that modern mobile phones just fit the requirements of said on board computer.
In order to make the smart spheres, of which three are now on board of the ISS, the engineers removed the GSM chip (there is no need that they should be able to make phone calls anyway). The smart ones selected by NASA are based on the android operating system of Google. Because this platform can easily be connected to external components, building a functional satellite is in reach of almost everyone. Another advantage of this approach is that there are tens of thousands people who are android app developers.
The question is whether this “break through” is beneficial for space colonization. The answer is simple: yes. Because smart phones are mass produced, they are relatively cheap. According to the article, the production of the phonestat 2 (a related project, also build around a smart phone computer), costed only 8,000 dollar. Further, this approach is fully in compliance of our policy of using off the shelve components as much as possible. The philosophy behind this policy, is that by using off the shelve components space colonization will not be only cheaper, it will also be faster. This because we do not have to waste our time be developing every part we need, and why reinventing the wheel over and over again?
Modern smart phones, especially those with an open source operating system (this also will help to lower costs), will help to make space colonization reality.
This post was originally posted on blogspot.com on June 13, 2012
In this post I will discuss the very important question of which language a space colony should have? I will argue that a constructed language would be our best choice, but I will first explain why this question is as important as I claim. Sequentially I will sketch the problems of selecting a natural language for a space colony and finally I will explain how these problems are solved by selecting a constructed language.
The first point we have to consider is why we should agree on a common language. There are a lot of countries which do well without an official language, for instance the USA and the Netherlands. But these countries have de facto a national language, in a traditional homogeneous society newcomers have to learn that society’s language in order to be fully functional. So countries with a historical common language don’t need to formalize this.
A common language in a society, which is widely understood by its members, enables useful communication within it, think for example about the law. People has to be able to know the law and as matter of fact, the law has to be written in some language. It’s true that some multilingual countries write their laws in multiple languages, but most of these countries are bilingual, so the costs of translating laws and other official documents are quite modest. If the number of recognized languages increases, then also the associated costs will increase. The most clear example of this is the European Union, which has no less than 23 official working languages and as a result a large part of the budget of the EU goes up to translating (for instance the instant interpreting in the European Parliament).
It’s clear that Space colonists would want to avoid this absurdity, we have better use for our money (lower taxes would be for example a nice idea for attracting new immigrants), so they should rationally choose for one single language (important to note is that this will not mean that other languages are not allowed). So the next question is which language to pick?
For the sake of the argument I will assume that the official language of a single Space colony will be decided by democratic procedures, like a referendum (a practical consequence of this will be, of course, that several colonies will each pick another language). It would be a nice exercise to see whether this could lead to a situation in which a Space colony should decide to become deliberately a multilingual society and if so under what circumstance, and therefore contradicting my “theorem of unilingualism“. My hunch will be that it depends on the specific decision procedure, but I don’t think it will be appropriate to discuss this question here, so for those who are interested I will place this discussion in a comment of this post.
This will bring me to my main argument. At this moment, there some 7000 natural languages in the world, most of them are rather small. Although mandarin Chinese has more speakers, English is more widely spread (this is the main reason why this entire blog is in English) and has also more non-native speakers. This combined with the fact that a large part of the Space advocacy movement is located in the English-speaking world, has led by some to assume that English would therefore the logical choice for Space colonies.
Well, I have to disagree. English, like all other natural languages, is associated with a specific culture, in this case the Anglo-Saxon culture of Britain, North America and Oceania. So by choosing for English as official language, a Space colony is willingly choosing for the Anglo-Saxon culture, at least in the eyes of outsiders. It is my personal conviction that Space colonies should develop their very own cultures, which are clear distinct from any terrestrial “culture”. And the most important tool to realize this is by selecting a language which is not related to any other culture. As a corollary of this, I also believe that different Space communities will distinguish of each other by choosing different languages.
An other problem of choosing English, the same applies for every other natural language, is that it will discriminate against non-native speakers. Those who are native speakers are in an advantageous position in comparison of those who are not. Since I believe that Space colonies will not be established by cultural homogeneous groups, I consider this as unnecessarily unfair. In order to avoid the creation of unjust advantages for native speakers, we should choose for an artificial or constructed language. Since no colonist will be a native speaker of this language, all colonist will be equal in this respect.
Over the course of history, there have been many proposals for so-called auxiliary languages, with Esperanto as its most famous example. Because of its popularity, I will strongly advice against the selection of Esperanto as an official language of a Space colony, since in the last 120 years the Esperanto culture has developed its own distinct culture. I believe that the association of the Space colonization movement with the Esperanto movement, will be bad for both movements. But nevertheless those who are in charge of designing languages for Space colonies, can learn much from Esperanto and related projects like Ido or Interlingua.
Although it is not the purpose of this essay to provide guidelines for creating a language, it would advisable that Spacer languages should be based on the principles of international auxiliary languages. This because the type of constructed languages is aimed at easiness to learn, and since the population of (early) Space colonies is likely to be multicultural.
As I have promised, I will discuss here the question of multilingual Space colonies. First I have to note, that since most early space colonies will be multicultural, their citizens will speak many different languages in private relations, that is not where I am talking about, instead I will concentrate only on official languages.
Although it would be the rational choice to select one and only one official language, I believe there will be Space colonies which will be multilingual. Mostly as part of a comprise between different groups. Suppose that the citizens of the colony Bernal Alpha have to vote on an official language and have three choices: Esperanto, Interlingua and Novial. Let the result of this vote be as follows: 45% for Esperanto, 45% for Interlingua and 10% for Novial. Then there are two possible solutions: 1. a second vote between Esperanto and Interlingua, or 2. making both Esperanto and Interlingua official languages.
It will depend on the specific circumstances whether which option will be selected. How strongly are the voters “attached” to “their own” language?